FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* What a nightmare for the Gulf coastline: "That stretch of coastline is full of marshlands, replete with reeds and piles of dead grass that could soak up oil like a sponge. Unlike fish, the area's famous populations of blue crabs and oysters won't be able to outrun the slick. And, precisely at this time of year, the region is host to vast numbers of migratory birds returning from their wintering grounds in South America. Besides the damage to fish and wildlife, even the land itself could be a victim of the spill. One scientist said if the oil kills marsh grasses, it could eliminate a key natural barrier that keeps Louisiana's precious coastline from eroding."

* Greece: "The Greek government, rapidly running out of time to shore up its finances, was close to completing negotiations for assistance from the International Monetary Fund, European officials said on Friday."

* It's not just the SEC: "Federal prosecutors have opened an investigation into trading at Goldman Sachs, raising the possibility of criminal charges against the Wall Street giant, according to people familiar with the matter."

* Another encouraging shift: "The Pakistani military, long reluctant to heed American urging that it attack Pakistani militant groups in their main base in North Waziristan, is coming around to the idea that it must do so, in its own interests. Western officials have long believed that North Waziristan is the single most important haven for militants with Al Qaeda and the Taliban fighting American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has nurtured militant groups in the area for years in order to exert influence beyond its borders."

* Wesam El-Hanafi and Sabirhan Hasanoff, both U.S. citizens living in New York City, have been accused of providing support to al Qaeda in the form of "computer advice and assistance, services and currency."

* Anthem Blue Cross customers in California, many of whom were poised to get hit with a massive rate hike, get a temporary reprieve.

* The Dems' Wall Street reform package is tougher than Wall Street expected.

* The Arizona Department of Education has already begun "telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English."

* On a related note, Arizona hates the Affordable Care Act, but wants the money made available through reform.

* South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer (R) just doesn't like poor people.

* For-profit schools take a hit after criticism from an Obama administration official.

* The joke Al Gore was offered, but never told: "It's true I got C's and D's my freshman year at Harvard, but, in my own defense, that was the year I invented the bong."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

LOWDEN KEEPS BALKING AT CHICKEN CONTROVERSY.... Sue Lowden, the far-right Senate candidate in Nevada, seems to realize that the "bring a chicken to the doctor" matter is not only damaging, it's also not going away. Today, she publishes a piece at Politico in the hopes of putting the feathery mess behind her.

The comment I made about bartering was not, and was never intended to be, a policy proposal. It was an example of how struggling families are working to pay for medical care in any way they can during these tough times.

On her own blog, Lowden added:

If you want to see my policy on health care reform, it has been on my web page since last year -- and it remains there to this day. Nowhere in my health reform proposal do I discuss bargaining, bartering or negotiating, rather I offer real solutions that work without creating a new, government-run entitlement program that Nevadans don't want and they cannot afford.

As walkbacks go, this might seem compelling. But at the risk of being picky, it also seems pretty wrong.

Lowden is on firm ground when she notes that her "health reform proposal" doesn't incorporate "bargaining, bartering or negotiating." It's not really a "proposal," per se -- Lowden's "plan" is really just eye-rolling palaver about tort reform and buying insurance across state lines -- but let's put that aside.

The problem is she continues to deny what is plainly true: she was presented with policy questions, asked for her thoughts on policy solutions, and twice, in front of cameras, defended bartering as a reasonable approach to health care delivery.

This isn't a matter of opinion. Lowden was specifically asked how her approach to health care policy would differ from the new national law. She recommended, among other things, that patients "go ahead and barter with your doctor." Lowden said, at the time, that such an approach "would get prices down in a hurry."

When pressed on her bartering ideas a week later, Lowden said, "I'm telling you, this works.... Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."

Now Lowden would have us believe she was just offering "an example of how struggling families are working to pay for medical care"? That's clearly not true.

Saying ridiculous things is bad. Lying about saying ridiculous things may prove to be even worse.

Postscript: And in case the story wasn't a big enough problem for Lowden, a left-leaning independent group is launching a very effective ad on this.

—Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

THE SWAT TEAM THAT WASN'T.... The rule rarely fails: if far-right blogs are worked up about a story that seems kind of odd, the story isn't true.

Today, the fuss among conservative bloggers is over President Obama's visit to a civic center in Quincy, Illinois, the other day. The event wasn't especially remarkable, but outside the event, there was an assortment of protestors who wanted to express their outrage over ... whatever it is conservatives are upset about this week.

To hear far-right blogs tell it, a "SWAT team" was called in to infringe on the rights of these oppressed patriots, because that rascally President Obama is "fundamentally afraid of the American people."

Please.

The only problem with that? The SWAT team wasn't called in. Local police, wearing riot gear, briefly marched down the street to clear it for the president's motorcade.

The officers "did not come close to the crowd," but that didn't stop an enraged Tea Party activist from shouting, "This is communism!"

And now right-wing blogs are all over it.

Back in September, there was a fair amount of talk in professional media circles about the need for major outlets to take seriously the kind of stories bubbling up on far-right website and talk radio. I'd like to think anecdotes like this "SWAT team" nonsense are a reminder that the boy that cries wolf deserves less consideration, not more.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

ANOTHER HOUSE REPUBLICAN HEADS FOR THE EXITS.... I know lawmakers from both parties pull this stunt from time to time, but it never seems right when members of Congress announce their retirement the day of the filing deadline.

Hours before the state's filing deadline, Florida Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite announced that she would leave Congress at the end of this term.

"As I have prepared for my campaign, I have been troubled by persistent health problems and have come to the disappointing and sad conclusion that I cannot run for reelection," Brown Waite said in a statement.

She quickly pivoted to back Hernando County Sheriff Richard Nugent as her preferred replacement, calling him "a strong conservative."

I can't speak to Brown-Waite's health condition, and I certainly wish her well. But if medical matters really prompted her retirement, why not make an announcement sooner? Instead, she waited until the morning of the filing deadline, with a hand-picked successor, and left Democrats with little opportunity to field a credible challenger.

Of course, it probably wouldn't have mattered -- Florida's 5th congressional district was drawn by GOP state lawmakers to be a Republican stronghold, and it is. The NRCC expects to replace Brown-Waite with another conservative lawmaker, which seems like a safe bet.

As for the retirement totals, Brown-Waite is the 19th House Republican to retire this cycle (20th if you count Florida's Mario Diaz-Balart, who is retiring from one House seat to run for another), as compared to 16 House Democrats.

With the House Republican caucus having 177 members, that means about 11% of House GOP incumbents have decided to give up their seats in a year that's supposed to be a wildly successful one for Republicans.

Sure, not all retirements are created equal. There's a qualitative difference between stepping down in a competitive district and giving up one's seat in a "sure thing" for one party. When considering questions like the balance of power, retirements are not quite the indicator some in the media would like to believe.

But if you ask anyone at the NRCC or DCCC for an honest opinion, I think they'd agree that when a party is supposed to have the wind at its back, and when that party's leadership is trying to keep retirements to a minimum, having more than 10% of the caucus walk away has to be discouraging.

Indeed, in February, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Democratic retirements are a sign that Dems are "running for the hills because they sold out their constituents and don't want to face them at the ballot box."

With GOP retirements outnumbering Dems' -- by a margin that's growing -- are we to also assume that Republicans don't want to face voters at the ballot box?

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME THE PRESIDENT.... It was only a matter of time before conservatives thought of a way to blame their political rivals for the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. As Paul Krugman noted, "The only question is what the story will be."

Will it be claims that liberals and/or scientific conspirators sabotaged the rig, to undermine good Americans who want to drillheredrillnow? (Michael Crichton already wrote that novel).

Will it be that oil workers, demoralized by the march of socialism, fell into despair and let the accident happen?

Will it be claims that since this didn't happen under Bush, it obviously shows that Obamanomics is responsible?

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh settled the debate, telling his followers:

"I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig.... Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist whackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here."

Media Matters has the audio.

Conservatives may be predictable, but at least they're consistent.

—Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

GIMMICKRY ISN'T POLICY-MAKING.... A week ago, Marc Ambinder noted one of the problems with the GOP's far-right base: it "seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking."

The observation came to mind this morning when I read that the Tea Party crowd has been crafting a "Contract From America" -- intended to be a right-wing, grassroots version of 1994's "Contract with America" -- that the Republican Party apparently intends to ignore while it works on its own election-year platform.

Regardless, what the Tea Partiers have come up with doesn't seem especially compelling.

This, for example, is the Contract From America's tax position.

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.

Maybe it's just me, but policy gimmicks with no substantive foundation always seem rather child-like to me.

We're a country of 310 million people with easily the largest economy on the planet. With all of the many breaks, incentives, rates, and penalties, the federal tax code is bound to be complicated. It's unavoidable.

Folks can make the case that reforming the code could make it easier to understand. One could also argue that the tax code has loopholes that should be closed. And while I think it's ridiculous, we can even have a debate about the merits of a "single-rate tax system," instead of the progressive rate system.

But once we get into maximum word counts, we've quickly entered the realm of hollow gimmickry and arbitrary nonsense. It's a bit like Republicans' obsession over the number of pages in the Affordable Care Act. Who cares? Sometimes complex policies require complex instructions.

I'm trying to imagine the executives at Ford telling the engineers, "It's time to design a new Mustang, but you can only use the number of parts found in the Model T. If it was good enough for our forebears..."

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

FALSE CHOICES, FALSE ANSWERS.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked last week about the future of the Republican Party, and whether it rested with the more moderate Scott Brown or the more radical Sarah Palin. Cantor replied:

"I'm going to probably say that's a false choice."

Yesterday, a reporter noted that some Republicans think Arizona's new immigration law goes too far, while other Republicans endorse it. Asked which group he falls into, Cantor said:

"I think that's a false choice."

Jonathan Capehart is unimpressed.

...I thought the whip's job was to get caucus members to vote "yes" or "no" on legislation.... Given that job description and the strong-arm tactics needed to be effective, I'm certain Cantor wouldn't accept "I think that's a false choice" from his caucus. So he shouldn't expect us to accept it from him.

Sometimes it's easier to get away with this line than others, but support or opposition on the Arizona measure seems pretty straightforward. This "false choice" crutch sounds like a weak copout because it is.

I know many GOP leaders are afraid to comment on the state law, but these dodges have a short shelf-life.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), trailing in the polls, isn't backing away from the Affordable Care Act -- he has three new campaign ads in Nevada touting the law's benefits.

* On a related note, two new polls in Nevada show very different results for Reid's re-election prospects. The latest numbers from Research 2000 show him trailing chicken-aficionado Sue Lowden (R) by just four points, 45% to 41%. Reid trails the other GOP contenders by similar margins. Rasmussen, however, shows Lowden beating Reid by 13, 52% to 39%.

* Florida Sen. George LeMieux (R) may have received his job from his long-time ally, Gov. Charlie Crist, but the appointed senator will not support his friend's independent Senate campaign.

* The latest Research 2000 poll in Arkansas has Sen. Blanche Lincoln's lead over her Democratic primary challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, shrinking. Last month, Lincoln led by 13. Now, the margin is eight, 43% to 35%.

* Dems have considered New Hampshire a key Senate pick-up opportunity, but a new WMUR/Granite State Poll shows former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) leading Rep. Paul Hodes (D), 47% to 32%.

* In Illinois, Rasmussen has Rep. Mark Kirk (R) building on his earlier leads, and he now has an eight-point edge over Alexi Giannoulias (D), 46% to 38%.

* Georgia state Rep. Austin Scott (R) has scrapped his gubernatorial campaign, and will instead challenge Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.).

* And in an odd way of playing the expectations game, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested this morning that House Republicans may gain 100 seats in this year's midterms. The GOP needs a net gain of 40 to take the majority.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

YES, THINGS CAN GET NUTTIER IN FLORIDA.... As of yesterday, the Senate race in Florida was strange enough. Gov. Charlie Crist bolted from the Republican primary, setting up a highly-entertaining three-way contest between the sitting governor, a right-wing former state House Speaker, and a relatively unknown Miami-area congressman.

But wait, there's more.

And you thought Florida's topsy-turvy election year couldn't get crazier. Now comes billionaire real estate investor Jeff Greene of Palm Beach, a Democrat, jumping into Florida's already chaotic U.S. Senate race.

"I am an outsider, the only candidate who isn't a career politician. I've succeeded in the real world of hard work -- the others have only succeeded at running for political office after office," said Greene, 55, in a video announcing his candidacy.

Greene said he will refuse campaign contributions from special interests, and will limit individual donations to $100. That should be no giant sacrifice considering that Forbes last year estimated his net worth at $1.25-billion.

Greene will face Rep. Kendrick Meek in a Democratic primary, and will likely "saturate Florida TV with commercials [that] could make him a major contender."

In general, the national party would ordinarily be delighted to have a self-financing billionaire jump into a wide-open Senate race. There are, however, a few issues with Greene's colorful background. For one thing, he was a Republican who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in California in the 1980s. For another, Mike Tyson was the best man at Greene's 2008 wedding and Heidi Fleiss lived in his guest house after she was released from prison.

Oh, and there's also the small matter of Greene getting rich by "betting on the housing collapse that killed Florida's economy."

Nevertheless, Greene appears to be completely serious about the campaign, and has already received advice from Joe Trippi and Doug Schoen.

It's Florida, so expect the unexpected.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

ABOUT THAT OFFSHORE DRILLING PLAN.... About a month ago, the Obama administration moved forward with a plan to allow new oil and natural gas drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska.

That, of course, was before the unfolding disaster in the Gulf began. Are those plans still on track? Not so much.

As some Democratic lawmakers call on President Obama to suspend his plans to expand offshore oil drilling, the White House today said that there will be no new domestic offshore drilling until the investigation into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is complete.

"All he has said is that he's not going to continue the moratorium on drilling but... no additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here and whether there was something unique and preventable here," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on "Good Morning America" today, defending the administration's policy.

Axelrod said no new drilling in domestic areas will go forward until "there is an adequate review of what happened here and what is being proposed elsewhere."

I'll go out on a limb and put this in the "no brainer" category.

Meanwhile, efforts to address the disaster continue along the Gulf Coast. President Obama dispatched Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to the area to help oversee efforts with federal, state, and local officials.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

BOEHNER TAKES CREDIT FOR DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE ADVANCES.... House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) spoke to NPR's Steve Inskeep this morning, and twice said Republicans would repeal the Affordable Care Act if given congressional majorities next year. (thanks to reader A.D.)

It led to an interesting exchange:

INSKEEP: As you know, Democrats are already pointing to things that are changing in America because of this bill. They will point to the fact that college seniors, who would have been kicked off their families' insurance plans when they graduated, will get to stay on. Insurance companies are now saying they're going to end the practice of "rescission," where they take, or at least modify...

BOEHNER: Both of those ideas, by the way, came from Republicans, and are part of the common sense ideas that we ought to have in the law.

INSKEEP: Well, are you going to repeal those two specific things?

BOEHNER Uh, what I want to repeal are the other 158 mandates, commissions, boards that set up all the infrastructure for the government to take control of our health care system. [emphasis added]

We've seen a few instances lately in which Republican lawmakers try to take credit for provisions in the Affordable Care Act that they fought like hell to kill.

But Boehner is being especially shameless here. He is, after all, the one who characterized the new law as "Armageddon." I guess the new line will need some caveats: "It's Armageddon ... except for those popular parts, which Republicans should get credit for, even though we voted against them."

Note to Republicans: if the Affordable Care Act is an evil assault on America, moms, and apple pie, which will end the world as we know it, and which you fight until your last breath to destroy, you don't get to take credit for its provisions, especially when you didn't really come up with them in the first place.

Also note that Boehner believes the law sets up "the infrastructure" for a government-takeover of the health care system. What an interesting way to put it. I guess the Democrats' system isn't a government-takeover, but has the capacity to be a government-takeover at some point in the future, maybe.

After all this time, can John Boehner speak intelligently about health care policy? Hell no he can't.

Update: Ryan Rudominer, the DCCC's national press secretary, responds: "Once again House Republican Leader Boehner displays no respect for the truth as he sits on the sidelines rooting for failure and then tries claims credit for House Democrats accomplishments. Boehner is a shameless political opportunist whose double speak and phony talking points are as real as his fake orange tan."

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

FIRST QUARTER GDP GROWTH: 3.2%.... From Fall 2008 through Summer 2009, the nation's gross domestic product retreated. The four consecutive negative quarters was the longest since the government began keeping track six decades ago.

We now have three consecutive quarters of positive growth. It's not nearly strong enough growth to constitute a robust economy, but it's enough to look like an economic recovery.

The United States economy continued to expand in the first quarter, but economists cautioned that the pace of growth is still not nearly fast enough to recover ground lost during the recession.

National output grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.2 percent last quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday, after growth of 5.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 and 2.2 percent in the third quarter.

The steady growth has quelled fears that the downturn is not quite over.

While the first quarter of 2010 wasn't nearly as strong as the fourth quarter of 2009, this doesn't come as much of a surprise -- the 5.6% growth was fueled by an "inventory bounce" that wouldn't be repeated.

Consumer spending helped drive the first quarter numbers, with the biggest increase in three years.

And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began in late 2007.

—Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

ACA GETS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AFTER ALL.... Last fall, particularly in September and October, Democrats worked furiously to get Republican support for their health care reform package. Dems thought they had at least some shot at bipartisanship when even leading House Republicans said they agreed with "80 percent" of the Democratic proposal.

The point, of course, was to help with public perceptions -- Americans were far more likely to support the reform effort if they saw members of both parties embracing it. Republicans were well aware of this dynamic, which is why they demanded unanimous opposition, whether it made sense or not.

As a result, the Affordable Care Act is considered a partisan endeavor, despite Democratic efforts to incorporate GOP ideas, and despite the fact that the plan is very much in line with what moderate Republicans supported up until fairly recently. GOP intransigence means the Affordable Care Act is a "Democratic plan."

But now that it's law, the reform plan is starting to pick up some Republican backers.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed the health reform law on Thursday and vowed that his state would not fight it. [...]

Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius praised the governor's support in a statement released before the governor even made his announcement.... "As the governor of the largest state in the union, Governor Schwarzenegger supports the goals of the Affordable Care Act which will give Californians and other Americans more control over their own health care," Sebelius said.

Schwarzenegger is the first Republican governor to endorse the ACA, and his support makes it just a little easier for the law's proponents to characterize the effort, particularly in the midterms, as an initiative that "enjoys backing from both parties."

And it's not just the California governor. This week, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) spoke at the American Hospital Association's annual meeting and said of the new law, "I like the bill." The comments came on the heels of Frist saying in a separate speech, "From a justice, fairness and equity standpoint, I'm very proud of this administration and that America has addressed this."

As long as we're on the subject, let's also note that Mark McClellan, a Bush administration veteran who headed the FDA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also recently praised the new law.

This matters to the extent that the Republican establishment would prefer to characterize health care reform as a stark, partisan conflict -- Democrats approve of the new law, but the rest of the country doesn't. But as support slowly grows, the repeal push loses steam, and high-profile Republicans decide the Affordable Care Act isn't really "Armageddon" after all, the conservative pitch gets more difficult.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

THE ROAD AHEAD FOR CHARLIE CRIST.... There wasn't much in the way of suspense at Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's event yesterday afternoon. He'd already made clear that he would abandon his Republican Senate bid and run as an independent -- technically, "no party affiliation" on the ballot -- and Crist did just that, in front of a lackluster crowd where the number of reporters rivaled that of supporters.

We talked yesterday about what this says about the Republican Party in 2010, most notably the fact that moderates are no longer welcome in the GOP. But now that Crist's move is official, let's consider another question: can the governor actually win?

There are two clear truths that are worth acknowledging at the outset: (1) Crist's odds are better after the announcement than before, since he stood no chance of winning the Republican primary; and (2) that's not saying much, since the uphill climb is still daunting.

Less than a fourth of Florida's electorate falls outside one of the two major parties, so Crist has a very small needle to thread. The strategy sounds plausible on paper -- win the independents, pick up moderate Republicans, impress the conservative Dems upstate, eke out a narrow win in a three-way contest with a vote total around 35% -- but executing it is much more difficult.

Why? Because Crist will very likely struggle to put together the pieces a candidate needs to win, especially in a huge, expensive state.

Even before leaving the party, Crist had a bare-bones campaign team that lacked even a political director.

"He couldn't put an organization together as a Republican, so he's not going to pull it together as an independent," said a former adviser.

Ana Navarro, a Florida GOP fundraiser and Rubio backer was more blunt: "In Florida, organization -- grassroots, voter turnout, early voting mobilization, volunteers, phone banking, absentee ballots -- can amount to two-to-four [percentage] points. And Charlie Crist has no machinery, no base, no statewide organization. Meek and Rubio both have their own and party organizations."

This matters. As of today, Crist doesn't even have a campaign staff -- his top aides quit yesterday, as expected -- and the kind of folks the governor might want to hire tend to be loyal to one party or the other. He has a fair amount of money in the bank, but Crist will not only have to give some of it back to angry GOP donors, he'll also find that raising money without party backing is exceedingly difficult.

To be sure, Crist is a talented pol with 100% name recognition. But he's also a candidate with no campaign operation six months before voters head to the ballot box, a sinking approval rating, and a record of rhetoric that makes his independent bid look like a shameless act of political opportunism.

Can Crist pull this off? It's Florida, so anything's possible. But I'm hard pressed to see how he's elected.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Thursday designated a widening oil slick pill in the Gulf of Mexico as "a spill of national significance" as government officials acknowledged that the amount of oil spewing daily from the well is far more than earlier thought."

* Administration steps up: "President Obama increased his administration's role in the cleanup of the vast oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, by positioning the Department of Defense to assist the giant oil company BP in dealing with the spill and by sending three top officials to Louisiana."

* Greece: "European leaders raced on Thursday to complete a financial rescue package for Greece, hoping to head off a chain reaction against other heavily indebted European nations that could turn into a financial meltdown across the continent."

* Initial filings for unemployment benefits dropped a bit, but they're still too high.

* On top of their other legislative priorities, congressional Dems plan to move on a new campaign-finance measure, intended in part to respond to the Citizens United ruling, before July 4.

* Another coal mine tragedy, this time in Kentucky.

* More litigation challenging Arizona's immigration law.

* As Karzai's legitimacy continues to falter, the Taliban strengthens.

* President Obama has made his selections to fill vacancies on the Federal Reserve board.

* House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was asked yesterday whether he supports Arizona's new immigration law. He refused to say, calling the question a "false choice," which doesn't make any sense. No Profile in Courage Award for you, Eric.

* Oh, good. Frank Luntz has new suggestions on how Republicans can deceive the public.

* If you think Republicans in D.C. have crazy ideas, consider what Republicans in state legislatures are up to.

* A certain former half-term governor considers deranged media personality Glenn Beck "an inspiring patriot." The mind reels.

* The recession isn't slowing down college enrollment rates.

* It's almost as if Karl Rove doesn't remember 2001 through 2008 at all.

* Saying goodbye to civil rights icon Dorothy I. Height.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

AMERICAN MAINSTREAM REJECTS ARIZONA MEASURE, DOESN'T IT?.... It's awfully difficult to defend Arizona's draconian immigration measure. Most Republicans won't even try, and some GOP leaders have even condemned it. Today, a Republican congressman from Florida went so far as to compare it to fascism.

Democrats have blasted the new law. Churches have condemned it. Editorial boards have slammed it. It's become a frightening example of far-right excess.

And yet, there are poll results like these.

Americans familiar with Arizona's tough, new immigration law tend to favor it, a new poll found.

51 percent of those who have heard of Arizona's new law to crack down illegal immigration said they generally favor it, a new Gallup Poll found Thursday. 39 of those who have heard of the law opposed it, while 11 percent were unsure.

I find this very hard to believe, not because Gallup is unreliable, but because I like to think the American character is decent and strong, and would resist efforts like these.

Broadly speaking, Gallup asked all respondents for their reactions to the Arizona law. Nationwide, a plurality of 39% support it, 30% opposite it, and 31% had no opinion or had not heard of it.

But specifically among those who said they'd heard about the state measure, a majority approve of the law. That includes 50% of self-identified independents, and a whopping 75% of self-identified Republicans. A majority of Democrats (56%) disapprove of the Arizona law.

All I can do is hope that most the poll's respondents were confused, didn't understand the question, or lied about understanding what the law actually is.

—Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

SUE LOWDEN, STILL STRUGGLING.... The worst of Republican Senate hopeful Sue Lowden's "bring a chicken to the doctor" fiasco is probably behind her, but when asked to talk about her nationally-mocked understanding of health care policy, Lowden is still struggling.

Jed Lewison posted this clip from KTVN-TV in Reno last night, a news segment about the now-infamous "chicken for checkups" mess. The station caught up with Lowden to give her a chance to explain what went wrong. It didn't go well.

The clip is worth watching, but of particular interest was when local reporter Brandon Rittiman asked about the widely publicized remarks. Looking clearly uncomfortable, the Republican candidate said, "I, I, I'm not sure, uh, what to say, as far if it's been dragged out of proportion."

Asked specifically if she regretted her choice of words, Lowden added, "I, I, I talk about the fact that the Reid campaign is desperate to change the subject from his very unpopular health care bill."

I'll take that as a "no"?

It's tempting to think that her campaign aides, with instructions from the national party, would be offering Lowden some pretty reasonable tips about how to address this. Maybe laugh it off with some self-deprecating humor? Maybe some policy explanation that demonstrates a familiarity with health care policy?

If last night's interview is any indication, Lowden either isn't getting good advice or she isn't listening to good advice.

Update: Complicating matters for the far-right candidate, Lowden's GOP primary opponent is seizing on the issue, too. This instantly makes it more difficult for her campaign to blame Harry Reid for the notoriety of the story.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

THEY CAN'T EVEN PLAY THE RACE CARD CORRECTLY.... Just a few months ago, RNC Chairman Michael Steele complained, "I'm kind of sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country, when they get in trouble and don't get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is their trying to do, they go to that card, they play that race card."

In retrospect, it's almost amusing.

One day after it accused DNC Chairman Tim Kaine of playing the "race card" from the bottom of the deck, the Republican National Committee is blasting out an op-ed that accuses the president of ignoring African-American candidates for the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, RNC Coalitions Director Angela Sailor sent out a column written by former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder titled "Why no blacks on SCOTUS shortlist?" The piece attacks the administration for putting together a short list of potential nominees that lacks "even the hint of a mention of a single African-American."

A few angles to consider here. First, the message that the RNC is pushing is just factually wrong. A few weeks ago, several major news outlets published reports indicating that former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears is on the White House's short list for the Supreme Court -- and Sears is African American. It's the one minor detail that makes the entire argument baseless.

Second, it's hopelessly insane for the RNC -- an entity led by a man who recently conceded his party has been engaged in a racist "Southern Strategy" for 40 years -- to distribute a piece suggesting President Obama is ignoring the importance of racial diversity.

And third, the RNC has spent the past week accusing Democrats of trying to polarize the country "on the lines of race," in part because the DNC intends to mobilize "black, Latino and young voters" during the midterm cycle. As Sam Stein noted, "[T]he RNC appears to be engaging in the type of racially tinged politics they criticized the day before."

A senior Democratic operative told Stein, "This is politics 101. If you do the exact thing you feigned indignation over within hours of feigning indignation, it not only proves that the thing you feigned indignation over was not worthy of it, but it also proves you are a political idiot."

Sometimes, it really does seem as if the RNC is led by undercover Democrats, anxious to make Republicans look foolish.

—Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

GETTING THE BALL ROLLING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.... Just yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) explained that the Senate would act on a climate/energy bill before it tackles immigration reform. Reid added, however, that he remains committed to passing immigration reform this year.

With that in mind, it should be an interesting afternoon. In a few hours, Reid and other leading Dems will unveil the outline of a new comprehensive immigration reform package. The plan was reportedly drafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), and presented to reform groups in private meetings on the Hill yesterday. (It's likely Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's input played a role in shaping the proposal, though he now wants nothing to do with the effort.)

"This is a draft that reflects months of bipartisan work. It is intended to serve as an invitation to Republicans to look at it and sit down to solve problems with us," said one of the sources.

In attempt to try to woo GOP Senators, the 26-page draft, obtained by CNN, calls for "concrete benchmarks" to secure the border before allowing illegal immigrants the opportunity for legal status.

Those benchmarks include: increasing the number border patrol officers, increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), increased personnel to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improved technology to assist ICE agents.

The draft proposal also includes a process to legalize an estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Whether this has any chance of passing either chamber is still a matter of speculation, though the odds are probably against it. There's very limited time before this Congress wraps up -- inevitable Republican obstructionism slows the process down -- and the initiative is just now getting started in one chamber.

Today's unveiling of a reform blueprint will, however, raise the visibility of the issue considerably.

As for the specter of bipartisanship, the issue puts Republicans in a tough spot -- they're generally reluctant, at the national level, to thumb their nose at Latino voters -- but GOP leaders have said they're unwilling to go along with a push this year. Nevertheless, Schumer has reportedly reached out to Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), George LeMieux (Fla.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Judd Gregg (N.H.), and Dick Lugar (Ind.), in the hopes of assembling a bipartisan group. Schumer should probably keep expectations low.

Today's press conference is scheduled for 5:45 p.m. (ET).

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

NEW AND IMPROVED?.... House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has a strategy to deal with some of his party's underlying problems -- specifically, that they failed miserably while in power, and have no credibility at all on the issues they claim to care about most. So, what's the plan? Pretend that this Republican Party isn't like that other Republican Party that was humiliated in 2006 and 2008.

The reasoning behind the argument certainly makes sense. For voters who remember the last several years, it's awfully difficult to take the GOP seriously. The party that's running on a platform of fiscal responsibility was fiscally irresponsible. The party that's running on a platform of shrinking the size and scope of government grew the size and scope of government. The party that's running on a platform of competence, maturity, and integrity was incompetent, immature, and corrupt.

But that's all behind us now, Cantor says. His new message to voters, especially those on the far-right, is, in effect, "No, no, baby, it's different now. I've changed...."

In an op-ed on Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, Cantor essentially argues that the Republican Party that wants to take back the House this fall has learned its lessons from the Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert years.

"But the GOP in the House today is different. Very different. Led by a new generation of young and energetic leaders, we are committed to restoring the public's trust in our ability to lead as responsible adults," Cantor writes, without having to note that he is indeed thought of as one of the "young" and "energetic" leaders.

That's not a bad idea, in theory. The problem is the argument doesn't make any sense.

Eric Cantor, for example, joined the House Republican leadership in 2002, and proceeded to vote for bigger deficits, more debt, and government expansion without paying for it. He'll be the Majority Leader if the GOP takes the House.

John Boehner joined the House Republican leadership in 1994, and was at the heart of his party's spectacular failures in the ensuing years. Boehner was even the Majority Leader when his party lost 21 seats in the 2008 elections. He'll be Speaker if the GOP takes the House.

The party won't be "led by a new generation of young and energetic leaders"; it'll be led by the same guys who drove their party and our country into a ditch.

Worse, how does Cantor propose "restoring the public's trust"? By embracing the exact same ideas and policy agenda Republicans have run on for years.

The reasoning behind Cantor's new pitch isn't bad, but the facts clearly need some work.

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

THE ENDURING SADNESS OF 'BOTH SIDES DO IT'.... Ron Fournier, the Washington Bureau Chief for the Associated Press, had a couple of items this morning on Twitter that fit into a larger, depressing pattern.

The topic was Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's apparent decision to leave the Republican primary and run for the Senate as an independent. It prompted Fournier to write:

What does Crist's decision say, if anything, about state of the political middle in US?

It's a fair question, certainly worth of consideration. But it was soon followed by another question.

In other words, is there room for moderate candidates and moderate voters in either party?

On the day yet another very high profile Republican moderate is driven from the party ranks for being insufficienly conservative, the head of the AP's Washington bureau wonders whether "either party" is willing to make room for moderates.

Sigh.

This gets awfully tiresome. In the House, there are more than 50 "Blue Dogs" in the House Democratic caucus. Is there a comparable group of centrist or left-leaning Republicans in the House GOP caucus?

In the Senate, Democratic moderates are more than a little plentiful. Ben Nelson is obviously no liberal, and if Fournier is looking for centrists in the Democratic ranks, I'd also recommend taking a look at Baucus, Landrieu, Bayh, Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln, and Pryor, among others. For goodness sakes, the party elected Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, and he's not even pro-choice.

Granted, Senate Republicans have Snowe and Collins, but two isn't an especially big number, and neither of the Maine moderates have been willing to break party ranks on major issues lately.

At the same time, in a more general sense, Democrats continue to recruit moderate candidates and reach out to the American mainstream, while Republicans continue to run hard to the right.

"Is there room for moderate candidates and moderate voters in either party?" Seriously?

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

BEST CARE ANYWHERE.... Following up on Tuesday's item, the New America Foundation's discussion on Phillip Longman's book, Best Care Anywhere, will get underway at 12:15. The event will be moderated by Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly's editor in chief, who edited and published the original magazine cover story that became the book.

If you're not in D.C. and can't make it, you can watch the live webcast of the event right here.

—Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (0)

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele believes there's "a real possibility" that Gov. Charlie Crist could win Florida's Senate race as an independent. That's probably not the message the RNC intended to push today.

* In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) narrowly leading former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman (R) in this year's Senate race, 40% to 37%.

* On a related note, the same poll shows Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading Fox News personality John Kasich (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 44% to 38%.

* Former Rep. Scott McInnis, the leading Republican in Colorado's gubernatorial race, argued this week that he'd like to see his state duplicate the outrageous new immigration law in Arizona.

* Polls in Arizona's Republican Senate primary have been all over the place, but for what it's worth, a Rocky Mountain poll released yesterday shows Sen. John McCain crushing former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, 54% to 28%. Public Policy Polling shows McCain ahead, but by a more modest margin, 46% to 35%.

* Speaking of Arizona, while PPP shows state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) leading Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Rasmussen shows the incumbent ahead, 48% to 40%.

* Indiana's Republican Senate primary is just a week away, and a new SurveyUSA poll shows corporate lobbyist Dan Coats leading the field. The poll showed Coats ahead with 36%, followed by former Rep. John Hostettler with 24%.

* And in Michigan, Rasmussen shows Rep. Peter Hoekstra out in front of the Republican gubernatorial field with 28%. Rick Snyder and state Attorney General Mike Cox are about tied for second.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

PUTTING CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE RADAR.... It's always a challenge introducing a new idea -- no matter how accurate -- into the political bloodstream, but I've been encouraged by the recent talk about conservative judicial activism.

University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone recently had a terrific NYT op-ed on the subject of judicial philosophy, which emphasized a key observation:

[I]t should be apparent that conservative judges do not disinterestedly call balls and strikes. Rather, fueled by their own political and ideological convictions, they make value judgments, often in an aggressively activist manner that goes well beyond anything the framers themselves envisioned. There is nothing simple, neutral, objective or restrained about such decisions. For too long, conservatives have set the terms of the debate about judges, and they have done so in a highly misleading way. Americans should see conservative constitutional jurisprudence for what it really is. And liberals must stand up for their vision of the judiciary.

The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Jr. also raised the issue recently.

[I]t should become clear that the danger of judicial activism now comes from the right, not the left. It is conservatives, not liberals, who are using the courts to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected bodies in areas such as pay discrimination, school integration, antitrust laws and worker safety regulation. [...]

In granting corporations an essentially unlimited right to spend money to influence the outcome of elections [in the Citizens United case], that ruling defied decades of legal precedents and congressional enactments. The non-elected branch of government decided it didn't like existing legislation, so it legislated on its own.

Two weeks ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) raised related concerns during a "Meet the Press" appearance.

"This is a very, very activist court, the most activist court in my lifetime. They rewrote the law to say that--so they said that women could be paid less than men. They rewrote the law to say that age discrimination laws won't apply if corporate interests don't want them to. They rewrote the law to give ExxonMobil a $2 billion windfall. And they rewrote the law to say that corporations could come in and meddle in elections in this, in this country."

Yesterday, a reporter asked President Obama about the issue. The former professor of constitutional law had some thoughts on the subject.

"It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.

"What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error. And I think rather than a notion of judicial restraint we should apply both to liberals and conservative jurists, what you're seeing is arguments about original intent and other legal theories that end up giving judges an awful lot of power; in fact, sometimes more power than duly-elected representatives."

It's good to see the issue rise in prominence like this. Here's hoping it continues.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

THE RELEVANCE OF RACE.... Part of what makes the Tea Party crowd interesting is the effort to understand what motivates the so-called "movement."

The issues activists usually point to as driving their cause don't make sense. It can't be fiscal responsibility, because they said nothing when Bush and the GOP added $5 trillion to the debt. It can't be taxes, since rates are low and Obama just gave them a tax cut. It can't be concerns over the size of government since they applauded the Patriot Act and endorsed the ridiculous new immigration measure in Arizona.

So, what makes these activists feel unhinged? It's not unreasonable to wonder if maybe race has something to do with it.

Anecdotally, Tea Partiers have repeatedly bolstered these concerns with their rhetoric, placards, emails, and threats. But what about more quantifiable measures? Newsweek has this report.

A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability" -- 25 percent, to be exact -- "of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."

Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. When read the statement that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," 73 percent of the movement's supporters agreed, while only 33 percent of people who disapproved of the Tea Party agreed. Asked if blacks should work their way up "without special favors," as the Irish, Italians, and other groups did, 88 percent of supporters agreed, compared to 56 percent of opponents. The study revealed that Tea Party enthusiasts were also more likely to have negative opinions of Latinos and immigrants.

This comes on the heels of a New York Times/CBS News poll that found Tea Party supporters tend to believe that "too much has been made of the problems facing black people."

—Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

WHEN CRIST EXITS STAGE LEFT.... Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was effectively given a choice: get humiliated in a Republican Senate primary or run as an independent and improve his odds of having a job in January. Not surprisingly, he's going with the latter.

Gov. Charlie Crist, a pariah in the Republican Party that has been vital to his success, will launch a risky political career Thursday as a "people's candidate" for the U.S. Senate with no party affiliation.

Crist began telling campaign donors of his decision Wednesday, which he will announce at 5 p.m. at Straub Park in downtown St. Petersburg, surrounded by family members, friends, local supporters and an army of media personnel. It will be an extraordinary event in Florida's colorful political history, as a one-term governor who blew a 30-point lead in the Republican Senate primary is forced to run an unconventional race.

"I think the people are concerned about the future, and they're interested in having people who put them first, instead of politics," Crist said. "I think that's where they are."

There are plenty of interesting angles to all of this -- how will Crist fare, will he have any money, why Florida is so odd -- but from a national perspective, the key takeaway continues to be the effort to drive moderates away from the Republican Party.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said yesterday that the Republican Party is "kind of throwing [Crist] out," and making all moderates "feel like they don't have a home" in the party.

In this case, the analysis is more than just election-year rhetoric. The "purge" has been underway for a while now, it's making the Republican Party smaller, more rigid, less reasonable, and far less open to diversity of thought. Crist, apparently, no longer feels welcome in the GOP. Neither did Arlen Specter. Dede Scozzafava was forced out. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career is ending because his conservatism wasn't extreme enough for the party base.

It's possible that the electoral consequences of this will be limited. Under normal circumstances, a party that deliberately moves away from the American mainstream scares voters away. Republicans have all but posted a sign on the door at RNC HQ that reads, "He-Men Moderates-Hating Club," which would ordinarily send the electorate running in the opposite direction.

But that's what makes this year's landscape so disconcerting -- Republicans are only rolling out the welcome mat for hard-right ideologues, but because voters are frustrated with the recession and congressional dysfunction, the GOP is likely to make gains anyway.

That is, unless the economy starts to recover faster, and Democrats are able to demonstrate that a GOP that's even too far to the right for life-long Republicans doesn't deserve mainstream support.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

SLOW GOING ON FAR-RIGHT REPEAL PUSH.... Just a few weeks ago, the conservative push for a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act was the only thing Republicans wanted to talk about. It was the center of their election-year focus, and while there was no hope of advancing repeal this year, key GOP officials at least wanted to get Republican lawmakers on board as co-sponsors of a right-wing bill to undo the entire reform package passed in March.

How's that going? It appears enthusiasm for the idea is waning.

About one month later, neither Bachmann's bill nor companion bills in the House and Senate have won majority support from their peers. Only 52 House Republicans have co-sponsored Bachmann's repeal bill, H.R. 4903, and only 62 House Republicans have co-sponsored Rep. Steve King's (Iowa) repeal bill, H.R. 4972. Most of the same people have co-sponsored both. Only 20 Republican senators have co-sponsored Sen. Jim DeMint's (S.C.) repeal bill, S. 3152. That worries some Republicans who want to run hard on repeal in November.

"What I run into," King told me recently, "is that you ask Republicans to support 100 percent full repeal, but there are a number of them that aren't committed to full repeal. They have an equivocation that they would leave a piece there, a piece there, a piece there. If Republicans cannot unanimously come together and support 100 percent repeal of Obamacare and then start to rebuild, then we will not win this victory, because we'll be divided by the Democrats and fighting on Obama's turf."

Now, in fairness, it's not realistic to expect Republicans to keep talking about repealing health care reform, even when other issues are on the front-burner. Just because the GOP's focus is elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean they're abandoning their dream of restoring the dysfunctional mess the Affordable Care Act cleans up.

But the relative paucity of co-sponsors does suggest a disconnect between the Republican bark and the Republican bite. It was, after all, just a few months ago when Newt Gingrich boasted on "Meet the Press" that "every Republican in 2010 and 2012 will run on an absolute pledge to repeal this bill." The sentiment was echoed on right-wing blogs and talk radio.

And now such talk has entirely disappeared, in part because many GOP candidates are well aware of the repeal trap, in part because new, popular benefits of the new law are kicking in, and in part because a genuine repeal push would force Republicans to promise to raise taxes, which they're not prepared to do.

Two weeks ago, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said getting rid of the Affordable Care is Republicans' "No. 1 priority." What are the odds he's still saying that in October?

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENTS -- AHEAD OF SCHEDULE.... Marc Thiessen recently urged Republicans to fight as hard as they can to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The GOP need not fear political repercussions, the Bush speechwriter turned Washington Post columnist said, because Americans won't see the law's benefits kick in for several years. "The charge that Republicans are 'taking away your benefits' will hardly ring true for Americans who don't yet enjoy those benefits," he said.

It's worth appreciating, then, that new benefits are already kicking in, in some cases, well ahead of schedule.

In recent weeks, we've seen many major insurers begin implementing a provision of the law that allows young adults to stay on their family health care plan through their 26th birthday. What's more, the industry agreed to stop denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions (after initially intending to exploit an alleged loophole in the law).

And this week, consumers and families received more good news -- the industry will scrap its "rescission" practices, four months before the new federal ban was scheduled to go into effect.

The health insurance industry has decided to end its practice of cancelling claims once a patient gets sick next month, well before the new health care law would have required it, the industry's chief spokesman said Wednesday.

"While many health plans already abide by the standards outlined in the new law, our community is committed to implementing the new standards in May 2010 to ensure that individuals and families will have greater peace of mind when purchasing coverage on their own," AHIP president and chief executive Karen Ignagni said in a letter to top House Democrats.

The decision to end rescission, as the practice is known, was made during a Tuesday afternoon conference call of chief executives organized by their trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, and represents the industry's latest attempt to build political good will after the bruising health care fight.

The heartening announcement on rescissions came on the heels of a Reuters report on WellPoint routinely dropping coverage for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Yesterday, the company said it would end the practice by this weekend.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer described all of this as "a clear sign of momentum for changing the health care status quo."

Go ahead, Republicans. Promise to undo all of this progress, turn back the clock, and eliminate these needed, popular advances. I dare you.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

REID STRATEGY VINDICATED BY GOP ACQUIESCENCE.... It's still not altogether clear exactly why Senate Republicans caved yesterday on debating Wall Street reform. Maybe it was the threat of an all-night session; maybe it was the Goldman Sachs hearing on Tuesday; maybe they believed their recent tactics were politically unwise.

Whatever the motivation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) strategy looks pretty good this morning. The Nevadan tried a new approach -- he played some hardball -- and got exactly the results he had hoped for.

With political pressure mounting, Senate Republicans relented on Wednesday and agreed to let Democrats open debate on legislation that would impose the most far-reaching overhaul of the nation's financial regulatory system since the aftermath of the Depression.

The decision by Republicans to allow floor deliberations came after they voted three days in a row to block the bill, and it suggested that they saw political peril in being depicted as impeding tougher rules for Wall Street.

The GOP is generally fairly adept at the political chess game, but this week proved to be something of a debacle for the minority party. Going into the week, Reid and Senate Dems had two main objectives: (1) advance the Wall Street reform bill to the floor; and (2) make Republicans look like lackeys for wildly unpopular banks and financial industry elites. By last night, when the motion to proceed was approved by unanimous consent, Republicans had effectively helped Democrats with both goals.

This is not to say it was a total loss for the GOP. There are reports that the liquidation fund Dems had sought will be scuttled as the bill advances, and Republicans may yet make further changes through amendments on the floor. But the GOP complained bitterly about a variety of other issues, and the NYT noted that "Republicans won no guarantees of concessions on any of these matters."

After several tough months, it's led Harry Reid to walk with a bounce in his step for a change. Roll Call noted this morning that the Democratic leader "has been walking around the Senate lately with a broad smile, his shoulders back and a hint of a swagger."

The report added that Reid spent a year and a half trying to forge bipartisan deals with Republicans who just want to say no to everything, including their own ideas. He's been forced to adopt a tougher strategy -- on the jobs bill, extension of unemployment benefits, and Wall Street reform -- and it's proving to be effective, at least for now.

As for what's next on the financial regulatory reform package, the floor debate is likely to begin as early as today, with a final floor vote expected in mid-May.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* European debt crisis: "European and International Monetary Fund officials on Wednesday were considering a dramatically increased $158 billion bailout package for Greece as the country's debt crisis continued to ripple across Europe, with Standard & Poor's downgrading the credit rating on Spain, the continent's fourth-largest economy."

* Don't expect the Fed to touch interest rates for a while.

* Left with no other options: "Crews were poised to begin setting fire to oil leaking from the site of an exploded drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, a last-ditch effort to get rid of it before it reaches environmentally sensitive marshlands on the coast."

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intends to move on climate/energy before immigration, but dismisses out of hand GOP calls for him to drop immigration reform altogether.

* Success on rescissions.

* Good move: "After nine years of regulatory review, the federal government gave the green light Wednesday to the nation's first offshore wind farm, a sprawling project off the coast of Cape Cod."

* Hoping to make it clear enough for even the RNC to understand, the House once again unanimously passed a measure to prohibit fake-Census mailings.

* President Obama takes his "Main Street Tour" to Missouri.

* Wall Street always whines incessantly about new regulations. And it's always wrong.

* Prime Minister Gordon Brown's chances of another term just took a sudden turn for the worse.

* The striking similarities between law school debt and sub-prime mortgages.

* It's crazy on so many levels: "[Former Rep. Tom Tancredo] claimed that Obama is purposefully withholding his birth certificate in order to fuel birther conspiracies that make the right wing look nuts."

* The correct response to "show us your papers."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

PUT AWAY THE COTS.... Three times in three days, Senate Republicans unanimously rejected efforts to debate Wall Street reform. It led Senate Democrats to schedule all all-night session for this evening, and a fourth attempt to pass the motion to proceed.

As of this afternoon, those efforts are no longer necessary. With talks of a bipartisan deal having broken down, Republicans have apparently decided to end their obstructionism -- at least for now.

Senate Republicans ended three days of resistance on Wednesday and signaled that they are ready to allow debate of legislation to overhaul regulation of the nation's financial system.

The Republicans, who were gathering to make their formal decision, appeared to back down after Democrats threatened to keep the Senate in session through the night to dramatize the standoff.

It's worth emphasizing that this is just a breakthrough on the initial step. Republicans haven't agreed to allow an up-or-down vote on the legislation; they're now just willing to let the Senate vote on a measure to let members debate the legislation.

In other words, it's just a foot in the door. Republicans will continue to obstruct every step forward, and will no doubt filibuster the bill itself, filibuster attempts to choose members of the conference committee, and then filibuster final passage.

This afternoon's news is encouraging, then, but we still have a long ways to go.

As for what led to the breakthrough, it gets back to what we talked about this morning -- the GOP blocked a vote on the debate because they saw it as a way of strengthening behind-closed-door negotiations. Now that it's clear that a bipartisan agreement won't be reached, and there's nothing more than can be accomplished through negotiations, Republicans are more inclined to let the bill advance.

It seems bizarre, but the breakdown in negotiations means more progress, not less.

For what it's worth, talks will continue, even after the motion to proceed passes, and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has assured Republicans that there will ample opportunities to address provisions of the bill on the floor.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

HOUSE REPUBLICAN CALLS FOR DEPORTATION OF U.S. CITIZENS.... Just a few weeks ago, the political fight over immigration policy was barely a blip on the national radar. Now we have a House Republican lawmaker, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), calling for the government to deport U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.

"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens," Hunter was asked. "I would have to, yes," Hunter said. "... We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," he said. "... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

Hunter made his comments at a "tea party" rally in the San Diego County city of Ramona over the weekend.

Let's be real clear about this. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that those "born ... in the United States" are "citizens of the United States." It also says that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

For that matter, the Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants was legally a U.S. citizen, even though federal law at the time denied citizenship to people from China. The court said birth in the United States constituted "a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."

What this Republican congressman is saying, then, is that he supports a policy wherein the U.S. government deports U.S. citizens based on their parents' immigration status.

Even for the GOP, this is pretty nutty. Indeed, if American officials were planning to deport American citizens, where would the children be expected to go?

—Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (62)

BRING IN THE COTS.... I want to debate Wall Street reform all night, and party ev-er-y day.

Senate Democratic leaders are planning for an all-night session to put more pressure on Republicans to allow a debate on Wall Street reform. [...]

Democratic aides said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to keep the Senate in session overnight to force Republicans to reconsider their opposition to the Democratic legislation.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said leaders had decided to hold a nighttime session to highlight GOP opposition to the Wall Street reform bill.

Is this a press stunt? Well, maybe a little. These all-night sessions are pretty unusual, and the Democratic leadership apparently hopes the extended debate will help further shine a light on Republican obstructionism, and further weaken GOP resolve to keep this farce going. Remember, Dems are confident they're playing the stronger hand here.

But it's not entirely about playing for the cameras. As part of the extended debate tonight (and into tomorrow morning), Democrats are also going to seek Senate agreement to end the filibuster and approve the motion to proceed.

"We're rolling out the cots," a senior Democratic leadership aide added, noting that the sergeant at arms will be instructed to require the presence of senators on the floor for "live quorum calls." Democrats will also continuously ask for unanimous consent to move to debate on the Wall Street bill, forcing the GOP to object at all hours of the night.

If Republicans are close to giving in anyway -- Sen. Voinovich, I'm looking in your direction -- the all-night session might compel them to say, "Fine. Enough is enough."

In fact, there were some additional hints earlier that Republicans don't see value in dragging this out much longer.

Republicans, though, don't seem long for this fight. Earlier today, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sounded close to ceding, calling his filibuster a useful exercise, but implying that it will soon come to an end.

"There is s some dissension within [McConnell's] ranks and I hope we see it in the votes soon," Durbin added.

The earlier they see it in the votes, the earlier these folks can go to bed tonight.

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

OKLA. MANDATES INVASIVE MEDICAL PROCEDURES.... It's fairly common for policymakers who want to ban all abortions, but can't get away with that legally, to make it as difficult as possible for women to exercise their reproductive rights. But Oklahoma is taking this approach to truly outrageous levels.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor's vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma's law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

This really is remarkable. For all the overheated talk from the right of late about government interfering with medicine, patients' decisions, and doctors' treatments, conservatives in Oklahoma have now made this the law in their state.

The thinking among these conservatives is that the image of a regular ultrasound may not be clear enough. Women seeking to terminate their pregnancy -- still a legal right in this country, by the way -- will, in Oklahoma, be required to get a vaginal probe to get a "clearer" picture. Medical professionals conducting the procedure will, whether they want to or not, be legally required to describe fetus characteristics.

"You're going to force someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure," state Sen. Andrew Rice (D) noted. "You have to invasively put an instrument inside the woman. This could be your 15-year-old daughter who was raped."

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) agreed and vetoed the bill, saying "it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment" because it would victimize a victim a second time. "State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will."

This basic concept was rejected by Republican majorities in both chambers of Oklahoma's legislature, which overrode the veto yesterday.

Nothing says "limited government" like state-mandated, involuntary, invasive procedures, right?

The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed suit, arguing that the new state law violates physicians' freedom of speech and women's right to privacy. Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

THIRD TIME WASN'T THE CHARM.... There were at least some hopes going into today that the third effort to let the Senate debate Wall Street reform would finally overcome Republican obstructionism. No such luck.

A Senate bill to rein in financial institutions has stalled again as Republicans remain unified against the Democrats' proposed overhaul.

The 56-42 vote failed to get the necessary 60 votes to move the legislation to the Senate floor for debate. Without that step, senators cannot offer amendments to the bill.

It was the third such vote in three days, orchestrated by Democrats to maintain pressure on Republicans.

The 56-42 vote was slightly different from the 57-41 vote from the first couple of tries, but it's only because of who was on the floor at the time -- no senators have changed their position, at least not yet.

Ezra Klein, meanwhile, notes that the Democratic leadership is considering a new procedural approach this evening.

Word is that the Democrats might make the Republicans actually filibuster FinReg tonight. That is to say, stand on the floor and talk and talk and talk. And if the Democrats are serious about forcing the Republicans to really filibuster the bill, this is the right week for it: The Kentucky Derby starts Friday, and Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell, would surely prefer to attend. Given that his members are already talking about breaking ranks, McConnell may find himself eager to get this kabuki dance over with a little bit early.

Now, just as a reminder, the notion of having one senator stand on the floor for hours, reading from phone books, isn't going to happen. But Dems can keep the chamber debating (over debating) all night if it chooses.

On a related note, the DNC released a new 30-second ad, intended to run on cable news networks, going after Republican obstructionism on Wall Street reform.

The next vote on the motion to proceed is likely to be held tomorrow. Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH.... In response to Arizona's draconian new immigration measure, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) called for a boycott of his home state. Last night on Fox News, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) was asked if there's anything wrong with Grijalva's position. He replied:

"Well, it looks like the case is that, that he's trying to scare the businesses out of Arizona, or he's trying to get the businesses to change their position and press the legislature to reverse the law that was just signed by the governor the other day.

"I'm wondering if we look at the map of Congressman Grijalva's congressional district if we haven't already ceded that component of Arizona to Mexico judging by the voice that comes out of him, he's advocating for Mexico rather than the United States and against the rule of law, which is one of the central pillars of American exceptionalism." [emphasis added]

King could have been more direct and just called Grijalva a traitor.

And speaking of right-wing Iowans who hate immigrants, Pat Bertroche, a Republican congressional hopeful in Iowa's 3rd district, has his own unique approach to immigration.

"I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going...I actually support microchipping them. I can micro-chip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal? That's not a popular thing to say, but it's a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under."

I could have sworn far-right Republicans were against involuntary microchip implanation.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Gallup's latest congressional poll finds that Republicans still benefit from an "enthusiasm gap" over Democrats in advance of the midterm elections.

* Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is now expected to launch an independent Senate bid. He'll formally announce his plans at an event tomorrow afternoon in St. Petersburg.

* Speaking of Florida, Marco Rubio (R) seems to be already shifting to a general-election posture, criticizing Arizona's new immigration law yesterday despite right-wing support for the measure.

* Actor Michael J. Fox is the star of Sen. Arlen Specter's (D-Pa.) new campaign ad. "Arlen Specter is moving forward," Fox says. "He's won the battles to double funding for biomedical research, to find cures and to save lives. He's smart, tough and always moving forward." The actor appeared in two Democratic ads in 2006, prompting Rush Limbaugh to mock Fox's Parkinson's.

* In Ohio, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher pulling away from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in their Democratic Senate primary. Though the two were running close for many months, Quinnipiac now shows Fisher up by 17, 41% to 24%.

* It may not bolster her standing with rank-and-file Democrats, but Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D) re-election bid is getting support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is launching a new campaign ad on her behalf.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is not exactly a reliable Democratic ally, but he has agreed to host a fundraiser in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

* With so much attention on Arizona politics of late, it's worth noting that Gov. Jan Brewer (R) trails state Attorney General Terry Goddard (D) in the latest survey from Public Policy Polling, 47% to 44%.

* And how far gone are some GOP contingents? Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a far-right Republican in Kansas, is getting a primary challenger. Republican state Sen. Dennis Pyle said Jenkins just isn't far-right enough.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS IN POST/ABC POLL.... The Washington Post's analysis of its new national poll points to widespread public discontent, which is generating a broad anti-incumbent mood. Given that Democrats are the governing party, it's the kind of result Republicans will find heartening.

Members of Congress face the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994, with less than a third of all voters saying they are inclined to support their representatives in November, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Dissatisfaction is widespread, crossing party lines, ideologies and virtually all groups of voters. Less than a quarter of independents and just three in 10 Republicans say they're leaning toward backing an incumbent this fall. Even among Democrats, who control the House, the Senate and the White House, opinion is evenly divided on the question.

That's the good news for the GOP. The good news for Dems is that, looking through the internals, there are plenty of encouraging results for the majority, too.

For example, President Obama's approval rating is up slightly to 54%, the highest it's been in nearly six months. His approval rating on the economy is also the highest it's been since November, and Obama's support on handling health care is now the highest it's been in nine months.

The poll also asked, "Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?" On this question, Dems led by 14 points. In February, Dems led on the same question by just seven points.

What's more, the electorate continues to trust the president far more than congressional Republicans on every area of public policy, including an 11-point edge on the economy, and a 10-point edge on health care.

The generic ballot question remains close, but the Dems currently enjoy a five-point lead over Republicans, up slightly from March, and far better than the three-point lead Republicans had in February.

The anti-incumbency attitudes will no doubt help motivate Republicans with six months until the midterms, but it's hard to interpret these results as a shift away from Dems.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

A TEST OF MORAL SERIOUSNESS.... I rarely myself in agreement with Michael Gerson, but his column on immigration policy today noted a sentiment that I can strongly endorse: "The Arizona law -- like others before it -- does have one virtue. It sorts Republicans according to their political and moral seriousness."

It does, indeed. At this point, the serious GOP contingent is quite small, but it's slowly growing. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) criticized Arizona's awful new immigration law yesterday, and was soon followed by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman. Florida's Marco Rubio also doesn't care for the odious Arizona measure, and even former Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado believes it goes too far.

But all of those Republicans have one thing in common: none of them currently hold public office. How about actual GOP officeholders?

Amanda Terkel has been keeping track of Republican lawmakers who've stated their public position on Arizona's effort, and so far, only two GOP members -- Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- have been willing to criticize the state law.

What about their colleagues? Kasie Hunt reports that Republicans, who usually can't wait to pop off in front of reporters, are suddenly feeling shy.

Democrats can't shout loud enough about how much they hate Arizona's harsh immigration law. But Republican lawmakers are hedging, dodging, and reaching for nuance -- anything to avoid taking a strong stand on Arizona.

House Minority Leader John Boehner says it's a state issue and, well, it has 70 percent support in Arizona. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is "sympathetic." ... Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), caught between Texas' large Hispanic population and his job running national Senate campaigns, thinks it's "probably constitutional." [...]

Even the normally outspoken Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was subdued. "You know I haven't even really been following it to tell the truth," she told POLITICO when asked about the law.

If the issue is a test of Republicans' political and moral seriousness, it appears most of the party caucus on the Hill is content with an "incomplete."

Here's a thought: what about a non-binding resolution expressing a sense of Congress that the Arizona law is a legally-dubious travesty? Why not get every member of both chambers on the record?

Republicans tend to love pushing these kinds of resolutions, hoping to put Democrats on the spot. Perhaps Dems might be in the mood to turn the tables.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

MINORITY OUTREACH AND CROCODILE TEARS.... The DNC this week released a new video message to Democrats from President Obama, in effect kicking off the party's 2010 midterm efforts in earnest. In the video, the president emphasizes the importance of recapturing some of the successes of the 2008 cycle. "It will be up to each of you," Obama said, "to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women, who powered our victory in 2008, stand together once again."

At first blush, that didn't seem especially controversial. But as it turns out, the comments have become the basis of a new Republican offensive.

The Washington Examiner, a conservative outlet, ran a front-page headline that read, "Obama disses white guys." Noting the president's comments, Rush Limbaugh told his audience, "This is the regime at its racist best." The RNC pretended to be outraged, too, characterizing Obama's remarks as making an appeal "based on class warfare and race."

DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse told Ben Smith that Republicans are using a bizarre standard.

"Republicans are doing what they always do -- doing what Michael Steele did in the power point he prepared that depicted the President as the joker -- stoking fear because they don't have one idea for how to move the country forward.

"Working to turn out voters who were new to the process in 2008 -- the majority of which as a matter of fact were people of color and young people -- is no more an appeal to race than Michael Steele saying he's going to bring a "hip hop" makeover to the Republican Party or an "urban" feel to the GOP."

Seems like a reasonable response to me. Soon after Michael Steele became RNC chairman, he emphasized his intentions about targeting specific demographics and constituencies. From February 2009:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an "off the hook" public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to "urban-suburban hip-hop settings."

Hmm. When President Obama talks about outreach to younger voters and minority communities, it's offensive. When RNC Chairman Michael Steele talks about the exact same thing, it's "off the hook."

I tried to find evidence of conservatives whining last year, concerned that Michael Steele was a "racist" who was "dissing white guys," but I can't find any complaints to that effect. I wonder why that is.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY BITES THE DUST.... The far-right American Spectator claimed to have a juicy scoop on Monday. It reportedthat HHS had evidence that the Affordable Care Act would increase medical costs, but hid the report until last week -- as opposed to before the votes in Congress -- in order to ensure passage of the law.

A variety of right-wing blogs were pretty excited about the report, and Republican congressional offices began pushing the story as legitimate. As a rule, when this happens, it's a big hint that a story isn't true.

And in this case, the rule proved reliable. The HHS conspiracy fell apart pretty quickly. NBC's Mark Murray did some digging and found that it's "pretty clear that the Spectator report isn't accurate."

1. The Office of the Actuary didn't receive the language of the reconciliation bill until March 18 (when the legislation was posted), so the Spectator's assertion that HHS had a copy of the Actuary's score a week before congressional passage -- on March 22 -- doesn't make sense.

2. Past scores from the Office of the Actuary came out AFTER passage of the legislation. For the House bill that passed on Nov. 7, 2009, the Actuary's score came out on Nov. 13. And for the Senate bill that passed on Dec. 24, 2009, the Actuary's score came out on Jan. 8, 2010. This most recent Actuary report is dated April 22.

3. Given points #1 and #2, it's hard to see how the Actuary's score was available before the CBO's, which came out on March 18.

What's more, Chief Medicare Actuary Richard Foster weighed in directly, calling the right-wing reporting "completely inaccurate," and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Given that Foster is an independent official with no incentive to lie, his denial is pretty compelling.

There are two other angles to keep in mind here. First, while the timeline proves that the Spectator's report is wrong, it's also worth noting that the motivation doesn't even make sense. There was no reason for administration officials to try to hide the information -- lawmakers had already seen, considered, and debated the same data before the vote. Why would anyone bother to hide conclusions from Congress that Congress had already seen?

Second, the irony of the right-wing conspiracy theory is that Republicans are accusing Democrats of engaging in a cover-up that Republicans were actually guilty of. It went largely overlooked at the time, but when Bush/Cheney and GOP lawmakers passed Medicare Part D in 2003, the Bush administration had evidence that the bill would cost far more than advertised. Bush administration officials deliberately suppressed the report, hiding evidence from Congress, in a move the Government Accounting Office later described as "illegal."

It takes a special kind of chutzpah for Republicans to falsely accuse rivals of launching a cover-up after Republicans themselves launched a cover-up.

Nevertheless, given how spectacularly wrong the Spectator and its allied outlets were, HHS would like to see some corrections. We'll see.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

GRAHAM IS LUCY, DEMS ARE CHARLIE BROWN, CLIMATE BILL IS THE BALL.... To a very real extent, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) won a key concession yesterday. He just didn't take the good news well.

A few days ago, the conservative senator threatened to kill the climate/energy bill he's been working on for months, because the Senate leadership was weighing whether to do immigration reform first. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he's willing take up climate first, backing down from some of his recent pronouncements.

So, Graham won this round, right? He gave the Democratic leadership an ultimatum: climate before immigration, or else. Yesterday, Reid seemed to give in. This should mean Graham and his tri-partisan climate bill can get back on track, shouldn't it? Alas, no. Brian Beutler has this report:

Tonight, Graham told me that he will filibuster his own climate change bill, unless Reid drops all plans to turn to immigration this Congress.

"Immigration was interjected before we rolled out the [climate and energy] bill not because anybody's serious about passing it, but because Harry has got a political problem with the Hispanic community," Graham told me tonight. "It makes the heavy lift of energy and climate impossible and everybody knows that."

Graham has said for days that he's dropped out of climate/energy talks, but pressed tonight, he said that he will filibuster his own bill if Reid tries to bring it up without tabling immigration altogether.

"If they can do this without me, go ahead.... I am not going to be part of an energy-climate process that has no hope of success," Graham said. "I am not going to let that happen with my vote."

I realize that Graham's recent apoplexy has some credible defenders, and I'll concede that some of his concerns had merit. But I find it very difficult to consider Graham's latest moves evidence of someone who's acting in good faith. Indeed, his latest position hardly makes any sense at all.

Graham worked for month on the climate/energy compromise, and now he doesn't even want to allow the Senate to vote on his own bill. Why? Because later this year, Democrats might take up an immigration reform package.

That would be the same immigration reform package that Graham claims to support, which he said he wanted to see pass this year, and which he encouraged Democratic leaders to step up their efforts on.

And yet, now Graham is prepared to kill both of his own compromise measures, even if they're considered in the order he requested.

The South Carolinian said he won't be part of "an energy-climate process that has no hope of success." But the only person who's guaranteeing that Lindsey Graham's bill has no hope of success is Lindsey Graham.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

WILL THE THIRD TIME BE THE CHARM ON WALL STREET REFORM?.... On Democratic Wall Street reform efforts, yesterday afternoon looked an awful lot like Monday afternoon -- Senate Republicans still refuse to allow a floor debate on the bill -- but the pressure continues to get a little more intense.

President Obama went to the heartland to pitch financial reform Tuesday, but unimpressed Senate Republicans blocked the overhaul for a second straight day.

With Obama in Iowa, one Democrat and every GOP senator stayed united to block the start of debate on the bill. The measure would regulate Wall Street's trading in complex investments known as derivatives, curtail "too big to fail" bailouts and create a consumer financial watchdog.

The President declared the unified front shows the GOP is answering to greedy financiers' lobbyists.

"It's one thing to oppose reform, but to oppose just even talking about reform in front of the American people, and having a legitimate debate, that's not right," Obama said. "The American people deserve an honest debate on this bill."

For their part, Senate Republican leaders began circulating their own version of the legislation, which wasn't too terribly dissimilar to the Democratic proposal, though it would water down key provisions, and tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- a step Dems believe is better suited for a separate bill. GOP senators continued to reserve their strongest opposition to the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- a point of particular interest to the Monthly right now -- and Republican said their version would limit its authority to regulating smaller banks and nonfinancial companies, leaving the industry's heavy hitters alone.

Dems will reportedly try, once again, to get 60 votes to allow the Senate to debate the bill today, but there's at least some evidence that Republican unity is starting to crack. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) indicated late yesterday that he's leaning towards switching his vote and allowing the debate to proceed to the Senate floor.

And what about the efforts to find a bipartisan agreement? Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who recently said a deal was near, told reporters yesterday that he is "far less optimistic" about reaching a resolution than he was. "I don't think any time in the near future there's going to be a bipartisan agreement," he said.

It's counter-intuitive, but the lack of progress on bipartisan talks actually makes legislative progress more likely, not less. Senators like Voinovich, for example, were apparently prepared to allow the filibuster to continue while the behind-the-scenes talks worked towards a deal. Now that a compromise appears increasingly unlikely, some GOP members are more inclined to let the bill advance.

The question, then, is how much longer Voinovich and his like-minded allies will wait before giving up on the talks and allowing the floor debate to begin. The third attempt to break the GOP filibuster will be this afternoon. If it fails, expect a fourth try tomorrow.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

BRAINS ON DRUGS..... As Congress hammers out its landmark financial reform bill, one of the most controversial points of debate is the question of where to put the government's new financial watchdog, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Should it be a freestanding agency, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, or rolled into the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve? Liberal Democrats have argued fiercely for making the CFPA independent, on the theory that an autonomous agency will be more powerful and less vulnerable to pressure from the financial sector. Republicans seem to agree with liberal's theory, and fear that a freestanding agency would tend toward overregulation. What is really at issue in this debate, as in so many others, is the question of bureaucratic power.

In a probing essay-review in the May/June issue of the Washington Monthly, Steven Teles of John Hopkins University and the New America Foundation uses a new history of the Food and Drug Administration -- an agency which for decades ranked among the most formidable in Washington--as a vehicle for exploring why some agencies are granted far more autonomy and clout than others. Delving into Daniel Carpenter's new book, Reputation and Power, Teles finds the answer boils down largely to a single factor: status. Bureaucracies that are seen and admired as powerful guardians of the public interest are less likely to fall prey to political whims or special interests. Extending these findings to the CFPA debate, Teles argues that, contrary to popular belief, the agency would have more autonomy and regulatory clout if placed inside the Federal Reserve, which is taken seriously by the financial industry and has the reputation and resources to attract top talent. Click here to read a sneak preview of Teles's treatise, "Brains on Drugs."

—Steve Benen 6:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Senate tried again to start a debate on Wall Street reform. And once again, Republicans and Ben Nelson refused to let the debate begin. The vote was 57 to 41, just like yesterday. (The negative press apparently didn't faze them.)

* Uh oh: "Greece's credit rating was lowered to junk status Tuesday by a leading credit agency, a decision that rocked financial markets and deepened fears that a debt crisis in Europe could spiral out of control."

* It led to an unpleasant day on Wall Street.

* Krugman evaluates the situation and warns of a "cohesion crisis." He concluded, "It's getting a bit scary out there."

* At the same time, however, we learned that U.S. consumer confidence rose in April, reaching its highest level in 19 months.

* Interesting day on the Hill: "Blistered by lawmakers for 'unbridled greed,' Goldman Sachs executives on Tuesday unflinchingly defended their conduct and denied the huge Wall Street investment bank helped cause the near-meltdown of the nation's financial system."

* The Mexican government has warned its citizens about visiting Arizona. That's probably a good idea.

* Good: "The National Institutes of Health will announce Tuesday that four additional lines of human embryonic stem cells are now eligible for federal funding, including the most widely used line."

* Keep an eye on this: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintained Tuesday he will bring up climate legislation ahead of an immigration bill, noting the former 'is much farther down the road in terms of a product.'"

* President Obama's "Main Street Tour" reaches Iowa.

* It's like the C. Montgomery Burns Chair in Business Administration.

* Great Eugene Robinson column on Arizona, Tea Partiers, and immigration: "Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? ... Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?"

* Yeah, I remember when calling the president a "racist" used to be controversial, too.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

SUE LOWDEN BACKS DOWN (SORT OF).... Last week, Republican Senate hopeful Sue Lowden described a "bring a chicken to the doctor" health care compensation model. After defending a bizarre and efficient barter-based dynamic, the Nevadan declared, "I'm not backing down from that system."

Today, the far-right Republican decided to back down from that system. Sort of.

In the face of some humiliating derision, and a day after receiving the Stephen Colbert treatment, Sue Lowden shifted gears, claiming the quote was taken "way out of context." Her campaign now insists the bartering model was "never a policy proposal."

In an interview with a local station in Nevada today, Lowden clarified her original comments, claiming she'd been taken out of context. Lowden added she had merely made a "casual statement" designed to describe an ongoing reality, and hadn't intended to offer a policy prescription. [...]

"The truth of the matter is there is bartering going on in this state and in the country," Lowden said. "It has been going on for years." She added she had merely made "a casual statement talking about the reality of what's going on."

I'm glad Lowden is trying a new tack here -- after, you know, tripling down on the argument last week -- but there are a few flaws in her walk-back.

First, Lowden got in this mess in large part because she did recommend the bartering model as a policy proposal. In fact, in the incident that started this mess, Lowden was asked how her approach to health care policy would differ from the new national law. She recommended, among other things, that patients "go ahead and barter with your doctor." Lowden said, at the time, that such an approach "would get prices down in a hurry." It's a little late for her spokesperson to argue this was "never a policy proposal," when it clearly was.

Second, while Lowden can surely find isolated instances of "bartering going on" between medical professionals and patients, that's not really the point. For the overwhelming majority of Americans who struggle with medical bills, bartering isn't a realistic option. For families facing tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt, her wistful praise for a time when patients could "bring a chicken to the doctor" sounds genuinely insane.

And third, her remarks weren't exactly a "casual" reflection on the status quo. Lowden specifically called for "changing the system." Before defending bartering and talking about how "sympathetic" doctors are, she said, "I'm telling you that this works."

Lowden is doing the right thing by trying damage-control, but her arguments would be more persuasive if they made more sense.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE.... As a rule, congressional Republicans have absolutely no interest in taking up immigration reform this year. That's understandable -- the issue would likely help Democrats, especially Western incumbents like Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Michael Bennet, while splitting Republicans, as it did when George W. Bush tried a few years ago.

But the GOP's reluctance is not universal. Dave Weigel notes today that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who still holds considerable influence in GOP circles, has lent his name to "an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year."

On Thursday, Bush will headline a "nationwide strategy call with key business and Evangelical leaders to share convictions around the need for immigration reform this year," according to Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Bush -- who'll be joined on the call by Carlos Gutierrez, his brother's Commerce Secretary during the 2006/2007 immigration debate -- has long favored some sort of comprehensive reform that bolsters border security while allowing more immigrants to attain citizenship.

Will this change the way Republicans approach the issue? We'll see, but it's worth watching the trajectory of the curveball.

In the meantime, Dems, when considering the issue on a purely political level, seem to like the implications of tackling the issue.

Making a genuine attempt at a comprehensive immigration plan that includes a pathway to citizenship has dual potential to help Democrats politically -- they motivate Latino voters and labor unions who have long championed the issue, and they can portray unwilling Republicans as anti-Hispanic. Demographic shifts in the West have helped Democrats scoop up more Congressional seats and win electoral college battles in recent years. [...]

"Either we do it for political show or we get a bill done. Either way we win," [a Democratic House committee staffer familiar with the immigration debate] said. "If Republicans block us they will forever cement themselves as rural, white angry party, and that's fine either way. Hispanics will see on Telemundo and Univision the angry white people in the Republican blocking the American dream. Who wins? Democrats do."

Part of this is proving to Latino voters that Dems made a good faith effort to get reform done -- and then blaming Republicans if it comes up short.

And while this issue barely existed on the national radar a month ago, the ridiculous new law in Arizona has clearly changed the game.

—Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

DEPT. OF POTS AND KETTLES.... Oh, good, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has a new script.

Boehner sought to advance a new GOP argument, that Democrats can't be trusted on financial reform because of their handling of other issues.

In a one-minute speech on the House floor, the top Republican said congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama lack credibility on financial reform because of what Boehner called failed promises about the economy, healthcare reform, and bringing down the deficit.

"We're seeing a growing credibility gap here in Washington," Boehner said. "Democrats are saying one thing and doing something else."

Greg Sargent posted the entire transcript of Boehner's new spiel.

I suspect there were some focus groups somewhere who found this pitch persuasive -- otherwise, Boehner wouldn't be saying it -- but it strikes me as pretty weak tea.

For one thing, for Republicans to talk about a credibility gap is to lead with their chin. We're talking about a party claims to care about fiscal responsibility, but added $5 trillion to the debt. They claim to be experts on national security, but they bungled two wars and saw 9/11 and other attacks happen on their watch. They claim to know how to use tax policy to grow the economy, but their economic policies produced ruin. They claim to have credible proposals on everything from health care to energy, but their plans quickly fall apart after minimal scrutiny. They claim to hate last year's recovery package, but keep taking credit for stimulus projects they don't believe should even exist. They claim to support reforms of how Wall Street operates, but they won't even allow for a debate on the Senate floor, and seem to be trading obstructionism for campaign cash.

If Republicans really want Americans to consider which party is lacking in credibility, no serious analysis would work in the GOP's favor.

For another, while Democrats are hardly above reproach, questioning their trustworthiness seems like an odd area for criticism. For better or worse, Dems have governed as they said they'd govern. They've fought for the ideas and proposals they said they'd fight for.

And despite inheriting multiple disasters from a failed Republican administration, things have gone pretty well. After 15 months as the governing party, Democrats have rescued the economy from a burgeoning catastrophe, prevented terrorist attacks, captured or killed a variety of terrorist leaders, withdrawn troops from Iraq, passed a breakthrough health-care reform plan, overhauled the student-loan system, struck a key nuclear deal with Russia, got the faltering U.S. auto industry back on track, got banks to pay us back for the TARP bailout, lifted the ban on stem-cell research, passed a national service bill, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed new regulations of the credit card industry, passed new regulation of the tobacco industry, helped restore the nation's stature and leadership role on the global stage, and are poised to finally bring some safeguards and accountability to Wall Street.

Why is it, exactly, that Boehner thinks Democrats have a "credibility" problem, as opposed to, say, his own party?

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Most of the time, if I refer readers to a clip from a congressional hearing, it's not necessary to include a "not safe for work" reference. But there are notable exceptions.

Take today, for example, when Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) grilled former Goldman Sachs partner Daniel Sparks, who led the firm's mortgages department, at a hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Reading from an internal firm email, Levin confronted Sparks: "'Boy, that Timberwolf was one shitty deal.' How much of that shitty deal did you sell to your clients after June 22, 2007?"

Sparks said he didn't know, but the price would have reflected any concerns about value. Levin wasn't persuaded: "But you didn't tell them you thought it was a shitty deal." Sparks noted that those words weren't from an email he wrote, to which Levin responded, "No. Who did? Your people. Internally. You knew it was a shitty deal and that's what your email shows."

It actually got worse from there. Levin pointed to a long list of examples of Goldman making sales of this "shitty deal" a "top priority" after it already been assessed as garbage. "Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shitty deal?" the Democratic senator asked. "Can you answer that one yes or no?"

Sparks, not surprisingly, hedged.

The rest of the hearing hasn't gone much better.

—Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

RNC'S FAKE-CENSUS APPEALS DRAW FIRE.... Without a single vote of opposition in either chamber, Congress recently passed a law to restrict fake-census materials as part of sleazy fundraising campaigns. It was a rather direct rebuke to the Republican National Committee -- it was, after all, the only entity trying to pull this stunt.

And yet, the RNC continues to send out the misleading mailings, with envelopes that include text such as "Census Document" and, in all caps, "DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT." Asked for an explanation, RNC officials insist the law doesn't apply to their underhanded fundraising techniques. Asked why not, RNC officials have very little too offer.

Yesterday, Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and William Clay (D-Mo.), both senior members of the House Oversight committee, urged the U.S. Postmaster General to intervene.

Oddly enough, Dems aren't the only ones concerned. In a rare display of bipartisanship, some House Republicans aren't happy, either.

A Republican Congressman just sharply criticized the RNC's mailers as an effort to "deceive people" in an interview with me just now, and confirmed that he and a second GOPer are set to demand that RNC chair Michael Steele drop the practice immediately lest they remain in violation of the law.

What's more, the U.S. Postal Service is investigating the RNC's use of the mailers, the Congressman, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, confirms to me.

"They're trying to be deceptive, and it outrages me," Chaffetz said by phone just now.

Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) are reportedly drafting a letter to the RNC, demanding they stop their fake-census mailings.

I realize that, on occasion, the RNC will do something outrageous in the hopes that its misconduct will generate its own attention. For example, it might create a loathsome web ad, which it has no intention of airing on television, simply in the hopes that the networks will air for free as part of the coverage of the story.

But if there's an upside to the fake-census story, I don't see it. The RNC just looks sleazy, reckless, and possibly even criminal, with no apparent upside. When far-right House Republicans are raising a fuss, you know the RNC has crossed a line.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will announce his plans for the rest of the year on Thursday, the day before the filing deadline for an expected independent Senate bid.

* Asked yesterday whether Crist would caucus with Democrats or Republicans should he win as an independent, the governor said, "You're way ahead of me."

* Sen. Bob Bennett (R) is now running third in Utah, reinforcing the fact that his career is nearly over -- there's just no room for a conservative senator in a very conservative party.

* Last week, Ohio Republicans sent out a mailer saying they're trying to take Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) "out of the House and send her back to the kitchen." Sutton is fighting back, calling on her Republican opponent to denounce the misogynistic attack.

* The Democratic primary in North Carolina's Senate race is just a week away, and at this point, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall has a slight edge over former state Sen. Cal Cunningham in the multi-candidate race. If no candidate gets a majority 40%, the top two will compete in a June runoff. [fixed]

* In Kentucky, Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D), a leading Senate candidate, emphasizes his opposition to cap-and-trade -- the basis for his party's energy policy -- in a new campaign ad.

* Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will not run unopposed after all -- Fox News commentator Jay Townsend will kick off his Republican campaign this weekend.

* And in Georgia, real estate magnate Ray Boyd had planned on running for governor as a Republican, but will now reportedly run as an independent. Boyd has said he intends to spend $2 million of his own money on the race.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

BEST CARE ANYWHERE.... Since its original publication three years ago, Phillip Longman's Best Care Anywhere has become a classic among health care delivery system reformers. Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has applauded its central insight: that a universal, integrated system such as the VA is best equipped to maximize health care quality while lowering costs thanks to its long-term relationship with its patients. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post has called Best Care Anywhere, "Among the most important social policy books published in the last decade." Through word of mouth and expert endorsement, it has become one of the nation's best-selling books on fixing the health care delivery system as well as assigned reading for students of health care policy. Now, by popular demand, Longman has produced a new, expanded second edition that relates the book's paradoxical message to the new and urgent challenges created by passage of comprehensive health insurance reform.

The book chronicles the transformation of the VA health system from one of the worst health care providers in United States into one that outperforms nearly all others on metrics ranging from patient safety to the use of electronic medical records, adoption of evidence medicine, cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction. Longman uses this story, along with that of his first wife's death to breast cancer at a prestigious cancer treatment center, to draw out lessons about how much of what we think we know about the working of the health care delivery system is simply wrong.

On Thursday, the New America Foundation will host a discussion on Longman's book at its D.C. office at 12:15 p.m. The event will be moderated by Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly's editor in chief, who edited and published the original magazine cover story that became the book. Longman also wrote a follow-up piece, "Best Care Everywhere," in the October 2007 issue.

If you wish to attend in person, you can register here. If you want to watch the event online, a live webcast is available at the same link. (You need not register to watch the webcast.)

—Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

SCARBOROUGH TELLS IT LIKE IT IS.... Credit where credit is due: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough criticized Arizona's new immigration law this morning, and did so in a compelling, persuasive way.

As the former Republican congressman put it, "...It does offend me when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one out of three citizens, who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen, or a legal, legal immigrant -- to now put a target on their back, and make them think that every time they walk out of their door they may have to prove something. I will tell you, that is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American."

I'm not sure if I've ever agreed so strongly with Joe Scarborough.

Atrios added, "I'm not usually one to highlight right wingers saying reasonable things, but I think on this issue it's a positive sign that even Joe Scarborough isn't on board with the Arizona horror show."

Of course, Scarborough is no longer in Congress, and need not worry about offending the Republican Party's far-right base or donors. What I'd really like to see is some current GOP officials speak out this forcefully on the issue. Thus far, according to research from ThinkProgress, only one sitting Republican member of Congress -- Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban-American lawmaker in Miami -- has been willing to speak out strongly against the Arizona measure.

Here's hoping he's not the only one.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

A GOP STRATEGY THAT PAYS DIVIDENDS.... A couple of weeks ago, members of the Senate Republican leadership traveled to New York for a private, behind-closed-doors chat with hedge fund managers, bankers, and Wall Street elites. By all appearances, the message wasn't especially subtle: the GOP would fight against new safeguards, and Wall Street should reward Republicans with campaign contributions.

I guess it's working.

Republicans may lose the fight over Wall Street regulations, but the fight has helped their campaign accounts.

For the first time since 2004, the biggest Wall Street firms are now giving most of their campaign donations to Republicans.

Last year, J.P. Morgan's PAC gave most of its donations to Dems. This year, most of its donations are going to Republicans.

Last year, Morgan Stanley gave most of its donations to Dems. This year, 80% of its donations are going to Republicans.

Goldman Sachs has been a reliable Democratic supporter, until this year, with most of its PAC money going to the GOP.

Yesterday, after Republicans blocked a debate on Wall Street reform, the RNC issued a press release that said Democrats "stand with" Wall Street, adding that Senate Dems failed "in their attempt to move forward with bailout for their Wall Street fat cat friends."

Given reality, it's hard to overstate how blisteringly stupid this is. The RNC must seriously believe we're all idiots.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

THE LIMITED PRACTICAL BENEFITS OF XENOPHOBIA.... Twelve years ago, Alabama voters grew so weary of then-Gov. Fob James' (R) nonsense -- he seemed far more interested in promoting the Ten Commandments than governing -- that they gave him the boot after one term. This year, his son Tim is running for the same job, and he appears to be a chip off the old block.

In his first TV ad, the younger James asks, "Why do our politicians make us give driver license exams in 12 languages? This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it. We're only giving that test in English -- if I'm governor. Maybe it's the business man in me, but we'll save money. And it make sense. [lengthy pause] Does it to you?"

That was probably a rhetorical question, but actually, no, it doesn't.

Tim James may or may not have thought to look into this before using it as the basis for a television ad, but Alabama administers the test in multiple languages in order to qualify for federal transportation funding. If a James administration insisted on dropping the current standards, it wouldn't "save money" for Alabama; it would do the exact opposite. For that matter, courts have, more than once, rejected efforts to mandate English-only exams.

What's more, as a substantive matter, the reason officials want the exam to be available in multiple languages in the first place is because they want drivers to get drivers licenses and demonstrate proficiency when it comes to operating a vehicle and understanding the rules.

But these details aren't really what matter to Alabama Republicans. As Tim Fernholz explained, "Maintaining federal funding, keeping the roads safe, or even simple nondiscrimination don't seem to matter to James. He'd rather exploit racial tension and hostility toward the national government to get ahead."

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

GREENHOUSE GETS SHRILL.... Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, isn't known for writing provocative opinion pieces. But the new, odious immigration measure in Arizona appears to have genuinely outraged Greenhouse. Good for her.

...I'm not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

What would Arizona's revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made "any lawful contact" and about whom they have "reasonable suspicion" that "the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?" Wasn't the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

Greenhouse's question about Goldwater's reaction to such madness also reminds me that there's another group of small-government-minded folks who claim to be concerned by authoritarian tactics. Reader B.H. emailed this poignant observation last night:

Just a question I haven't heard anybody ask: Shouldn't the tea party crowd be having a cow over this new immigration bill that Arizona just passed? Doesn't that sound like big government tyranny to them? Giving the police the power to demand "papers" from someone just on their own suspicion?

Any chatter from the tea party folk to this effect? I haven't seen any.

Nor have I. It's almost as if the right-wing crowd is only offended by government abuses when they're imaginary.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

HOW BEN NELSON ROLLS.... Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, yesterday, on a motion to proceed:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) voted Monday evening against beginning debate on his party's Wall Street reform bill.

Nelson, a centrist Democrat who also broke with his party on healthcare legislation and several jobs bills, joined Republicans in opposing the legislation.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, in November, on a motion to proceed:

Nelson also underlined that this motion [to proceed] is merely "to start debate on a bill and to try to improve it" -- not a final vote to pass it.

"If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?" Nelson said. "Why would you stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do -- debate, consider amendments, and take action on an issue affecting every American?"

I don't know, Ben, why would a member stop senators from doing the job they're elected to do?

Nelson said in a statement that he "cannot support proceeding on a bill I haven't seen." But that's silly -- Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) published a draft more than a month ago, and released the official legislative language 10 days ago.

Of course, it's not exactly a mystery as to why Ben Nelson sided with Republicans to prevent a debate on Wall Street reform. The Democratic bill includes tough new restrictions on derivatives, and Warren Buffet, a billionaire Nebraskan, has tens of billions of dollars in derivatives contracts. Buffet, not surprisingly, has been urging Nelson to help protect his business, and the senator seems inclined to do what his wealthiest constituent wants.

Over the weekend, Nelson sought a special side deal (yes, again) that would have created an exemption, shielding existing derivatives from new regulations, and in the process relieving Buffet of any new burdens. Dodd thought this was absurd, rejected Nelson's plea, and apparently pushed Nelson into blocking a debate.

Note the shift in Democratic strategy, as compared to last fall: Dems are so confident Republicans will eventually come around on Wall Street reform, they don't feel the need to give in to Ben Nelson's ridiculous demands. With health care, Dems had no other options.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

GOP TO DEMS: NO VOTE FOR YOU.... As expected, the Senate leadership tried to bring a Wall Street reform package to the floor for a debate late yesterday. And as expected, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to prevent that debate from getting underway.

The final vote was 57 to 41, with two GOP senators not voting. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska joined with Republicans (more on that later) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote for purely procedural reasons -- by voting against it, he'll be able to bring back to the floor again.

President Obama issued a fairly aggressive statement after the vote.

"I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can't afford that.

"A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party."

So, now what? Roll Call reports that the Dems' strategy hasn't changed.

Senate Democrats got exactly what they wanted Monday night: a concrete way to try to tar Republicans as beholden to Wall Street schemers who would put the country in danger of another financial industry collapse. [....]

Despite their one defection, Democrats seemed to be thinking about all the campaign ads they could run in November against Republicans, and they appeared unconcerned about whether a bipartisan financial regulatory reform measure will ever materialize.... At press time, Democrats were hatching plans to vote on the measure again Tuesday and possibly Wednesday and Thursday as well. [....]

It was unclear whether the Democrats' hardball tactics would adversely affect bipartisan negotiations, and Democrats appeared to be hoping that their drumbeat of votes and rhetorical jabs would force GOP opponents into submission -- with or without a compromise.

For now, then, the Wall Street reform bill will stay right where it is, waiting for a vote on the motion to proceed. There are some other things Senate Dems would like to try to do this week, but depending on the status of the bipartisan talks, it's likely the Senate will just be in limbo for a while. The hope among Democrats is that the longer the spotlight is on this reform bill, the pressure Republicans will feel.

The next attempt at passing the motion to proceed may come as early as today.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* As promised, Senate Republicans blocked a vote to start debate on Wall Street reform this afternoon. In a rather ridiculous move, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined with the GOP, proving once again just how embarrassing he can be.

* Iraq: "Seven weeks after Iraqis went to the polls, a special elections court disqualified a winning parliamentary candidate, likely reversing the narrow defeat of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's coalition and possibly allowing him the first chance to form a new coalition government."

* Political chaos continues to threaten Thailand.

* President Obama eulogizes 29 coal miners killed in West Virginia earlier this month. "Our task, here on Earth, is to save lives from being lost in another such tragedy," the president said.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) still thinks the climate/energy bill is headed for the Senate floor -- eventually.

* Encouraging: "The recovery is shaping up to be stronger than expected and there is little risk the economy will slip back into a recession, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 46 leading economists."

* Maybe this will have an impact on the policy debate? "Coast Guard officials said Monday afternoon that the oil spill near Louisiana was now covering an area in the Gulf of Mexico of 48 miles by 39 miles at its widest points, and they have been unable to engage a mechanism that could shut off the well thousands of feet below the ocean's surface."

* Should be an interesting case: "The Supreme Court, wading into a thicket of free-speech and children's rights issues, agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors."

* On a related note, there will be no announcement this week on the next Supreme Court nominee.

* Mary Kay Henry, not Anna Burger, will head the SEIU.

* What was Joseph Sean McVey doing at Asheville Regional Airport yesterday, armed and interested in seeing the president? (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

* Howard Kurtz gets into the fact-checking game on CNN, which is good. But if the segment is going to be a both-sides-do-it feature, that isn't good at all.

* How do you know for sure the crazy immigration law passed last week in Arizona goes too far? Tom Tancredo thinks it's excessive.

* Jesus will stay on Trinity University's diploma.

* George W. Bush's memoir will be released later this year -- a week after the midterms.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... The debate over Wall Street reform hasn't exactly been a good one for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). After a behind-closed-doors chat with some hedge fund managers and bankers, he launched an effort to kill the bill with a brazen lie, which no one could defend.

And yet, in about a half-hour, it appears McConnell will nevertheless lead his united Republican caucus in unanimous opposition to even starting a debate on this popular legislation. Faiz Shakir reports this afternoon on McConnell's explanation on why the Senate shouldn't even be allowed to vote on the motion to proceed.

"A vote for cloture is a vote that says, 'We're done listening to the American people on this issue.' ... A vote against ending this debate tonight is a vote that says it's no longer enough to tell our constituents to trust us. It's a vote that says this time, we'll prove it."

Ever get the feeling McConnell just doesn't care anymore? It's as if he assumes -- probably correctly -- that there are no consequences for adopting an almost pathological approach to the truth, so he'll just be as shameless as he can be.

Before anyone thinks McConnell may be more ignorant than mendacious, don't buy it. He's been in the Senate for a quarter of a century. He knows what a motion to proceed is. He knows getting an up-or-down vote to begin a floor debate isn't the end of the discussion; it's the start. McConnell knows this but lies anyway, because he can.

I am curious about something, though, and hoping some enterprising young reporter can pester McConnell about this. Last month, the Minority Leader was one of many Senate Republicans who insisted that lawmakers do what polls tell them to do. Senators must respect the will of the voters, McConnell and others said, or our democracy suffers.

Well, Americans overwhelmingly back the Wall Street reform effort -- the one Republicans are apparently afraid to even debate on the Senate floor. What happened the GOP notion that policymakers have a responsibility to do what the polls tell them to do?

—Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

GRASSLEY CONTINUES TO TAKE CREDIT FOR BILL HE OPPOSED.... During the debate over health care reform, few, if any, policymakers played as absurd a role in the reform process as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa. From advancing demonstrably ridiculous claims to forcing needless delays to brazen hypocrisy and contradictions, the Iowa Republican was an obnoxious force. Given that he was the Senate Republicans' point-man on health care, this was a problem.

It was pretty amusing, then, to see Grassley last month start to take credit for some provisions in the Affordable Care Act. In a press release, Grassley praised some of the effects of the legislation, and credited his own work for making these benefits possible.

Igor Volsky reports today that Grassley has done it again, "highlighting how the new law would help Medicare beneficiaries in rural Iowa." This is from the conservative senator's latest press release:

When doctors in states like Iowa are not fairly reimbursed for their services, it makes it difficult to recruit doctors and it makes it a challenge for them to keep their doors open to new Medicare patients. I worked successfully to improve Medicare payments to doctors in rural states like Iowa and, in turn, access for beneficiaries, as part of the health care reform enacted this year. I've previously won passage of legislation to help hospitals in rural America keep their doors open. [emphasis added]

Remember, Chuck Grassley repeatedly tried to kill the proposal, fought to prevent the Senate from debating it, fought to prevent the Senate from even voting on it, and repeatedly concluded that the law itself is unconstitutional.

But just in case any Iowans end up liking what's in the new law, Grassley also wants folks to know some of the good stuff was his idea (even though he voted against the bill that included his ideas).

Shameless. Just shameless.

—Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

WHY ARE THEY AFRAID OF THE DEBATE?.... In about two hours, the Senate Democratic leadership will try to bring a bill to the floor on Wall Street reform. The goal, of course, is to start the debate. If the threats are accurate, every Republican in the chamber will vote this afternoon to block the debate from getting underway, and since there will "only" be 59 votes out 100 to get the process started, the GOP obstructionism will have its desired effect.

Efforts to find a bipartisan compromise continue -- by all accounts, there is broad agreement on most of the key elements of the proposal -- but in the meantime, Republicans now have a new strategy in mind.

Senate Republicans are working to finalize their own version of legislation to tighten regulation of the nation's financial system, and aides said their version could be put forward as a rival to the Democrats' proposal if a bipartisan deal is not reached before an important procedural vote on Monday afternoon.

Republicans, including Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, have said they would use the procedural vote to block the start of debate on the Democrats' bill unless the Democrats agree to make substantial changes in it. But in a political climate of public impatience and anger at Wall Street, it was not clear how long the Republicans could hold ranks in delaying the bill.

The development of a Republican alternative suggests that party leaders are determined to draw contrasts between their preferred approach to policing Wall Street and that of the Democrats.

Let's pause to acknowledge an often overlooked detail. The Senate has a mechanism -- it's called a floor debate -- which is actually pretty useful in a situation like this. Senators can present their ideas to their colleagues, in an entirely open and transparent process. Amendments can be proposed, considered, and voted on. Language can be altered. Provisions can be improved or eliminated. It's all part of how the process was designed to work.

Once the debate is complete, senators can vote for or against the bill, and support or oppose a filibuster.

But Republicans have a different approach in mind -- they don't want to even start the debate. Despite all the talk of the last year about transparency, GOP officials insist that all work on Wall Street reform occur behind closed doors, and the ideas that could be debated on the floor are instead hashed out in secret, in between Republican fundraisers with representatives of the very institutions affected by the legislation.

This is ridiculous. As Matt Yglesias explained this afternoon, "On financial regulation, over the months I've heard a number of Republican Senators say reasonablish things about the bill, or about problems with the bill. But it's time to put up or shut up. If you're concerned the bill doesn't address something, then write an amendment to address it. If you think the bill is too tough in some respect, then write an amendment to weaken it. There's no good reason to insist that everything be done in a secret Shelby-Dodd negotiating process."

Instead of Republicans crafting their own version of the same bill, why don't they just bring those ideas to the floor as part of the debate? Why are they so afraid of having a public discussion about bringing some safeguards and accountability to a financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economic system?

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

HOW CRIST FOUND HIMSELF IN THIS MESS.... This is bound to be an interesting week for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R-for now). If he's going to drop out of the Republican Senate primary and run as an independent, Crist has until noon on Friday (April 30) to announce his decision. The governor's third-party bid seems to be a "foregone conclusion" in GOP circles, but there's been no announcement about when the public can expect to hear about Crist's plans.

But while the political world waits, it's worth taking a moment to ponder how, exactly, Charlie Crist reached this point.

In 2006, a strong year for Democrats, Crist cruised to an easy seven-point victory in Florida's gubernatorial election. By 2008, despite the GOP's plunging popularity, Crist had sky-high approval ratings -- including surprisingly strong support from Dems and independents. He was considered for McCain's presidential ticket, was a shoo-in for the Senate, and it was widely assumed that it was only a matter of time before Crist was a tough-to-beat Republican candidate for national office.

And while it seemed impossible to predict a year ago, Crist is now likely to give up on the party he's always belonged to. What happened? Adam Smith and Steve Bousquet had a terrific report over the weekend. It's worth reading in its entirety, but of particular interest was the description of Crist embracing the mantle of post-partisanship.

The roots of Crist's demise as a Republican superstar sprouted almost as soon as he took office. He revoked nearly 300 appointments by predecessor Jeb Bush, hailed Al Gore and teachers union leaders, and embraced Democrats' calls to mandate paper trails for voting machines.

Crist wrapped himself in the glow of postpartisanship. After the drubbing Republicans took in 2006, Crist became the national model for successful Republicans, the ultimate bipartisan consensus-seeker. [...]

The man who used to call himself a "Jeb Bush Republican" was thrilled when Democratic lawmakers called him one of the best Democratic governors Florida had ever had. He proudly showed off the note from former President Bill Clinton congratulating him for easing restrictions on ex-felons regaining their civil rights.

Republicans were willing to tolerate Crist's occasional heresies because they didn't necessarily think they had a choice -- their GOP governor was a rising star, a popular Republican in a key state at a time when the party was faltering, and party leaders weren't inclined to attack one of their own.

It apparently took a while for the Republican base to shake off that tolerance for Crist's relative moderation when they realized his far-right primary challenger actually stood a chance at winning.

Worse, it took even longer for Crist to realize it -- his aides kept warning him that he needed to tend to the party's base to stave off primary troubles, but Crist wouldn't listen.

As for the near future, the obvious question is over what, exactly, Crist will do, and when he'll likely make his move. But I also wonder how fierce Republicans will be if/when he makes the leap and announces an independent bid. The GOP is vicious as a matter of course in campaigns, but their rage towards those who've betrayed them is usually even worse.

And then there's that other matter: if Crist were to win an independent bid, who would he caucus with in 2011?

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

THE RNC'S FAKE-CENSUS MAILINGS.... The Republican National Committee has been using fake-census materials as part of a sleazy fundraising campaign. The deceptive tactics were so repugnant, Congress felt the need to take action and place new restrictions on the tactic. And yet, the RNC keeps doing it anyway.

In March, the House voted unanimously to restrict fake-census mailings. A month ago today, the Senate approved the same measure, also without a single opponent.

"It is critical that people have confidence and trust in the census process and these mailings confuse people and jeopardize our efforts to have a full and accurate count," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate panel that oversees the census, said at the time. "Banning these despicable practices is an important part of that process."

Except the ban apparently isn't enough. The RNC keeps sending them. Zachary Roth had this report this morning:

An RNC mailer obtained by TPMmuckraker bears the words "Census Document" and, in all caps, "DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT," on the outside of the envelope. In smaller letters, it says: "This is not a U.S. government document." The new law requires, among other things, that such mailers state the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope -- something the RNC's missive doesn't appear to do. Inside, a letter from RNC chair Michael Steele, dated April 12, asks recipients to fill out a questionnaire about their political views, and solicits donations of as much as $500 or more. [...]

After her office was forwarded a copy of the mailer, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who sponsored the bill passed last month, noted that the mailer "does not appear to meet" the requirements of the new law -- and slammed the RNC.

"What is with these guys?," she said.

If I only had a nickel for every time I've asked myself that question.

By way of a defense, the RNC stated its belief that the new law "did not apply to our mailer." When Roth asked an RNC spokesperson to elaborate, he declined.

Presumably, the U.S. Postal Service -- not the Justice Department -- will launch some kind of inquiry into this.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

WHEN LIFE HANDS A CANDIDATE LEMONS.... In Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is the Democratic nominee for Senate, hoping to hold onto the seat held until 2008 by Barack Obama. That task became a little more difficult on Friday when federal regulators shut down a bank owned and operated by Giannoulias' family -- a bank Alexi Giannoulias used to help run.

Michael Scherer put it this way: "The Illinois Senate race is playing out like an academic case study in crises management. Imagine this: Your client, a former chief loan officer for a local bank, is a Democrat heading into a Republican election year, in a state long stained by political corruption. Amid enormous public outrage over the damage wrought by bank excess, your client's bank is seized by the Feds for having overextended itself in the mortgage market. Now figure out how to win the race."

It's a challenge, to be sure, but I have to admit, this ad is actually pretty good. Why run from a problem when a campaign can try to turn it around, and make it a positive?

In this minute-long spot, Giannoulias briefly mentions he left the bank four years ago (read: its recent problems aren't his fault), and it was fine (read: he did a good job). But the economy collapsed (read: not Giannoulias' fault), and the family bank, like a lot of small businesses, couldn't survive (read: Giannoulias' family is facing the same problems lots of families are forced to endure).

And if you want to help get things back on track, the ad argues, don't go with Rep. Mark Kirk (R) -- seen here, arm in arm with George W. Bush -- who didn't even vote to extend unemployment benefits to those struggling in the recession.

"People want someone who's gonna fight for 'em," Giannoulias says in the spot. "Someone who's been through tough times, someone who's seen, looked at those problems in the face and continues to move and continues to fight and to struggle for people, and that's why I'm running for the U.S. Senate."

Time will tell if this is effective, but it's a rather classic example of making lemonade out of lemons. Who would have thought Giannoulias would make an ad embracing the failure of his family's bank?

—Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Vice President Biden campaigned in Pennsylvania the other day, and told voters he'd consider it "a personal favor" if they voted for Sen. Arlen Specter.

* By all appearances, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career as a senator from Utah will come to an end this year. Bennett, after three terms as a conservative senator, is being rejected by GOP delegates as not being right-wing enough.

* In a bit of a surprise, Minnesota state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (D) won her party's convention nod for governor, edging out Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (D). Kelliher may yet face additional challengers, however, in advance of an Aug. 10 primary.

* In Georgia, there were some hopes among Democrats that state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond (D) would be competitive against Sen. Johnny Isakson (R), but the latest Rasmussen poll shows the Republican incumbent ahead by 16, 51% to 35%.

* Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-Wis.) re-election prospects appear relatively secure, but the incumbent is nevertheless launching his first television ad of the season this week. It emphasizes, among other things, his opposition to the Wall Street bailout bill in 2008.

* In keeping with the general pattern, Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef (R) has announced he's scrapping his campaign against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York. The pattern, of course, refers to a seemingly-endless stream of Republicans who get ready to take on Gillibrand, only to drop out soon after.

* New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) won't be up for a second term until 2013, but he's off to a rough start. After nearly four months in office, the governor's approval rating is down to a woeful 33%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

OBAMA KICKS OFF MIDTERM CAMPAIGN SEASON PUSH.... President Obama has already taken some steps to help shape the midterm elections -- raising money, helping recruit candidates, etc. -- but today, those efforts will take a significant leap forward.

This video message will go out to Obama supporters today, putting the president at the heart of the Democrats' midterm strategy. The clip is reportedly "the first in a series of personal efforts designed to rekindle the grass-roots magic that propelled him to the presidency in service to his party's congressional and gubernatorial candidates."

It's also part of a larger kickoff, built around the DNC's $50 million plan for the cycle. Party chair Tim Kaine has a "community-by-community" plan that's intended to build upon Howard Dean's 50-state strategy from the 2006 midterms (which, as I recall, turned out well for Dems).

The pitch is pretty straightforward -- the Obama campaign brought a lot of people into the process two years ago, and if they get engaged again this year, it'll help Democratic candidates considerably. "A few months ago, we asked you to help us set our priorities for 2010, and tell us how you thought we could win elections at all levels of government," the president says in the video. "You told us your first priority was to make sure the same people who were inspired to vote for the first time in 2008 go back to the polls in 2010. So that's what we're going to do."

The alternative, the president reminds his audience, is GOP gains that could "undo all that we have accomplished."

There's reason for skepticism. As Dems saw in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, voters can like the president but nevertheless reject the candidates the president backs.

But aides say they're prepared. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said, "We fully understand that [the relationship between Obama and his supporters is] not automatically transferable to other candidates. It's going to take a lot of work, and that's what we're doing."

At a minimum, it settles the question about whether Dems are prepared to nationalize the elections, and whether the president would be considered a strategic asset to the party during a difficult year.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

HAYWORTH EXPLAINS HIS 'BIRTHER' INCLINATIONS.... State lawmakers in Arizona not only passed an odious new immigration law last week, they also moved forward on a "birther" bill that would require presidential candidates to produce a birth certificate before they can be on the ballot in the state.

It was a reminder that the strain of madness in contemporary Republican thought is still going strong, 14 months after President Obama took office.

Nevertheless, the nutty effort has its defenders. One of them wants to be a U.S. senator.

U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth is critical of the so-called "birther bill" that cleared the Arizona House of Representatives last week because it doesn't go far enough.

Hayworth, who has cited the possibility of "identity theft" as a reason to want to see President Barack Obama's birth certificate, said the Arizona measure is "too narrowly drawn" because it would force only presidential candidates to produce evidence of their citizenship and other qualifications. [...]

"It's real simple: We now require voters to offer proof that voters are who they say they are," Hayworth said Friday at a news conference in Phoenix. "If we're asking that of voters, shouldn't we ask candidates for every office on the ballot to be able to offer proof that they are who they say they are?"

So, J.D. Hayworth thinks the guy who says he's Barack Obama might not really be Barack Obama? Is this the point behind the "identity theft" concern?

As Marc Ambinder noted the other day, "I want to find Republicans to take seriously, but it is hard. Not because they don't exist -- serious Republicans -- but because ... they are marginalized, even self-marginalizing and the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking."

Hayworth will face Sen. John McCain in an Aug. 24 primary.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

CLIMATE BILL NOT DEAD YET.... By late Saturday, as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced his intention to walk away from his own proposal, it looked like the climate/energy bill, poised to be unveiled today, was just about dead. The tri-partisan Kerry/Graham/Lieberman package -- labeled the American Power Act -- faced an uphill climb anyway, but with Graham walking away at the 11th hour, the future looked bleak.

By late yesterday, however, the bill's "prospects were brightening slightly," and Graham was once again talking strategy with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

After talking with Graham on Sunday morning, Kerry and Lieberman prepared to move ahead without him if necessary. But a Senate aide said they were increasingly optimistic that Graham would return. His presence adds the crucial imprimatur of bipartisanship to the bill, which is likely to stall without it.

By all accounts, the White House is also acting to prevent the bill's collapse, and Rahm Emanuel and Carol Browner, among others, worked the phones over the weekend.

What's more, if Graham's main concern is over the calendar -- he balked because he believes Dems want to tackle immigration reform ahead of the climate bill -- Harry Reid's main spokesperson is signaling flexibility. It's clear that "climate negotiations are much farther along than the immigration bill," Jim Manley said, meaning that climate "could be the first to come to the floor."

So, the good news is, the climate bill isn't quite dead, at least not yet. The bad news, however, is that Graham -- who still hasn't quite explained the specific rationale behind his outrage -- now has even more leverage over the outcome than he did before. Indeed, the dominant aspect of this debate has, all of a sudden, become, "What can Dems do to make Lindsey Graham happy."

On a related note, the WaPo had some good reporting today on the behind-the-scenes efforts to line up support for the effort from the business community.

[T]he bill's authors focused on doing what amounted to a legislative bank shot, lining up support among business interests the bill would impact, in an effort to get them to convince wavering senators to embrace the package. They held dozens of closed-door meetings with groups ranging from the American Gas Association to the National Mining Association and the Portland Cement Association, including one meeting this spring in which 30 officials from different business groups gave what one participant described as "their elevator pitch" for what they wanted in the bill. [...]

The senators doled out rewards to different groups in order to bring them on board, providing more free pollution allowances to the utilities sector, even if that meant less money to protect tropical forests overseas; ensuring that 37.5 percent of the revenue generated from new oil and gas drilling offshore would go to the coastal states closest to the drilling.

The horse trading infuriated some environmentalists -- Clean Air Watch president Frank O'Donnell said the bill "ought to be named 'Let's Make a Deal,' " -- but it helped neutralize some corporate opposition and brought on board influential backers such as the Edison Electric Institute and three of the nation's five biggest oil companies.

"It has the broadest support that's ever come together for an energy and climate bill before," Lieberman said, adding he is convinced several business leaders "will be our most effective advocates in convincing the undecided senators to get off the fence" in the weeks ahead.

Sounds like they might need to help convince Graham, too.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

THE FATE OF WALL STREET REFORM.... Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) scheduled the first procedural vote -- the motion to proceed -- on Wall Street reform for about 5 p.m. (ET) today. As of yesterday, Republicans were still prepared to voice their unanimous opposition, blocking the debate from getting underway.

Any chance Reid will scrap his plans, knowing that the GOP will block an up-or-down vote on getting the floor process started? Apparently not -- Reid's office insists today's cloture vote will proceed as planned.

Democratic leaders have no expectations that today's vote will go well. But as Roll Call reported, they also don't seem to mind.

Rarely have Senate Democrats been so calm about losing a vote. And that's what it looks like will happen in Monday's showdown with Republicans over financial regulatory reform.

Still, Democrats are bringing with them several game plans to ensure that no matter the outcome, they emerge with the advantage.

With continued uncertainty about whether they can avoid a filibuster of the measure, Democrats said they are prepared to either excoriate Republicans for blocking needed Wall Street reforms or hold hands with them around a compromise bill heading into a two- to three-week floor debate. [...]

"We're unafraid of pushing ahead because even if we are on a collision course to having that vote without a deal, it just gets us onto a bill," one senior Senate Democratic aide said. "Even if they do [filibuster] and the political chips fall where they may, we think we end up on the better end of that situation."

Another Senate Democratic aide said Democrats are approaching the vote as "heads we win, tails you lose."

It's almost bizarre to see Dems acting with such confidence, but it's well grounded in fact. If the motion to proceed fails, as seems likely, Dems will use this against Republicans, while the process of striking a bipartisan deal continues. By all accounts, Dems will eventually get the legislation they want and the evidence of GOP obstructionism they want.

Dems hardly ever feel like they have the upper hand. It's quite a change of pace.

On a related note, polls bolster Democratic attitudes. A new poll from ABC News found, "Two-thirds of Americans support stricter federal regulation of banks and other financial institutions, and by a double-digit margin the public trusts President Obama above the Republicans in Congress to handle the issue."

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

AMBITION AND SUCCESS ARE NOT OFTEN PUNISHED.... Today, a tri-partisan climate/energy bill was supposed to be unveiled after months of efforts. The package -- crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- faced an uphill climb, but the legwork had been done, and it stood a fighting chance of passage.

Late Saturday, Lindsey Graham signaled his intention to walk away. As he explained it, Democratic leaders seem more interested in tackling immigration before climate -- instead of the other way around, as he'd been led to believe -- so he's inclined to kill both efforts.

Joe Klein argued yesterday that Graham has done Democrats "a big favor." When I saw the headline, I thought Klein may have identified some other way to get the bills passed without Graham's support. But Klein was actually arguing the opposite -- Graham's doing Dems a favor because he's killing the legislation Dems want to pass.

Lindsey Graham effectively killed the Senate's looming cap-and-trade package by yanking his support from the bill -- and thereby did the Democrats a favor. I'm all in favor of combating global warming, although I think a straight-ahead carbon tax (refundable in the form of reduced payroll taxes) would do the job far more efficiently than cap-and-trade. But if I'm a Democratic strategist, I'm thinking Augustinian thoughts: Lord, make me energy independent, but not just yet.

Why? Because the public has had quite enough, thank you, of government activism this year ... and, after Wall Street reform is passed, any further attempts to pass major legislation will add to legitimate conservative arguments that the federal government is attempting to do [too] much to do any of it well.... [P]ublic skepticism about the Democratic Party is bound to increase if another humongous piece of legislation, which effectively guarantees higher energy prices, is passed this year.

I see the political landscape much differently. For one thing, I've seen no evidence to suggest Americans want policymakers to stop having so many successes. This came up a bit last year -- many pundits insisted that President Obama was doing "too much, too fast" -- but it was never borne out by the polls. I tend to think the electorate will be more impressed by Democratic successes than by relative inaction over the six months preceding the midterm elections.

Put it this way: when was the last time a party was punished by voters for successfully passing too much of its policy agenda, and fulfilling too many of its campaign promises?

For another, to characterize the climate/energy bill as "effectively guaranteeing higher energy prices" isn't entirely fair -- with various incentives and tax credits, most consumers wouldn't see a price increase, and many would actually see their energy bills drop.

But perhaps most importantly, I think Klein underestimates what the lawmaking process will be like in 2011 and 2012. He wants to see bills on climate and immigration pass -- and so do I -- but Klein seems to believe policymakers can just pick this up again in the next Congress.

That's almost certainly not the case. In the Senate, the Democratic majority is poised to shrink quite a bit, making it nearly impossible to overcome Republican filibusters. In the House, the Democratic majority may very well disappear entirely, and a GOP-led House will immediately ignore every policy request made by the administration.

It's why I think Klein has it backwards -- those who want to see progress on climate and immigration have to act quickly, because this is likely the last chance policymakers will have on either effort for quite a while.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

CALLING OUT MCCONNELL, CONT'D.... I'm always encouraged when Paul Krugman appears on one of the Sunday shows; he tends to say things most guests don't.

Take yesterday, for example. On ABC's "This Week," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spoke at some length about the need for the Wall Street reform bill pending on the Hill to be "bipartisan." Soon after, the roundtable discussion focused on this, and the NYT columnist emphasized a point that often goes overlooked.

"Anyone who says we need to be bipartisan should bear in mind that for the last several weeks, Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, has been trying to stop reform with possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics, which is the claim that having regulation of the banks is actually bailing out the banks," Krugman noted. "And basically, the argument boils down to saying that what we really need to do to deal with fires is abolish the fire department. Because then people will know that they can't let their buildings burn in the first place, right? It's incredible. So anyone who says bipartisan, should say, bipartisan doesn't include the Senate minority leader."

Sure, it's a little -- but only a little -- hyperbolic to say McConnell's "institutionalized bailout" lie is "possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics," but McConnell's breathtaking dishonesty deserves to be called out in bold terms.

But Krugman's larger point is arguably more important: the conventional wisdom continues to insist the lawmaking process is somehow inadequate, and possibly even illegitimate, if proposals aren't "bipartisan." But we're also dealing with a dispute in which the leadership of a party has no qualms about blatantly, shamelessly lying.

And while it didn't come up, the same dynamic has existed in every other policy debate of the last year and a half -- health care, economic recovery, combating global warming, etc. -- in which Dems are told they must gain Republican support, and the GOP leadership demonstrates its commitment to the process by making things up.

Which is why Krugman's point is worth emphasizing, especially for establishment figures that assume Dems must be doing something wrong if Republican leaders aren't happy.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

GRAHAM ASKED FOR 'STEPPED UP' ACTION ON IMMIGRATION.... Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is so upset that Dems might take up immigration reform this year, he's prepared to kill his own tri-partisan climate/energy bill. Some of his concerns are reasonable -- Graham was told the climate bill would be considered before immigration, and now he'd been led to believe otherwise.

But before anyone feels too sympathetic for Graham, let's not lose sight of one key detail: Democrats are, to a certain extent, doing what Graham asked them to do.

The South Carolina Republican began working on a bipartisan immigration reform proposal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last October. On March 11, they met with President Obama at the White House to go over their plan, and get the presidential green light to continue. Soon after, the two senators co-wrote an op-ed insisting that the status quo on immigration policy is "badly broken," and the nation's "security and economic well-being depend" on the kind of reform Graham and Schumer are proposing.

It was around that time that Graham publicly stated his hopes that Obama would get more involved in pushing immigration reform, in order to give it a chance to pass this year.

Graham ... said Obama's lack of direction on immigration reform is hampering Graham's efforts to recruit additional Republicans to the cause.

"At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit," Graham told POLITICO on Tuesday.

The president apparently agreed. The West Wing started taking immigration reform far more seriously, and the president even started reaching out to other Republican senators about generating some broader support for immigration reform this year. Obama, in other words, took Graham's advice.

And now Graham is furious about it. Worse, he's prepared to kill both the climate bill and the immigration bill because he's outraged over the latter being prioritized over the former.

In terms of the calendar, I'm generally inclined to agree with Graham's larger point -- given that the climate bill has already passed the House, and so much of the legwork has already been done for the next round, it makes sense to me for the Senate to finish Wall Street reform, then tackle energy, then immigration. I'm even inclined to agree with Graham that Dems are using political considerations, not policy goals, to prioritize between the competing policies.

But by threatening to kill both of the efforts he's already invested so much time in, Graham is overreacting on an almost comical scale. Graham can't call on the president to step up on immigration, and then throw a fit when the president does as he asks.

It's enough to make me wonder if, perhaps, Lindsey Graham wasn't really serious about either initiative, and last night's tantrum is the result of a senator who's negotiated in bad faith.

—Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

GIVING THE CONFUSED CROWD FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT.... One of the reasons I'm inclined to write about the Tea Partiers is that there are still many in the political establishment who believe the political mainstream should do more to take the Tea Party crowd and its hysterical cries seriously. This strikes me as silly -- most of the activists seem to have no idea what they're talking about. Why explore substantive challenges with angry mobs who reject reason and evidence?

By all appearances, this hasn't quite sunk in yet with many observers. Thomas Friedman has a column today suggesting Tea Partiers strive to "become something more than just entertainment for Fox News." Specifically, the columnist recommends that these activists start taking energy policy seriously and endorse "a $10 'Patriot Fee' on every barrel of imported oil, with all proceeds going to pay down our national debt."

To Friedman, such an approach seems consistent with the Tea Party's purported goals -- taking a progressive approach to energy policy would help lessen our dependence on the Middle East, lower the deficit, improve our security goals, leave future generations with a better environment, etc.

Friedman isn't entirely naive. He concedes, "Yes, I know, dream on. The Tea Party is heading to the hard libertarian right and would never support an energy bill that puts a fee on carbon." And to be sure, on a substantive level, his suggestion has merit.

But I think Friedman, like many establishment observers, doesn't fully appreciate how ridiculous the Tea Party effort really is. John Cole summarizes the situation nicely.

They don't care about the deficit. They care that a Democrat (and a black "Muslim," to boot), is in the White House. They don't care about fiscal restraint, they care that a Democrat is in the White House. They don't, as some foolishly pretend, care about the Wall Street excesses. Certainly Cenk Uyger is not the only one who has noticed that the tea party bubbas could all be shipped to protest HCR, but the big money boys aren't running the buses to protest Wall Street. They care that there is a Democrat in the White House.

And those crowds of angry white old people screaming "keep government out of my medicare" and waving signs of "Drill, baby, drill?" They sure as hell don't care about the environment and are not going to become some sort of "Green Tea Party."

Well, no, of course not. If the right's rhetoric is any indication, we're talking about a crowd that often perceives climate science as a Marxist plot.

The so-called "movement," on the whole, doesn't seem to care about policy. It hardly even seems to care about its own purported goals -- this crowd not only applauded when Republicans added $5 trillion to the debt and decided to stop trying to pay for their own initiatives, they also took to the streets to complain about taxes after getting a tax cut.

Expecting far-right activists to move to the left on energy policy, just because it's wise and in their interests, is regrettably a fool's errand. Friedman isn't wrong on policy grounds; he's wrong to think unhinged conservatives who think the president is Hitler and the Affordable Care Act represents a "government takeover" can be reasoned with.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

JOURNALISM, STANDARDS, AND TELEPHONES.... The NYT's Brian Stelter had an interesting piece the other day about Jon Stewart and his disdain for Fox News. One recent incident was of particular interest.

Last week that comedian did something that the hosts of "Fox & Friends," the morning show on Fox News, did not do: he had his staff members call the White House and ask a question.

It may have been in pursuit of farce, not fact, but it gave credence to the people who say "The Daily Show" is journalistic, not just satiric. "Fox & Friends" had repeatedly asked whether the crescent-shaped logo of the nuclear security summit was an "Islamic image," one selected by President Obama in his outreach to the Muslim world. The White House told "The Daily Show" that the logo was actually based on the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom.

It was, to be sure, deeply amusing. The Republican cable network, in one of its more farcical moments of the month, speculated about its new conspiracy theory -- Fox News personalities saw a dot on a partial circle and assumed the White House was sending secret signals to the Middle East, because of the kinda-sorta-but-not-really similarities between the atomic model and the Islamic star and crescent moon. Stewart's office picked up the phone, found out the truth, and explained why the observation pushed by "Fox & Friends" was idiotic.

When Stewart describes Fox News as a "truly a terrible, cynical, disingenuous news organization," this helps prove the point.

But the NYT piece suggests there's a larger significance to what transpired here.

[Stewart's] staff members regularly dismiss claims that "The Daily Show" is a form of journalism. "I have not moved out of the comedian's box into the news box," Mr. Stewart said on the show on Tuesday, adding, "The news box is moving toward me."

But there he was, checking in with the White House when Fox didn't.

Yes, but the underlying point here is that this example represents evidence that "The Daily Show" really is engaged in professional journalism. Stewart's office picked up the phone, while the clowns on "Fox & Friends" preferred to air their unique brand of stupidity.

But I'm not sure I buy the premise. I certainly give credit to "The Daily Show" for taking the time to get the real story on the Rutherford-Bohr model, but I don't think that makes Jon Stewart more of a journalist; I think it makes "Fox & Friends" more of a transparent joke.

After all, as Stewart said on the air when explaining his call to the White House, all it proved is that his phone works.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

WALL STREET REFORM TOMORROW? DON'T COUNT ON IT.... On Thursday afternoon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he was tired of waiting -- Wall Street reform would be brought to the Senate floor for a debate on Monday. "I'm not going to waste any more time of the American people," he declared.

It started the clock on the first procedural vote -- the motion to proceed -- to be held at 5:15 p.m. (ET) tomorrow. Republicans will, of course, filibuster the motion -- it's what they do -- but Dems were hopeful that at least one GOP senator would vote to let the Senate debate the legislation.

As of this morning, it looks like that won't happen.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and ranking Republican Richard Shelby said Sunday they don't have a deal yet on the financial regulatory reform bill - but said they were on the verge of striking a bipartisan accord. [...]

"I think we're closer than we've ever been," Shelby said, adding that there are "two or three things" that need to be resolved, singling out efforts to end "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions.

The two men and their staffs planned to meet later Sunday, but Shelby said they needed more time to get a deal. And the Republican doubted that Democrats "will not get cloture" when they try to break a GOP filibuster to bring a bill that passed the Banking Committee to the Senate floor Monday evening.

"Will we get a bill tomorrow?" Shelby said on the same program. "I doubt it."

Dodd sounded optimistic, though, that if the first procedural vote fails, as now appears likely, they'll still figure out how to craft a deal later this week.

In the interim, Democrats will likely try to exploit the GOP obstructionism. Expect the message to be something along the lines of, "Even now, Republicans won't let the Senate so much as debate a bill to bring some safeguards to Wall Street."

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

THE SENATE STILL NEEDS REFORM, TOO.... With a little more than six months left before the end of the 111th Congress, leaders of the Democratic majority would love to pass three more major pieces of legislation: Wall Street reform, a climate/energy bill, and immigration reform. If it were simply a matter of letting the Senate vote, up or down, on each, it's pretty likely all three would become law with time to spare.

But we know, of course, that's not how the system works anymore. Senators can't vote until Republican filibusters are broken -- and the GOP's scandalous abuse applies to every bill of any significance.

It's worth remembering, then, that talk of reforming the dysfunctional upper chamber is still percolating in the background.

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Thursday launched a high-profile fight in a committee hearing on changing the Senate's filibuster rules.

Schumer opened a scheduled hearing on the 200-year history of the legislative tactic by serving notice that he intends to strongly consider some kind of change to the chamber's rules, to prevent legislation continuing to be blocked by small numbers of senators.

"The filibuster used to be the exception to the rule. In today's Senate, it's becoming a straitjacket," Schumer said. "The truth is, both parties have had a love-hate relationship with the filibuster depending on if you are in the majority or the minority at the time. But this is not healthy for the Senate as an institution."

McConnell replied that Dems are just frustrated because Republicans won't let them vote on legislation. That is, of course, exactly right.

For his part, Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), also a senior member of the Rules Committee and the Senate's informal chamber historian, defended the institution's unique rules that he holds dear, but reminded his colleagues that reforms are sometimes "necessary." Byrd urged the Senate to "remain open to changes in the Senate rules."

And speaking of possible changes to the Senate rules, there are plenty of proposals members can consider. The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus presented four (and a half) very sensible ideas for reforming the process this week; Johns Hopkins' Charles Stevenson had an op-ed in Roll Call the other day calling on the Senate to eliminate filibusters for motions to proceed; and not too long ago, Binghamton University's Jonathan Krasno and Gregory Robinson presented a compelling vision of a three-step plan, which includes forcing 41 senators to assemble the votes to continue debate (rather than the other way around) and reducing debate times (no more 30-hour delays after the initial cloture).

While these efforts continue to be mulled over, Schumer has promised to proceed with a series of additional hearings. I have low expectations, but at this point, it's good to see the issue get any attention at all.

—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

CLIMATE BILL HANGS BY A THREAD.... Tomorrow was going to be a critical day for a new climate/energy bill. The tri-partisan plan -- crafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- had been shaped over the course of several months, and its proponents were finally going to unveil the details at a Capitol Hill event.

Its prospects looked murky, but much of the necessary legwork had already been done -- the White House was on board with the provisions, and many business leaders, whose support would be critical, were poised to endorse the effort.

Late yesterday, Lindsey Graham signaled his intention to walk away, and in the process, may have killed the legislation.

In a move that may derail a comprehensive climate change and energy bill in the Senate, one of the measure's central architects, Senator Lindsey Graham, has issued an angry protest over what he says are Democratic plans to give priority to a debate over immigration policy.

Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in a sharply worded letter on Saturday that he would no longer participate in negotiations on the energy bill, throwing its already cloudy prospects deeper into doubt. [...]

In his letter to his two colleagues, Mr. Graham said that he was troubled by reports that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up an immigration measure before the energy bill.... Mr. Graham said that any Senate debate on the highly charged subject of illegal immigration would make it impossible to deal with the difficult issues involved in national energy and global warming policy.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Graham's concerns -- all things considered, it makes more sense to me to tackle climate before immigration -- but his tactical demands are a little over the top. In effect, Graham is saying, "Do things in the order I prefer or I'll kill both major legislative initiatives."

Specifically, Graham wrote in his letter, "I will not allow our hard work to be rolled out in a manner that has no chance of success." He will, however, walk away from months of negotiations, guaranteeing that his hard work has no chance of success. In other words, Graham is afraid a push on immigration reform might undermine his climate/energy bill, so he's decided to undermine his climate/energy bill.

I've heard of smarter strategies.

There are at least some efforts underway to save the bill. Reid office issued a statement last night saying the Democratic leadership is committed to both initiatives, and the climate/energy bill "could be next" on the legislative calendar "if it's ready."

As for the administration, Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, also issued a statement, urging Graham not to walk away from his own effort.

Nevertheless, the announcement scheduled for tomorrow has been "indefinitely postponed."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

LOWDOWN ON LOWDEN.... Sue "Chicken for Checkups" Lowden clearly didn't have a very good week. The Republican Senate hopeful became something of a national laughingstock with her livestock-centered approach to health care delivery. "Let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. I'm telling you that this works," Lowden said on Monday. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say I'll paint your house.... Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."

Democrats are anxious to keep this story alive as long as possible, and they're having some success. Nevada Dems, for example, held a protest yesterday outside Lowden's campaign office in Reno. It came just hours after some very clever folks launched a new website: "The Lowden Plan, a simple health care plan anyone with a few thousand live chickens can use." There's a very helpful Lowden Plan Medical Chicken Calculator on the site.

But as entertaining as this is, there's a related policy observation that shouldn't go overlooked. Paul Krugman explained late yesterday:

Sure, it's funny to see a 21st-century political candidate pining for the days of a barter economy. But [Lowden's] remarks would have been breathtakingly ignorant even if she had called for payments in cash.

The key fact about health care -- the central issue in health care economics -- is that it's all about the big-ticket items. Checkups don't cost much; neither does the treatment of minor illnesses. The money that matters goes to bypasses and dialysis -- costs that are highly unpredictable, and that almost nobody can afford to pay out of pocket. Modern health care, if it's going to be provided at all, has to be paid for mainly out of insurance.

Conservatives don't like this; if few of them propose paying in chickens, there is nonetheless a constant refrain of calls for making the market for health care more like the market for bread, with consumers paying out of medical accounts and engaging in comparison shopping.

Why this preference for cash? Because even conservatives know in their hearts that insurance markets are deeply imperfect, which means that standard free-market arguments become very weak once insurers are involved. And so they pretend that we don't really need all that insurance.

It's been lost in the shuffle, but Krugman's description of the GOP line is absolutely right. Indeed, as Lowden became a national punch-line, the Nevada Republican Party predicated its defense of the Senate candidate on exactly this point: Lowden's over-arching concern is that Americans rely on health insurance to help cover medical bills, and that's a bad thing.

Nevada GOP communications director Ciara Turns told Eric Kleefeld the other day, "[Lowden] was clearly trying to make the point that if we moved away from an insurance-based system and more people started paying cash for their health care, then prices would come down. But [Democrats] don't want to address that ... because it's a legitimate point that they can't argue."

Now, looking specifically at the plain wording of Lowden's argument, she was specifically (and repeatedly) talking up the notion of bartering, not bargaining. Turns' interpretation is generous, to put it mildly.

But even if we accept the defense at face value, as Krugman explained, the underlying policy dispute is hardly any better for Lowden and the Nevada GOP.

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

SOME LEGACIES CAN'T BE 'RESTORED'.... A few years ago, Chris Matthews said, on the air, that "everybody sort of likes" George W. Bush, except for "the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left." Nearly five years later, we're still hearing similar talk -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said this week that Bush "will go down as a very, very good president," adding that the former president deserves support from anyone "who is not a rank political hack."

Perry's remarks, ridiculous though they may be, were not an example of isolated nonsense. Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) was roundly applauded when he praised Bush at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this month. A College Republican chapter in Kentucky this week created an annual "W Day."

And just the other day, Slate ran a piece profiling the efforts of the "Bush Restoration Project."

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro talks about George W. Bush the way Buddhists talk about the Dalai Lama. "He stands for truth, compassion and freedom," he says. "Bush instinctively sees the global picture that every living person has the right to be free." It's hardly surprising, then, that Shapiro founded Honor Freedom, an organization devoted to restoring Bush's reputation. [...]

To listen to Shapiro is to travel back in time to 2003, when present-day critics like David Frum were calling Bush "The Right Man." Even now, Shapiro's defense of the Bush administration's record in Iraq is pretty much unqualified. Bush's critics "are selfish people who don't see the value of national liberation," he says. "They are isolationists who don't care that the U.S. freed a people enslaved by fear." To charges the Bush is unintelligent, he says: "Bush is clearly very smart. And you don't need to be a genius to be president -- you need good leadership skills and good instincts." To the rap that his economic record is woeful, Shapiro says that Bush was a foreign-policy president.

Shapiro, it's worth noting, "says he regularly exchanges e-mail with Karl Rove."

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Bush's unwavering supporters created their own reality during his presidency; there's probably no reason for them to take a more reasonable course now.

But I'm hard pressed to imagine how Bush's failed presidency can be made to look like anything other than a spectacular debacle. Consider some of the messes he left for his successor to clean up: an economy in freefall, two costly and mismanaged wars, a deteriorating job market, a crushing debt, enormous budget deficits, terrorist threats, a dysfunctional health care system, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, a deteriorating national reputation on the global stage, and systemic problems on energy, immigration, and detainees.

Ask even Bush's most loyal sycophants to name actual accomplishments, they'll generally point to tax cuts and 9/11. But tax cuts didn't help the economy -- during Bush's two terms, incomes fell, poverty rose, and there were two recessions -- and the attacks of Sept. 11 weren't an "accomplishment."

That said, if Republicans see value in debating the Bush/Cheney legacy going forward, I don't imagine most Democrats would mind.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week are reactions from faith communities to the outrageous new anti-immigrant law in Arizona. As widespread as the national disappointment has been, some of the strongest criticism has come from religious leaders.

As Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs into law today the most extreme anti-immigrant legislation in the country (SB-1070), the national and Arizona faith community are condemning it as an affront to moral conscience that will divide families and communities. The inhumane legislation demonstrates the urgent need for national political leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 tasks law enforcement with checking papers for anyone they suspect as undocumented and penalizes those who provide aid to illegal immigrants.

Below are statements on Arizona's anti-immigrant bill from a dozen evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish leaders representing millions of Americans.

In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony called the law "mean-spirited" and compared it to Nazi repression. Jim Wallis described the Arizona measure as "a social and racial sin," a "policy of deliberate political cruelty," and part of an effort to "wage war on the body of Christ."

As Democrats take steps to challenge the Arizona law, it would appear they can count on support from large and influential religious institutions.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* On Capitol Hill, the Congressional Prayer Caucus (yes, there's a Congressional Prayer Caucus) launched a new House resolution to argue that the federal government's recognition of an official National Day of Prayer is constitutional, despite a recent federal court ruling to the contrary. The measure, H. RES. 1273, is up to 70 co-sponsors as of yesterday.

* Unhinged media personality Glenn Beck will deliver the commencement address next month at the Falwell-founded Liberty University in Virginia. Beck is a Mormon, which makes the selection a little odd, but he's also a political radical, so he'll probably fit right in.

* And Comedy Central's "South Park" ignored warnings and aired an episode this week that included a representation of the Prophet Muhammad as an animated character. After an Islamic extremist site posted apparent threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the NYPD stepped up security at the network's headquarters.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

THE UNI-PARTISAN 'CLEANSING'.... The Washington Post's Dana Milbank had a good column on Republicans turning on Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, and the fact that he's "being drummed out" of the Republican Party. But as is too often the case, the column couldn't leave well enough alone.

Milbank's critique of Crist and contemporary GOP politics was, by and large, spot on. National leaders who adored Crist and sought his favor now want nothing to do with him. Crist's "friends" won't return his calls. The governor "developed a reputation for bipartisan work," despite pushing a relatively conservative policy agenda, which Republicans appreciated, right up until they decided he wasn't nearly right-wing enough. "Crist is saying and doing what he always has done," the column noted, "it's GOP leadership that has changed."

But major media outlets have an unwritten rule: all criticism of Republicans has to include related criticism of Democrats, whether it makes sense or not. Milbank 's otherwise fine column, then, included this unfortunate observation:

The crucifixion of Crist by Republican leaders says less about him than it does about the party. Both parties have been undergoing ideological cleansing, as Sens. Arlen Specter (forced out of the GOP in Pennsylvania) and Blanche Lincoln (facing a Democratic primary challenge in Arkansas) can attest. But the Crist crisis is a whole new level of Jacobin excess....

Look, the parties' respective bases will always prefer candidates more in line with their ideology and agenda. But to state as a matter of fact that "both parties have been undergoing ideological cleansing" is a mistake. Sure, Blanche Lincoln is facing a competitive primary, in part because she's been a frequent source of disappointment to the party, and in part because polls show her looking very vulnerable, causing many Dems to consider an alternative. The party establishment, however, continues to support Lincoln -- it's not as if we see the DSCC throwing her under the bus, the way we see with the NRSC and Crist.

Regardless, one primary for a vulnerable incumbent does not an "ideological cleansing" make. If Dems were seriously trying to drive those who strayed from the party line from the ranks, Blue Dogs would be under heavy fire, and the party wouldn't have rallied behind Brad Ellsworth in Indiana. Charlie Melacon in Louisiana and Cal Cunningham in North Carolina aren't exactly MoveOn.org members, either, but both enjoy party support for their Senate bids.

In contrast, there's an actual "ideological cleansing" underway in the Republican Party. Crist has been deemed insufficiently conservative, so he's being driven out. Specter was deemed insufficiently conservative, so he became a Democrat. Dede Scozzafava was deemed insufficiently conservative, so she was driven from her congressional race. In Arizona, Sen. John McCain (R) is facing a tough primary challenge because he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. In Utah, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career is hanging by a thread because -- you guessed it -- he's been deemed insufficiently conservative.

Does "both sides do it" really have to go into every piece?

—Steve Benen 9:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

GUY FAWKES, NEW REPUBLICAN HERO.... Last fall, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) organized a right-wing rally on Capitol Hill for November 5, in the hopes of killing health care reform. After characterizing her followers as "insurgents" and "freedom fighters," Bachmann urged far-right activists to, in her word, "scare" federal lawmakers.

The scheduling of Bachmann's Capitol Hill soiree was a little disconcerting -- she picked a date widely known as Guy Fawkes Night. In other words, one of the country's most extreme lawmakers chose to rally right-wing activists, label them an "insurgency," and encourage them to roam the halls of Congress deliberately "scaring" members of Congress, on the infamous date that marks an attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

Fortunately, 11/5 came and went without incident. But the Republican affection for Guy Fawkes has apparently not dissipated. Time's Michael Scherer had this report:

The Republican Governors Association has embraced the symbolism of Fawkes, launching a rather striking website, RememberNovember.com, with a video that showcases far more Hollywood savvy than one can usually expect from Republicans. Again, the Fawkes tale has been twisted a bit. This time, President Obama plays the role of King James, the Democratic leadership is Parliament, and the Republican Party represents the aggrieved Catholic mass.

The politics and substance aside, this strikes me as a remarkable bit of political messaging, not just for its cinematic quality. The RGA, under the control of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is clearly stepping out of the stodgy, safe territory it normally inhabits. It is aiming to tap into the vast well of anti-government fury now coursing through the nation. Who would have guessed that Barbour would embrace the symbolic value of the same would-be mass murderer as the Wachowski brothers?

Josh Marshall added, "I find this completely bewildering. The Republican Governors Association is embracing the mantle of a 17th century radical who tried but failed to pull off a mass casualty terrorist attack to kill the King of England and all of Parliament.... Nothing shocks me anymore. But this shocks me."

It's a reminder that the Republican mainstream made a right turn at scary, and have arrived right at stark raving mad.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

SOONER STATE SCARES.... Between its outrageous anti-immigrant efforts and initial support for "birther" legislation, Arizona has generated some ugly national headlines of late. But about 900 miles to the east, Oklahoma has been nearly as offensive.

Some right-wing lawmakers in the Sooner State have begun work on a new, privately-recruited militia, which would enjoy the blessing of the state, and would be armed and trained to resist federal encroachment. Oklahoma's state House also recently approved a bill mandating that firearms manufactured in their state would be exempt from federal regulations. (thanks to reader E.P. for the heads-up)

And on reproductive rights, conservative Oklahoma lawmakers successfully passed a proposal that would "require women seeking [abortion] procedures early in their pregnancies to undergo an invasive form of ultrasound."

One of the laws headed to the governor would require doctors to use a vaginal probe in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound. Doctors have said this is usually the case early in pregnancies, when most abortions are done.

"You're going to force someone to undergo an invasive medical procedure," objected state Sen. Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, who voted against the bill. "You have to invasively put an instrument inside the woman. This could be your 15-year-old daughter who was raped."

At least three states require ultrasounds before all abortions, but no other states require vaginal ultrasounds or that doctors to describe the image to women.

The good news is, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed the bill...

Henry said "it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment" because it would victimize a victim a second time.

"State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma. To do so amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy," he said.

...and the bad news is Henry's veto will probably be overridden.

It's a good thing Oklahomans have elected all of those small-government types to the legislature, who will force citizens to undergo medical procedures they don't want. Nothing says "limited government" like state-mandated, involuntary, invasive procedures, right?

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* As expected, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed into law an odious new anti-immigrant bill today.

* At least 58 people killed in Iraq: "A coordinated series of explosions struck a party headquarters, two mosques, a market and a shop in Baghdad on Friday, deepening the country's turmoil amid a political impasse and a concerted military campaign against the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq."

* Pulling the alarm: "Pushed to the brink of bankruptcy, Greece on Friday requested a massive, $56 billion rescue that is aimed at preventing a financial meltdown in the heart of Europe and will test the resolve of the European Union to uphold its pledge to bail out the troubled Mediterranean nation."

* New home sales surged 27% in March. It was "the biggest monthly increase in 47 years."

* Is the climate/energy bill dead?

* The Treasury Department expects the overall price tag for TARP to be as low as $87 billion, when all is said and done.

* Death threats force Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to close his district offices.

* The disaster at the Deepwater Horizon rig has not gone unnoticed in the context of the debate over drilling policy.

* FCC Commissioner Michael Copps envisions a major fight over net neutrality.

* Congressional Dems craft a legislative plan to respond to the Citizens United ruling.

* President Obama is the most popular leader in the world. Conservatives will no doubt try to argue that this is awful news.

* Killing an American by firing-squad? In the 21st century?

* The DADT conspiracy theories don't stand up well to scrutiny.

* Matt Yglesias underscores the problem with Jonah Goldberg's work.

* Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who's convinced the president isn't a natural born citizen, has thrown away a decorated military career.

* Fighting against tuition hikes.

* Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's (R) ridiculous lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act may help in unexpected ways.

* Republicans lawmakers want to "start over." On what? On everything.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY.... Long-time readers may recall a discussion we had back in December, about the quality of the debate over health care reform. It was obvious at the time that the meaningful, interesting disputes weren't between conservatives and liberals, but between liberals and other liberals.

It's not that the right remained silent; it's that they offered arguments that no serious person could find credible. Consider, just off the top of your head, the most prominent concerns raised by opponents of the Affordable Care Act. What comes to mind? "Death panels." "Socialism." "Government takeover."

It was the biggest domestic policy fight in a generation, but most of the policy debate was spent debunking transparent, child-like nonsense. The left approached the debate with vibrancy, energy, and seriousness. The right thought it was fascinating to talk about the number of pages in the legislation.

Making matters worse, the quality of the discourse on health care wasn't especially unusual. We endured a mind-numbing debate over economic recovery efforts because Republicans weren't prepared for a serious argument. We can't discuss Wall Street reform because Republicans keep saying "bailout" for no reason. We can't discuss a climate bill because Republicans reflexively reject the science.

Every major issue has strengths and weaknesses, and every major piece of legislation is subject to legitimate criticism. In 2010, however, the right seems fundamentally unprepared to even have the conversation.

Given all of this, Marc Ambinder asks today whether the right has "gone mad."

Can anyone deny that the most trenchant and effective criticism of President Obama today comes not from the right but from the left? Rachel Maddow's grilling of administration economic officials. Keith Olbermann's hectoring Democratic leaders on the public option. Glenn Greenwald's criticisms of Elena Kagan. Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn's keepin'-them-honest perspectives on health care, the civil libertarian left on detainees and Gitmo. The Huffington Post on derivatives.

I want to find Republicans to take seriously, but it is hard. Not because they don't exist -- serious Republicans -- but because, as [Julian] Sanchez and others seem to recognize, they are marginalized, even self-marginalizing and the base itself seems to have developed a notion that bromides are equivalent to policy-thinking, and that therapy is a substitute for thinking.

Ambinder ponders various explanations -- the habit of conservatives to take entertainers seriously as political actors, the "incentive structures exist to stomp on dissent and nuance," the epistemic closure problem in which conservatives ignore news outlets that might tell them what they don't want to hear -- but doesn't draw a clear conclusion.

In a way, that's a shame. I was really hoping he'd help me understand how one of the nation's dominant political parties and the ideology it embraces chose intellectual bankruptcy.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR.... It was fairly amusing earlier this week when Glenn Beck told his radio audience that God is communicating with him directly and giving him "a plan ... that is not really a plan." As Beck explained it, "What He is asking us to do is to stand peacefully, quietly with anger, loudly with truth."

As a rule, when strange men with a history of substance abuse start claiming that they're passing along messages from above, it's a strong hint that the audience might want to change the channel. What's that old joke? "When you talk to God, it's prayer; when God talks to you, it's schizophrenia"?

Nevertheless, it was even more striking to hear Beck go a little further today.

"We are entering a dark, dark period of man. Um, I was, um, I was in the Vatican, and I was surprised that the individual I was speaking to knew who I was. And they said: 'Of course we know who you are. What you're doing is wildly important. We're entering a period of great darkness, and if good people don't stand up, we could enter a period unlike we have seen in a very long time.'"

Ben Dimiero summarized this nicely:

Of course, Beck doesn't clarify whether the "individual" he talked to was a Vatican official or a tourist from Omaha, but the impression he wants to give his listeners is clear: the Vatican itself has identified Beck as "wildly important" in the coming "dark, dark period of man."

You may see the ongoing debate in our country about health care reform, financial reform, and a variety of other issues in terms of how they will affect our policy decisions. Glenn Beck envisions things on a slightly larger scale - with himself at the center of it all.

Two things. First, given the support the Roman Catholic church has shown for social justice -- a concept Beck believes is "code" for Marxism -- I'm not sure why he would consider the Vatican a source for wisdom anyway. Just last month Beck implored his minions to "run as fast as you can" away from churches that value social justice. So, why'd he go to the Vatican in the first place?

And second, I know the phrase "delusions of grandeur" gets thrown around casually sometimes, but when someone who claims to receive messages from God, and characterizes himself as "wildly important" in some kind of global scenario to prevent a dark period for humanity, doesn't the phrase take on a more literal, clinical meaning?

—Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

DEMS HAVE A FEW WORDS FOR WELLPOINT.... A Reuters report yesterday pointed to an insurance company practice that's so awful, it's almost hard to believe. Reporter Murray Waas explained that WellPoint, an insurance powerhouse, apparently developed a policy of targeting customers with breast cancer, and then launching fraud investigations against them so their coverage could be dropped.

The practice is just breathtaking. According to government regulators and investigators, the affected customers had paid all their premiums and had no problems with their insurer, but WellPoint decided their breast cancer treatment would be expensive. It was easier to investigate them, rely on "erroneous or flimsy information," and drop the customers before the medical bills started piling up.

It's "rescission" at its most offensive.

Obama administration officials contacted WellPoint about this today, and White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer posted this item:

Just yesterday, we read with great alarm a news report that WellPoint, one of the country's largest health insurers, is routinely dropping coverage for women that are diagnosed with breast cancer.

These are the kinds of scenarios that motivated the President to work so long and so hard to pass health reform. And because of the health reform legislation passed last month, the worst excesses and abuses of the insurance industry -- including what WellPoint is said to have done -- will soon be reined in by new tough consumer protections.

Yesterday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote a letter to WellPoint's CEO urging her company to immediately end this harmful practice.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was outraged, too.

"WellPoint's practice of dropping anyone's coverage when they get sick - whether a woman with breast cancer or any other patient - is exactly the kind of insurance company abuse our new health care law prohibits.

"Soon every American can be secure knowing that their insurance companies cannot cancel their coverage because of an illness.

"And when Republican leaders call for repeal of the health reform law, they are endorsing a return to these abusive policies that have no place in our medical system."

I still occasionally find it hard to believe health care reform was deemed unnecessary by so many.

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

KEEPING A BIGOT AT ARM'S LENGTH.... The Rev. Franklin Graham is known for a few key parts of his background. He is, of course, the son of legendary evangelical preacher Billy Graham. He's also known for running a controversial evangelical relief organization called "Samaritan's Purse," which sought to enter Iraq in 2003 to convert Iraqis to Christianity after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

But perhaps most notably, Franklin Graham is known for hating Muslims. He famously denounced Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion" in 2001 -- and then again in 2006. This week, Graham appeared on Fox News and said Muslims can only be free if they worship Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, it was disconcerting when the Pentagon invited Graham to speak next month at an event honoring the National Day of Prayer. It's the kind of association between a notorious preacher and the U.S. military that sends the wrong signal to the Middle East.

Fortunately, Defense Department officials thought better of it and rescinded Graham's invitation.

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham says the Army has withdrawn an invitation for him to appear at a special Pentagon prayer service.

In a statement Thursday, Graham said he regrets the Army's decision and will continue to pray for the troops.

Right on cue, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) denounced the Pentagon's decision, defended Graham, and even lied about the context of Graham's 2001 anti-Islam remarks, pretending he hadn't trashed the entire faith tradition. The painfully unintelligent media personality went on to suggest Pentagon officials were being "hyper-politically correct" because a Christian minister expressed "his views on matters of faith."

Except, Franklin Graham didn't just express "his views on matters of faith"; he publicly denounced one of the world's largest religions, home to nearly 1.6 billion people. He's allowed to do that, of course; it's a free country. But why should the U.S. government associate itself with an unabashed bigot, and give him a platform?

Put it this way: if a prominent Muslim leader denounced Christianity as a "very evil and wicked religion," and then said Christians can only be free if they convert to Islam, would Sarah Palin and her cohorts be comfortable if the imam got an invitation to speak at a religious event at the Pentagon? I suspect not. Call it a hunch.

The Pentagon's decision was the right call. Bigots are free to say what they please, but they don't deserve officials' imprimatur.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* A reporter asked Florida Gov. Charlie Crist yesterday about his loyalty to the Republican Party. He responded by talking about his role in the GOP in the past tense: "I have very much enjoyed being a member of the Republican Party."

* A prominent conservative voice in Nevada politics is sounding the alarm about Sue "Chicken for Checkups" Lowden's future: "If the campaign doesn't get its 'stuff' together FAST, Lowden risks becoming the next Charlie Crist."

* In California, a new SurveyUSA poll shows Meg Whitman with a big lead over Steve Poizner in the Republicans' gubernatorial primary.

* The same California poll shows Tom Campbell leading the Republicans' Senate primary, with Carly Fiorina running seven points behind, and Chuck DeVore a more distant third.

* Republicans had struggled to find a top-tier challenger for Rep. Alan Grayson (D), but it now appears former state Sen. Daniel Webster (R) is poised to launch a campaign.

* There are only three weeks left before the filing deadline for candidates in Wyoming, and as of today, there are no Democrats running for governor. If you're a Montana Democrat reading this, just think: Easiest. Primary. Ever.

* In Maryland, Rasmussen shows incumbent Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) with a narrow lead over the Republican he defeated four years ago, Bob Ehrlich, 47% to 44%.

* Nate Silver's latest analysis finds that Senate Dems are poised to lose quite a few seats this year, but probably not enough to lose their majority.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

OBAMA SLAMS ANTI-IMMIGRANT PUSH IN ARIZONA.... Arizona's state legislature this week passed an odious anti-immigrant bill, which is now likely to become law. The proposal, among other things, makes it a crime to lack proper immigration paperwork in the state, and "requires police officers, if they form a 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, to determine the person's immigration status." Arizonans would be eligible for arrest if an officer thinks they might be an illegal immigrant and can't prove otherwise.

National leaders don't usually weigh in on state measures, but given the scope and the seriousness of the Arizona plan, President Obama sharply criticized the bill today.

Such legislation could "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," the president said during a naturalization ceremony for members of the United States Armed Services. [...]

Obama said Thursday that he has asked members of his administration to "closely monitor" the situation.

He warned that failure to act at a federal level to pass comprehensive immigration reform would only open the floodgates to irresponsible and overreaching measures on the state level, referring directly to "efforts in Arizona."

Having the president shine a light on this raises the issue to a whole new level. With talk of a renewed push on immigration reform at the federal level heating up, Greg Sargent summarized the larger political dynamic nicely: "By moving forward, Dems risk exacerbating the anger of the Tea Party brigade and alienating white swing voters, but they also energize a key portion of their base. The move also forces Republicans to choose between angering the Tea Partiers and alienating Latinos."

This makes plenty of Republicans nervous. Democrats are well aware of this.

As for Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has not yet said whether she'll approve of the bill, but she'll have to decide by tomorrow whether to sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without her signature. Brewer is, however, facing a tough GOP primary, which makes it more likely she'll sign the anti-immigrant measure to satisfy the demands of the party's far-right base.

What's more, criticism from President Obama might mean even more pressure on Brewer -- does she risk looking like she backed down in the face of White House pressure?

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

IN DEFENSE OF FACT-CHECKING, CONT'D.... The larger discussion about Sunday shows and fact-checking continues to percolate, and I'm delighted to see the concerns that originated with NYU professor Jay Rosen generate so much attention.

We know that ABC's "This Week" is partnering with PolitiFact.com to check its content, and Jake Tapper has defended the idea. We also know that "Meet the Press" has declined, and David Gregory has said that viewers can fact-check the program "on their own terms."

This week, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," weighed in, taking Gregory's side.

Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' "Face the Nation," similarly described his role as "the front line on fact-checking," when a guest makes a dubious claim, he's there to ask follow-up questions.

And if an inaccurate statement slips by, Schieffer said he expects that viewers and media-monitoring groups on the left and right will call attention to it quickly, noting that "everybody's welcome to fact-check us all they want."

To be sure, the notion that the host is the first line of defense against false claims is compelling. When a guest says something that's not true, ideally the host would follow-up and make that clear to viewers. But the first line of defense often fails -- sometimes a host isn't aggressive enough; sometimes the host simply doesn't have the information at his or her fingertips to know that the guest isn't telling the truth.

That said, Schieffer's take, like Gregory's, seems to miss the point of the exercise.

About 2.3 million Americans tune in to watch "Face the Nation." Presumably, they watch to learn something about current events and public affairs. Schieffer asks questions, and we hear arguments from various political figures. If those 2.3 million Americans want to know if the arguments are accurate, why would Schieffer expect them to go figure it out on their own? If they trust "Face the Nation" and its host enough to tune in, shouldn't they also trust the program to separate fact and fiction?

I suppose it's nice, in a way, to give the audience credit for being so sophisticated, they'll not only watch the interviews, but also have the wherewithal to do independent research to verify the accuracy of the claims.

But realistically, a mainstream audience isn't well equipped to do its own analysis and fact-checking -- the public relies on professional news outlets to provide them with reliable information. Schieffer wants to give viewers the arguments, not the truth. At that point, the show itself becomes unnecessary -- we can all just read press releases and then scour the 'net to learn if the points are true.

A couple of months ago, when this discussion began in earnest, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, host of his own CNN program on the media, talked to a guest who said online sites are adequate for fact-checking the newsmakers. Kurtz responded, "Exactly. And I'm saying why leave it entirely to the blogs? Why don't television producers and correspondents do it themselves?"

That was in January. We haven't heard a good answer yet.

Postscript: In related news, some interested students have launched "Meet the Facts" to fact-check "Meet the Press." Seems like a worthy endeavor.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

CONFUSION (STILL) REIGNS.... It's been about a month since the Affordable Care Act became law, and many political observers have been keeping an eye on the polls, watching to see if the breakthrough changed public perceptions. So far, there hasn't been much movement -- support has grown a bit, but opponents are still in the plurality.

For Democrats, the hope has long been that success would start paying greater dividends when the public grew less confused about the details. That trend has yet to begin in earnest, though, because people are still confused about the details.

The latest report from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of the ACA, while 40% have an unfavorable view. That's not bad, but the results are pretty partisan -- Dems like it, Republicans don't -- and the largest single group (30%) were those who have a "very unfavorable" view.

Chris Cillizza noted, meanwhile, that the same problem that has undermined the debate for a year still exists: the public still doesn't understand the proposal or its merits.

Majorities of Americans described themselves as "confused" about the new health care bill and acknowledge they don't have enough information about it to grasp how it will affect their lives, according to a new poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The numbers -- 55 percent of those tested expressed confusion about the law while 56 percent didn't know what impact it would have on them -- suggest that President Obama and his administration have their work cut out for them in the run-up to the midterm elections.

Perhaps, but it also suggests the numbers are malleable. Many of the Americans who have a negative impression of the new law don't necessarily know what it is they don't like. More information -- and an effective sales job -- is likely to translate to more favorable opinions.

Indeed, many of the benefits of the new that will kick in this year continue to be very popular.

More than eight in ten people support tax credits for small companies who offer coverage to their employees (86 percent), back the idea of making it harder for insurance companies to drop you when a major medical problem occurs (81 percent) and like the idea of barring health plans from charging a co-pay for basic services (82 percent).

This will continue to matter through the campaign season, as Democrats point to these benefits as the kind of provisions that need to be protected from Republicans who intend to repeal the entire legislative package. When it comes to the policy landscape, and health care policy in particular, eight in 10 Americans don't agree on much, but they're already on board with some of the new law's key measures. The more they become the focus of political debate, the better it is for Dems.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

DICK CHENEY'S GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT.... In 2004, a controversy over the Bush/Cheney administration and no-bid Halliburton contracts was just starting to grow, and Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), at the time the ranking Dem on the Senate Judiciary Committee, was pressing the issue.

But when it came time for an annual group photo on the Senate floor, Leahy chose to be gracious, and approached then-Vice President Dick Cheney in a friendly, collegial manner. As the senator approached, Cheney told Leahy, "Go f*ck yourself."

Instead of apologizing, Cheney ran off to Fox News soon after to boast about his classlessness, bragging about having "felt better after I had done it."

Yesterday, Cheney appeared on a conservative talk-radio show, and continued to crow about his behavior. When the far-right host gushed about how much he "loved that move," the former V.P. replied:

"You'd be surprised how many people liked that. That's sort of the best thing I ever did."

Eight years running the executive branch, and one of Dick Cheney's greatest accomplishments was gutter-talk with a respected U.S. senator. Sounds about right.

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

'BACK IN THE KITCHEN'.... When Republicans use sexism to go after Democratic women, there are varying degrees of subtlety. Late last year, for example, the National Republican Congressional Committee suggested House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be put "in her place" for disagreeing with an Army general about Afghanistan policy. The subtext seemed pretty obvious.

But in northeast Ohio this week, the Republican Executive Committee in Medina County dropped the pretense altogether while going after Rep. Betty Sutton (D).

A recent Medina GOP mailer that urges voters to "take Betty Sutton out of the House and put her back in the kitchen," has angered the Emily's List political action committee, which raises money for female Democratic candidates.

"They're set on defeating Cong. Betty Sutton (OH-13), whom we helped elect in 2006, and filling her spot with a conservative loyalist. And how will they go about doing that? By sending her right where they think she (and all women) belong: the kitchen," says a posting on the group's website, which links to a fundraising page for Sutton. "I wish I could say I were shocked, but I can't. I can, however, say I'm appalled, annoyed, and ready to do something about it."

It's not just Emily's List that finds this offensive. It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. For Republicans to still talk about forcing women "back in the kitchen" should be insulting to anyone who takes equality seriously.

For the record, Betty Sutton is an accomplished lawmaker and respected attorney -- and does not have a background as a professional chef. In other words, there's nothing about the congresswoman's background that makes "back in the kitchen" appropriate. The Republicans' rhetoric seems predicated entirely on gender.

Medina County GOP Chairman Bill Heck said the mailing was sent to roughly 15,000 Republican households in Ohio, and he "had not received any complaints."

He might think that makes this better. It actually makes it worse -- why don't those GOP households have a problem with this blatant misogyny?

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

REPUBLICANS QUIETLY HUDDLE WITH BANK LOBBYISTS (AGAIN).... Senate Republicans recently struggled to explain the propriety of GOP leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) huddling with hedge fund managers and Wall Street elites, strategizing on how best to kill financial regulatory reform. But as bad as that looked, yesterday was arguably even uglier.

[Yesterday afternoon], President Obama traveled to New York to tell the nation's most influential bankers to call off their "battalions of financial industry lobbyists" and embrace a new regulatory structure meant to avert another economic crisis. But around the same time back in Washington, D.C., bank lobbyists hosted a fundraiser for Senate Republicans, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who has become the Republican liaison for Wall Street fundraising.

The invitation to the fundraiser, obtained by the Party Time blog of the Sunlight Foundation, shows that the it was hosted by lobbyists Wendy Grubb, Kirsten Chadwick, Scott Reed, and a variety of corporate PACs. Grubb is a top lobbyist for Citigroup, a bank that took taxpayer TARP funds and has yet to repay them. Chadwick, a former staffer to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), is a lobbyist for Zurich Financial Group, a financial services conglomerate.

The event was held at the headquarters of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and was ostensibly a fundraiser for Florida Sen. George LeMieux (R) -- who isn't seeking another term, and doesn't really need to be raising money.

After the Sunlight Foundation obtained and posted the invitation to the gathering, a few outlets sent folks to cover the event. But senators, lobbyists, and assorted elites were not in a chatty mood -- attendees refused to answer questions, and all but one of the senators decided to not even use the front door.

Evan McMorris-Santoro explained why they might have been embarrassed: "There's nothing new about politicians in Washington having closed-press meetings with lobbyists. There's not anything new about politicians fundraising at those meetings. But this event came at the exact moment Obama was taking on one of Washington's most powerful lobbies -- the financial industry -- on its home turf.... [W]hile Obama took on lobbyists, the GOP fed them."

It's not exactly surprising, but there is an impressive shameless quality to the whole thing.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Things go from bad to worse on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform.

* Better, but still too high: "First-time claims for jobless benefits fell last week, evidence that employers are laying off fewer workers. But claims remain too high to signal steady job creation."

* Home sales "rose more than expected in March, reversing three months of declines."

* Greece: "The Greek debt crisis escalated again Thursday as new data showed the government's gaping budget deficit was worse than previously thought and investors expressed fears that officials in Athens may not agree to stringent demands for an international bailout."

* The Dems' Wall Street reform bill will reduce the budget deficit.

* Iran: "In a matter of days, the United Nations will impose sanctions against Iran for illegally pursuing nuclear weapons, Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview Thursday."

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) thinks tackling immigration reform "destroys the ability to do something like energy and climate." I suspect he might be right about this, though Stephen Stromberg touches on a related point about EPA action that's worth watching.

* The latest summary of Sue Lowden's "Chickens for Checkups" controversy.

* Does Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) have any proof to bolster his White House/SEC conspiracy theory? By his own admission, "No."

* The Senate Budget Committee moves on this year's budget.

* Did this morning's RNC piece from the Washington Times get the story right? Not necessarily.

* Stephanie Cutter will oversee the White House's health care messaging strategy. Good move.

* Is it me, or is DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano just plain likable?

* Joe Conason explains why it matters that the U.S. is becoming more respected internationally in the Obama era.

* That's even more than I would have guessed: "In recent years, at least 20 Fox News personalities have endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or causes, or against Democratic candidates or causes, in more than 300 instances and in at least 49 states."

* New rules about unpaid interns.

* And Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) believes "trained professionals" can spot undocumented immigrants based on what they're wearing. Seriously.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

HARD TO IMAGINE.... The debate among the British candidates for prime minister is surprisingly captivating -- it's on right now, if you want to check it out -- and I was especially fascinated by a voter's question about an upcoming U.K. visit scheduled by Pope Benedict XVI. The voter wanted to know, given the pope's views on science, health, and diversity, and given the Vatican's scandal involving sexual abuse of children, would the three major-party candidates welcome the papal visit?

All three candidates -- Conservative leader David Cameron, Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg, and incumbent Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- offered roughly the same response. They strongly disagree with the pope on social issues -- stem-cell research, contraception, gay rights -- and abhor the church's ongoing scandal, but would nevertheless welcome Benedict, out of respect for England's Catholic population and in deference to religious diversity.

But the way Clegg began his answer was rather striking:

"I'm not a man of faith but my wife is Catholic and my children are being brought up as Catholic...."

Now, it was amazing enough to hear all of the candidates clearly support a progressive (by U.S. standards) approach to social policy. But even more remarkable was watching a major party candidate feel entirely comfortable describing himself as not being a person of faith, knowing that this acknowledgement probably won't affect his electoral chances.

It stands in pretty stark contrast to politics in the United States.

—Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

REID TO GOP: I DARE YOU.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced this afternoon that "the games of stalling are over" when it comes to Wall Street reform. "I'm not going to waste any more time of the American people," he declared.

And with that, the Senate leadership started the clock and scheduled its first procedural vote for 5:15 p.m. (ET) on Monday afternoon.

As President Obama spoke in New York on Thursday about the need for such landmark legislation, Reid detailed plans to hold a crucial test vote on the Senate floor Monday.

"The games of stalling are over," Reid said.

He will need Republican support to reach the 60 votes required to overcome the threat of a filibuster and move with formal debate on the bill, which among other things would create an agency to protect consumers against abuses in mortgages and other loans, set up a council of regulators to watch for risks to the financial system, and give the government power to wind down large, troubled financial firms.

And what of the bipartisan talks that have made some progress this week? They'll continue -- and by most accounts, participants are optimistic -- but Reid isn't going to wait for them anymore.

It's a bit of a gamble for the Democratic leadership. If a final deal is not in place on Monday afternoon, all 41 Senate Republicans may very well block the debate from getting underway. Of course, Dems don't necessarily see that as a bad result -- they'll use it against Republicans in the campaign, and then keep working until they get the legislation through the chamber.

But Democrats seem to think it won't come to that anyway. Either the deadline will produce a completed deal, or a GOP senator or two may feel compelled to break ranks, vote to start the debate, and keep the process moving forward.

Either way, Reid and the Democratic leadership seem to feel pretty confident right now, secure enough to effectively dare Republicans to stand in the way of the reform effort. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "We feel we have the upper hand."

—Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

FLORIDA REPUBLICANS REMINDED OF 'LOYALTY OATH'.... It appears increasingly likely that Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will depart the Republican Senate primary and run for the vacant seat as an independent. Of course, as a sitting governor and life-long Republican, if Crist does make the jump, he'll probably try to convince some of his closest allies to stick with him.

The Republican Party of Florida is anticipating this, and "making preparations" to remind its members that they don't really have a say in the matter -- if Crist isn't a GOP candidate, they're forbidden to endorse him.

In a memo to the executive director of the FL GOP, general counsel Jason Gonzalez concludes a party rule would prevent GOP officials from backing Crist's campaign if he runs as anything other than a GOPer.

"[T]he Party Loyalty Oath forbids Republican Executive Committee members from supporting any candidate other than the candidate nominated by the voters of the Republican Party through its primary election," Gonzalez wrote in the memo. The loyalty oath means GOP officials "cannot provide their active, public, or financial support to any candidate other than 'the Republican candidate' in a general election."

The loyalty oath allows party officials to back a registered GOPer in a nonpartisan race, but in a partisan election, they wouldn't be allowed to support Crist, even if he remains a registered GOPer. What's more, party officials have to actively ask for their contributions back if they want to keep their own jobs.

I can appreciate party discipline as much as the next guy, and I've long been impressed by Republicans' efforts to keep members in line, but it's incredible to me that GOP officials in Florida are actually required to sign a loyalty oath. Isn't that just a little authoritarian for 21st-century America?

According to a CNN report, the loyalty oath applies to all of the members of the State Republican Executive Committee, the County Executive Committees, and precinct committee members, as well every Florida Republican in Congress, all six GOP statewide officeholders, and Floridians on the Republican National Committee.

The party of "freedom"? I don't think so.

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

ROVE'S SUSPECT RELIABILITY ON PRIVACY RIGHTS.... Fox News personality Karl Rove chatted with Greta Van Susteren last night about Wall Street reform, which he's apparently skeptical of.

In fact, the former Bush/Cheney aide appears to have some creative concerns that haven't exactly been at the heart of the larger legislative debate. (thanks to reader C.G. for the heads-up)

"This [bill] is stuffed with a lot of things that are going to -- that are going to become apparent over time that are going to be problems for Democrats. You may not know about this. It creates a new office and gives it a half a billion dollars a year and a huge start-up for computer systems in order to monitor every financial transaction in the United States and to use that data to arrive at policy recommendations about sensible regulation.

"So they're literally going to have the capacity to go through everybody's brokerage account and everybody's checking account and everybody's credit card and everybody's financial transactions and collect -- sweep that information and then analyze it."

Rove added that he's concerned about "empowering an agency" of the government to "peer into" Americans' personal accounts "in order to do with it whatever they want to do."

As a substantive matter, I haven't the foggiest idea what Rove is complaining about, but since this isn't even a concern raised by congressional Republicans -- who've been fabricating talking points as they go along -- I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Rove's claim isn't an especially credible one. If he has evidence to back this up, I'm all ears.

But let's also note the irony -- Karl Rove is complaining about big government invading Americans' privacy. If memory serves, it was Rove's team that not only embraced and shaped the Patriot Act, but also created a system of warrantless wiretaps with no oversight or accountability.

If there are legitimate concerns about personal privacy and monitoring of financial transactions, let's hear them. But given Karl Rove's track record, and his general disregard for reality, perhaps he's not the best spokesperson to be raising these questions.

—Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... By now, the pattern should be rather familiar: policymakers identify an issue in urgent need of attention; Democrats propose a worthwhile solution; Republicans balk; and President Obama delivers a big, high-profile speech to put things right.

With this in mind, the president was in New York City earlier, speaking from Cooper Union about the need to bring safeguards and accountability to a financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economy. It was less a stirring address and more a prosecutor's closing argument. Treating financiers like a skeptical jury, the president urged Wall Street to change course: "[Pending proposals] represent significant improvement on the flawed rules we have in place today, despite the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape them to their special interests. I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector."

Obama also took a moment to defend his commitment to the free market, though he added, "a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it."

But it was a quote from a magazine article that was perhaps the most memorable aspect of the remarks:

"There has always been a tension between the desire to allow markets to function without interference -- and the absolute necessity of rules to prevent markets from falling out of balance. But managing that tension, one we've debated since our founding, is what has allowed our country to keep up with a changing world. For in taking up this debate, in figuring out how to apply our well-worn principles with each new age, we ensure that we do not tip too far one way or the other -- that our democracy remains as dynamic as the economy itself. Yes, the debate can be contentious. It can be heated. But in the end it serves to make our country stronger. It has allowed us to adapt and thrive.

"I read a report recently that I think fairly illustrates this point. It's from Time magazine. And I quote: 'Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment. A bill just passed ... would rivet upon their institutions what they considered a monstrous system ... Such a system, they felt, would not only rob them of their pride of profession but would reduce all U.S. banking to its lowest level.' That appeared in Time magazine -- in June of 1933. The system that caused so much concern and consternation? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation -- the FDIC -- an institution that has successfully secured the deposits of generations of Americans.

"In the end, our system only works - our markets are only free - when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions - that it works for all of us.

"This is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. It's what I said when I spoke here two years ago. Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or we fall together as one nation."

It's funny, in a way -- hysterical conservatives offer the same shrieks, generation after generation, and with the benefit of hindsight, they always look ridiculous.

Nevertheless, there's been a fair amount of progress in the Senate of late, and success appears all but inevitable. Here's hoping the president sealed the deal.

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)