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

* As of this afternoon, there were nine confirmed fatalities and dozens of injuries in the violence off the coast of Gaza, where the Israeli military targeted an aid flotilla.

* As expected, the diplomatic crisis for Israel is fairly intense: "Several European nations and Turkey summoned Israeli envoys for an explanation of the actions. At the request of Turkey, The United Nations Security Council met in emergency session on Monday over the attack, which occurred in international waters north of Gaza and killed at least nine people."

* Israel's relationship with Turkey, a NATO member and key ally for Israel in the Muslim world, is poised to deteriorate to new lows.

* Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has postponed his trip to Washington, which was scheduled for tomorrow.

* The next effort to address the gusher of leaking oil in the Gulf carries a serious potential downside: it could make matters worse.

* BP CEO Tony Hayward went ridiculously off message, saying he'd like to resolve the crisis because it's the only way he'll get his life back. And BP wonders why so many are so incensed.

* Inching away from the brink on the Korean peninsula: "North Korea expressed a desire to keep a joint industrial complex in operation, South Korean officials said on Monday, while the South indicated that it might reconsider its decision to revive psychological warfare against the North. The two movements showed that the two Koreas were carefully weighing the option of easing their confrontation, analysts said."

* A severe storm forced President Obama to cancel his prepared Memorial Day remarks in Illinois this afternoon, fearful that the lightening may be dangerous for the audience. When it became apparent the storm would not clear anytime soon, the president met with families on buses where attendees had taken shelter.

* Germany's president, a largely ceremonial post, was forced to resign after making controversial remarks about using the military to protect the country's economic interests.

* Phoenix was home over the weekend to some large demonstrations both for and against Arizona's new anti-immigrant law.

* Ohio has seen its biggest jump in job growth in 22 years.

* The World Science Festival will get underway in New York this week. Looks like a great event.

* Great piece from the estimable Jessica Valenti on the "fake feminism" of a certain former half-term governor.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

MEMORIAL DAY 2010.... The first last Monday in May is always significant, but in the midst of two wars, one of which claimed its 1,000th American life just last week, Memorial Day takes on a far greater import.

Capturing in words the nation's gratitude towards those who volunteered to put their lives on the line, and made the ultimate sacrifice, is almost impossible. I found Vice President Biden's remarks this morning at Arlington National Cemetery, however, to be rather powerful.

It wasn't included in the clip, but Biden also told the assembled audience of the fallen soldiers, "They lived with integrity. They served nobly. They gave everything. They fought for what they believed in. And maybe most importantly, they believed in something bigger than themselves. They believed in all of you. They believed in all of us. And they believed in America."

I'm also reminded of something my friend Hilzoy wrote last year at this time: "Every Memorial Day (and not only then), I try to remind myself of what it means that people who serve in the military are willing to fight and die when our civilian leaders ask them to, whether they agree with those leaders or not. That's a stunning act of faith in American democracy. In return, we owe everyone who serves the effort to be the best citizens we can be, and to elect the people who are most likely to exercise good judgment about whether and when to ask them to risk their lives."

—Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

MEMORIAL DAY EVENTS AT ARLINGTON.... Following up on an item from the weekend, President Obama will honor Memorial Day at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside Chicago, while Vice President Biden appears at Arlington National Cemetery. This has, apparently, offended some prominent right-wing voices.

Fox News' Glenn Beck said the president "has decided not to honor our troops on Memorial Day." Far-right blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson called the president's plan's "offensive."

There are, of course, several problems with this nonsensical attack, beyond the obvious fact that Obama will honor the troops, Beck's inanity notwithstanding. There's also the fact that several modern presidents have attended Memorial Day events outside of Arlington.

What's more, CBS News' Peter Maer noted other Obama efforts, which haven't generated as much attention.

Like his predecessors, Mr. Obama has expressed deep feelings about the troops in both words and deeds, often with as little fanfare as the presidency allows. Like other presidents, he meets privately with the families of the fallen. He watches developments in the buildup in Afghanistan and the planned drawdown in Iraq.

Unlike other presidents, he paid a middle of the night somber visit to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to witness the return of dead soldiers.

Perhaps the most eloquent statement on Mr. Obama's stand on the military comes from Gold Star Mother Carol Barbieri of Maryland. Her son, Army Specialist and paratrooper Thomas "TJ" Barbieri, was killed in Iraq in 2006.

TJ's brothers Stephen and Matthew were visiting his grave at Arlington on Veterans Day last year when Mr. Obama stopped to pay his respects. He asked about their loved one and expressed his appreciation for the sacrifice.

When Obama went to Arlington a year ago, he did something his predecessor did not -- he visited the graves in Arlington's Section 60, where troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried.

Reflecting on the president visiting an Illinois cemetery today, Barbieri told CBS, "Our heroes are interred all over the nation. The President of the United States should be remembering and honoring the men and women who have fought for this country. It doesn't matter where he does that as long as he never forgets them."

It's a simple message that even Beck and Erickson should be able to understand.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

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.

* After his third-place showing in Hawaii's recent special election, former Rep. Ed Case (D) announced that he will not run again this fall. The decision clears the way for state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa (D) to take on Rep. Charles Djou (R) in a head-to-head match-up. (thanks to several alert readers for passing this along)

* In the wake of the controversy over Rand Paul's (R) extreme worldview, multiple polls show a competitive Senate race in Kentucky, though Paul is still ahead. A Bluegrass Poll, for example, shows the right-wing ophthalmologist leading state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) by six, 51% to 45%.

* Still more evidence that Connecticut voters aren't swayed by the Vietnam-related controversy: a Research 2000 poll shows state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) leading wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R), 52% to 33%.

* With a week to go before California's Republican primaries, a USC/LA Times poll shows Carly Fiorina leading Tom Campbell in the Senate race 38% to 23%. The same poll shows Meg Whitman leading Steve Poizner in a gubernatorial primary, 53% to 29%.

* Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, exaggerated his military service on multiple occasions, usually in print. There is a video, however, of Kirk misstating the truth during a congressional hearing.

* Recent polling out of Georgia suggest former Gov. Roy Barnes won't have any trouble winning this year's Democratic gubernatorial primary.

* And in South Carolina, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows incumbent Sen. Jim DeMint (R) leading Vic Rawl (D), 49% to 30%. DeMint is, of course, the heavy favorite, but I'm a little surprised DeMint is below 50%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

ISRAEL FIRES ON GAZA AID FLOTILLA.... In a development that is as stunning as it is tragic, this actually happened this morning.

At least 10 pro-Palestinian activists were killed and dozens were wounded aboard an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip when Israeli naval commandos seized control of the boats early Monday, the Israeli army said.

Some Israeli, Turkish and Arab media outlets put the death toll as high as 20 activists. The wounded were evacuated to Israeli hospitals and the ships were being led into Israel's Ashdod port, where the passengers and aid supplies are to be unloaded and screened. More than four naval personnel were also injured. [...]

Some in Israel, before the raid and after, questioned the wisdom of Israel trying to take the ships by force. Past flotillas either reached Gaza or were diverted to Israel peacefully.

There are, not surprisingly, competing versions of exactly what transpired, and Israeli officials not only defended the existing blockade policy, but said Israeli forces faced resistance on the ships. Every claim has a counter-claim, of course, and those condemning the violent raid this morning insist Israeli forces attacked peaceful civilians, including a flotilla carrying a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and 85-year-old Holocaust survivor.

Either way, as the AP noted, the pre-dawn violence has "set off worldwide condemnation and a diplomatic crisis."

This much is clearly true. The ship was unofficially sponsored by Turkey, which has long been a key Israeli ally in the regional, and which recalled its ambassador to Israel this morning in the wake of the incident. The United Nations, among others, is demanding a detailed Israeli explanation.

The White House issued a written statement, noting that the United States "deeply regrets" the loss of life and injuries, and was gathering information to understand exactly what transpired in this "tragedy."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House tomorrow, but whether that meeting will still occur is unclear.

Update: I just learned that Netanyahu will tend to this crisis, and not travel to D.C. tomorrow.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG CAMPAIGN SEASON.... The Virginia Republican Party thought it had the perfect new attack to go after Reps. Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello, Democratic incumbents the GOP considers vulnerable. Instead, we have yet another example of the contemporary Republican Party's intellectual rigor, or lack thereof.

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon delivered an address to Congress, and some lawmakers stood to applaud when Calderon called for American policymakers to reinstate the assault weapons ban.

The Virginia Republican Party pounced. If House Dems applauded the line about the assault weapons ban, and Boucher and Perriello are House Dems, then Boucher and Perriello must want to bring back the assault weapons ban. The state GOP put together an attack ad showing footage of the applause, demanding to know if Boucher and Perriello were among the participants.

The Virginia Republican Party forgot to do their homework.

Sensing a blockbuster investigative opportunity, the [LA Times' political blog] did its due diligence and called both offices (as requested by the commercials and the party chairman) to find out if they gave Calderon a standing O.

The suspense lasted for about 30 seconds: Nope.

Boucher opposes reinstating the assault weapons ban, has an A+ rating from the NRA, has picked up an NRA endorsement, and wasn't even in the room for Calderon's speech. Likewise, Perriello didn't attend the speech, and has written to the Justice Department to express his formal opposition to reinstating the assault weapon ban.

So, the Virginia Republican Party screwed up. It can happen to anyone. They got a little lazy, chose not to do their due diligence, and ended up looking stupid. They can just pull the dishonest attack ad, and go after Boucher and Perriello over something else.

Except, the state GOP is refusing to back down, and will continue to air the ad the party now knows is wrong. As the Virginia Republican Party sees it, Boucher and Perriello didn't condemn the speech they didn't hear, so therefore, it's fair to suggest they might support the policy they oppose.

The mind reels.

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

WHAT PAWLENTY CONSIDERS 'PHONY'.... "Meet the Press" host David Gregory spoke briefly to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), and asked him about the recent successes of the Obama administration's economic recovery efforts. Gregory wanted to know if the president deserves credit for having rescued the economy. The all-but-declared presidential candidate replied:

"[Y]ou can't push this much money into the economy in the near term and not have it have some effect. But what I would suggest to you is it's phony effect. I think you're going to see in 2011, 2012, if you don't have the private economy pick up the slack of the phony inflation of the economy over the next couple of years, you're going to trigger a whole set of other adverse events, including potentially inflation."

Pawlenty's understanding of these issues has consistently been pretty embarrassing. You may recall, for example, that instead of an economic stimulus at the height of the crisis last year, the Minnesota Republican argued that the key to getting us back on track was a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was the kind of prescription that, in a sane political world, would permanently destroy one's credibility on economic policy.

But Pawlenty keeps talking, and now believes our fragile recovery is "phony." I have no idea what that means, so let's unpack this a bit.

First, Pawlenty implicitly concedes that the stimulus has had a positive effect. That's the opposite of the position from a year ago, and stands in contrast to the usual conservative line, which is that the recovery effort actually hurt the economy.

Second, he thinks it's imperative for the "private economy" to improve. Pawlenty may or may not pay attention to current events, but in the latest monthly job numbers -- which were the strongest in four years -- 231,000 of the 290,000 new jobs came from the private sector.

Third, if Pawlenty sees inflation, rather than economic growth, as the key concern, he's really not paying attention.

And fourth, it may be inconvenient to bring up, but it was Pawlenty who relied on stimulus money to balance his own budget.

Instead of dismissing the recovery effort as phony, the governor should be sending the president a thank-you note.

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

MORE EVIDENCE OF A DADT CONSENSUS.... The media roundtable on ABC's "This Week" yesterday featured at least some ideological diversity. It was heartening, then, to see unanimity on the panel when the discussion turned to repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Salon's Joan Walsh noted yesterday, after her appearance on the show, the "remarkable consensus" among the panelists, who endorsed the repeal line embraced by Colin Powell, who appeared earlier in the same program.

Matt Dowd, a former advisor to George W. Bush, seemed almost annoyed with his party's intransigence on the issue. Noting the party's near-unanimous opposition to ending the discriminatory policy, Dowd said, "Republican officeholders are so far out of step with this."

Of particular interest, host Jake Tapper noted to George Will that polls show overwhelming public support for scrapping DADT -- and that includes majority support among self-identified conservatives, Republicans, and evangelicals. Why, Tapper asked, would GOP policymakers continue to fight so hard to protect the status quo? Republican lawmakers, Will replied, are "not being very intelligent."

The panel chuckled; no one disagreed; and the discussion moved on.

What I liked about the unanimity within the roundtable was not its novelty, but the opposite. The remarks and tone of the discussion made it seem as if this was hardly worth arguing about anymore. Dowd, whose son is on active duty, at one point called the debate "done."

It reinforces the notion that DADT's repeal is a no-brainer at the level of the American mainstream. It's been a long time coming.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

'SERVES HIM RIGHT'.... Conservative columnist George Will said this morning that President Obama is "being unfairly blamed" for the response to the BP oil spill disaster. But, Will added, he's glad the president is receiving the unfair criticism anyway.

As the columnist sees it, the president said the government could solve problems. And since it hasn't yet solved this problem, the disaster "just strikes at the narrative of competence."

I continue to be mystified by this. Blaming the president is unfair, Will conceded, because the president is doing all he can under impossible circumstances. But blaming the president is worthwhile, Will added in the next breath, because we now know government officials can't quickly shut down a gushing oil leak a mile below sea level.

If we were to take Will's point to the next step -- the federal government lacks the wherewithal to fix every problem, so some tasks should be left in the hands of private enterprise and the states -- I suppose the lesson is we should have BP and Louisiana state agencies solve the problem.

That ought to work, right?

At this point, the discourse seems to boil down to a) those who want to see the president don a wetsuit and head to the Gulf floor; b) those who want to see the president don a cape and fly around the planet really quickly in order to reverse time; and c) those who want to see the president pound on podiums and lose his cool, as if that would make a difference. (Thanks, Maureen Dowd, for comparing Obama to Spock again. That never gets old.)

Here's an idea for assignment editors: publish a piece with specific steps federal officials should take but haven't. Because at this point, unless we can fix the leak with useless media palaver, there's not much point to the breathless speculation, nebulous criticism, and finger-pointing.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (89)

GRIDLOCK WOULD BE THE LEAST OF THE COUNTRY'S TROUBLES.... If the truly ridiculous interest in the Sestak job-offer story tells us anything, it's that a House Republican majority in 2011 would look an awful lot like the House Republican majority in the mid-1990s. Paul Waldman noted the other day the kind of political environment we could expect.

...If Republicans were in charge of Congress right now, they'd be holding endless hearings on not just this issue, but a hundred other cases of alleged Obama administration malfeasance. For those of you too young to remember, the Clinton years were a parade of ridiculous "investigations" into things like whether aide Vince Foster was murdered by a nefarious conspiracy. The Republican Congress heard 140 hours of testimony -- repeat, 140 hours of testimony -- on the burning question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list.

Should they be fortunate enough to take one or both houses of Congress in this fall's elections, you can bet the GOP is going to get right to work on renewing that sorry spectacle. The only thing holding them back now is the fact that their lack of institutional power renders them unable to create events -- like hearings -- to which cameras can go and around which news stories can be built. If they do take back even the House, it'll be a long two years.

My personal favorite was the time Rep. Dan Burton (R) of Indiana, the bizarre chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, fired a bullet into a "head-like object" -- reportedly a melon -- in his backyard to test his Foster-related conspiracy theories. Burton wasn't just some talk-radio shock-jock or publicity-hungry activist; he was the chairman of a congressional committee with oversight authority over the White House. And he wielded that gavel as if he were a fringe blogger with a chip on his shoulder, reinforcing the non-existent line between the GOP base and the GOP mainstream.

Now, instead of Burton, we'd have Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) playing the role of grand inquisitor. Michael Tomasky argued the political bloodlust may be even worse now than in the '90s.

"This is what's at stake this fall," Tomasky concluded. "Forget policy. It's this: endless hearings and investigations until they find something that gets the public worked up, or until the public just cries uncle and says oh okay we're sick of hearing you crazy people, if it'll shut you up, just impeach the bastard already."

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

SHOULDERING RESPONSIBILITY -- PERHAPS TOO MUCH.... Back in September 2004, John Kerry had an assessment of the Bush/Cheney presidency that I'd always wished had caught on: "His is the Excuse Presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops -- it's where the blame begins."

It wasn't that Bush led an error-free presidency; it was that he was never willing to accept responsibility for missteps. Slow economy? It's Enron's fault. No WMD in Iraq? It's the intelligence community's fault. Job losses? Clinton's fault. Record deficits? Osama bin Laden's fault. Health care crisis? Trial lawyers' fault. Frayed international alliances? France's fault. If you had a problem, Bush had a scapegoat.

Dana Milbank argues today that while his predecessor "refused to accept blame," President Obama seems to accept too much blame.

"In case you were wondering who's responsible," he added, "I take responsibility."

That's very clear, sir. But why not share some with the guys at BP who actually are responsible for the spill?

I don't want to take this out of context here. Milbank's column was generally quite critical of the president. Milbank thinks it's "refreshing" to see a president speak candidly about missteps, but the columnist nevertheless complained about his perceptions of Obama's "cool, almost bloodless" emotions.

This is obviously the media establishment's new favorite -- if they can't think of specific steps the president should take but hasn't, they'll complain over and over and over again about what they think about his ability to emote.

But Milbank's more limited point -- Obama sure is willing to shoulder a lot of blame, whether it's warranted or not -- seems far more interesting.

I searched the White House website for instances in which the president said publicly that the "buck stops" with him. It turns out the president has claimed responsibility for not only the oil spill crisis, but also on everything from Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing, to the $1.3 trillion budget deficit Republicans left for him to clean up, to the Wall Street crisis that began long before he took office.

When it comes to leadership qualities in a crisis, having a president who doesn't just causally pass the buck is a pleasant change of pace.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

MITCH MCCONNELL'S ANTI-GOVERNING CRUSADE.... It was a fairly busy week on Capitol Hill, and an effort to clear some of the backlog of unconfirmed nominees slipped largely under the radar. That's a shame; what transpired was important.

There are, at present, about 240 administration nominees waiting for a confirmation vote, an almost comically ridiculous number given how long they've been waiting. On Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) tried to reduce the number by seeking unanimous consent to approve about a third of the pending nominees as a bloc. The total of about 80 officials was made up of nominees who'd already been through the vetting process, had already been approved by the relevant committee, and were filling government posts that are currently vacant.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused. It wasn't because the nominees weren't qualified; it was because McConnell's feelings were hurt when the White House gave a recess appointment to Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board earlier this year.

And so, important government posts remain vacant, and qualified officials wait patiently for months (or years) for no apparent reason, because Mitch McConnell isn't especially concerned with whether our federal government has the personnel in place to function as it's supposed to.

James Fallows explained what a ridiculous mess this is.

[I]t is bad for America to leave so much of its governmental and diplomatic leadership vacant for months or years at the beginning of each administration -- and it's worse, in the long run, to allow a process that makes many talented people think, Why would I ever want to go through that? Why would I want to spend half a year on the financial and security vetting, during which time I was not supposed even to tell my friends I was being considered; and then another half-year being ready to switch from my normal life to a new role somewhere else, but not knowing when that would happen, if ever?

Mitch McConnell objects to Craig Becker's role on the NLRB? Fine. Let him make his case. But can we stand a system that allows him to gum up the whole rest of the government at his whim? Rule by laws, not men, is supposed to be the idea here. For now the main countervailing force is to put a spotlight on the petulant men behaving this way.

It's yet another reminder that Republican lawmakers are, far too often, fundamentally unserious about their duties. I realize these kinds of developments remain invisible to the typical American voter, but that's unfortunate. There's no reason to reward a child-like political party that punishes the country over petty piques and tired tantrums.

There's nothing wrong with the design of the system. It doesn't function the way it should because reckless and irresponsible miscreants refuse to let it function.

—Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

MARK KIRK'S EXAGGERATED SERVICE RECORD.... About two weeks ago, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's (D) service record became the subject of intense scrutiny, after a speech emerged in which the Senate candidate said he served "in," rather than "during," the war in Vietnam. Upon further inspection, it appeared that Blumenthal had merely misspoken, and voters in Connecticut didn't seem to care.

But the story has brought into focus the service record of other candidates, and in the case of Rep. Mark Kirk's (R) Senate campaign in Illinois, that's proving to be an unwelcome development.

Kirk, a U.S. Naval Reserve officer, really has served honorably. The problem appears to be his tendency to embellish this record.

First, Kirk claimed to be "the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom." That turned out to be untrue -- Kirk served during the conflict, not in it. Second, Kirk claimed to "command the war room in the Pentagon," which also turned out to be untrue.

Today, we learn of Kirk's third strike.

The Republican candidate for President Obama's old Senate seat inaccurately claimed to have received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s.

Rep. Mark Kirk, a Navy reservist elected to Congress in 2001, acknowledged the error in his official biography after The Washington Post began looking into whether he had received the prestigious award, which is given by top Navy officials to a single individual annually. The Post's inquiries were sparked by complaints from a representative of state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Kirk's Democratic opponent in the Illinois Senate race.

Kirk, an Appropriations Committee member, changed his Web site last week to incorporate a different account of the award. Kirk wrote on his blog that "upon a recent review of my records, I found that an award listed in my official biography was misidentified" and that the award he had intended to list was given to his entire unit.

How did the bogus claim end up on Kirk's biography? Perhaps because he boasted about the honor in a congressional hearing, bragging to his colleagues, "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year." It's a claim, we now know, was greatly exaggerated.

Again, just to reemphasize, Kirk really does have an impressive service record, which he has every reason to be proud of. This truth makes it all the more curious why the Republican candidate has felt the need to embellish this record on multiple occasions.

As for the larger discourse, it will also be worth watching to see if the media treats the Kirk story with nearly as much enthusiasm as the Blumenthal story.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

'TOP KILL' SCRAPPED AFTER EFFORT COMES UP SHORT.... The "top kill" approach had been deemed the best short-term solution to the gusher of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. Officials pumped 30,000 barrels of mud into the well, and there was some evidence mid-week that the attempts were having an effect.

The progress proved to be illusory, and the pressure of the gusher proved to be too strong. After some fits and starts, yesterday, "top kill" was scrapped altogether.

In another serious setback in the effort to stem the flow of oil gushing from a well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico, BP engineers said Saturday that the "top kill" technique had failed and, after consultation with government officials, they had decided to move on to another strategy.

Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer for exploration and production, said at a news conference that the engineers would try once again to solve the problem with a containment cap and that it could take four to seven days for the device to be in place.

"After three full days of attempting top kill, we now believe it is time to move on to the next of our options," Mr. Suttles said.

An anonymous technician on the scene said, "The engineers are disappointed, and management is upset. Nothing is good, nothing is good."

The next effort will be an adapted version of a previous attempt, with a containment structure intended to fit over the leak. The structure would then funnel the oil to ships on the surface. A similar previous effort failed, but BP officials claim to have learned valuable lessons from that experience.

Then again, BP officials claim a lot of things, and even if this works exactly as planned, the mechanism will still only capture most of the oil, not all.

This new cap procedure will be ready in four to seven days.

The ideal solution, everyone seems to agree, are the two relief wells, which are continuing to move forward. But while the wells are the most likely to work, they're also the slowest -- the drilling of the relief wells is not scheduled to be complete until August. One of the two wells is reportedly ahead of schedule, but even if that pace continues, it won't be ready until July.

Once "top kill" had been scrapped, the White House issued a statement from the president, which said in part, "As I said yesterday, every day that this leak continues is an assault on the people of the Gulf Coast region, their livelihoods, and the natural bounty that belongs to all of us. It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until the waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimized by this manmade disaster are made whole."

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

WITHOUT PRECEDENT -- EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHER TIMES.... Monday is, of course, Memorial Day, and President Obama will honor the day at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside Chicago, while Vice President Biden appears at Arlington National Cemetery. This, apparently, has caused a stir in some circles.

Glenn Beck told his minions this week that that the president "has decided not to honor our troops on Memorial Day," which isn't even close to true. The deranged media personality, apparently referring to Obama's decision not to be at Arlington, added, "Maybe this has happened before. I don't recall it. "

In reality, this isn't especially unusual.

Obama is not the first president to miss the Arlington ceremony. Ronald Reagan spoke at West Point one year, and went to his California ranch another year. George H.W. Bush, a war veteran, did not go at all. Bill Clinton, who did not serve in Vietnam and had a rocky time with the military, went to Arlington all eight years, and George W. Bush, who also avoided combat service in Vietnam, attended from 2003 onward.

Obama's plans, in other words, are generating some criticism, but there's really not much new here. The president's Memorial Day schedule is a "story," despite being fairly routine.

Which, as it turns out, one of the defining trends of the political discourse over the last 16 months. Several months ago, Atrios noted, "When Dems are president, perfectly normally ways of doing things are rebranded as somehow odd."

Ain't that the truth.

* Teleprompters: This trend of characterizing routine developments as controversial started very early in the Obama presidency. Every modern president has used teleprompters, but Republicans and the media thought it was hilarious and wildly important when Obama did the same thing.

* Bowing: Several presidents have been photographed bowing to foreign heads of state, but Republicans and the media thought it was absolutely scandalous when Obama did the same thing when meeting leaders where bowing is customary.

* Talking to school kids: Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush spoke to school children in national addresses, even taking a little time to push their political agendas. When Obama delivered a speech encouraging kids to do well in school, Republicans freaked out; Fox News compared the president to Saddam Hussein; and the New York Times literally ran a front-page story about it.

* Czars: For a half-century, presidents have relied on so-called "czars" for various policy areas. By one count, George W. Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his two terms. No one cared. Obama's use of czars became the subject of months of media scrutiny, and even congressional hearings in response to Republican apoplexy.

* Oval Office attire: Several modern presidents have been seen in the Oval Office without wearing a suit jacket. When Obama did it, Republicans ran to the press to complain, and the media actually published pieces on the subject.

* Criticizing partisan media: White House complaints about unfair media coverage are as old as the republic. When the Obama White House noted what is plainly true about Fox News -- it's a Republican outlet -- the media went a little berserk, with the Washington Post and NPR characterizing the administration's criticism as "Nixonian."

* Reconciliation: Republican policymakers have relied on reconciliation to get around filibusters for decades. When Obama recommended the same tactic for health care, the GOP pretended it was an outrageous assault on the political process, and the media pretended Republicans' cries were legitimate.

* Industry bailouts: Government bailouts of struggling American industries and major companies have been common for decades. When Obama rescued GM, it was used as an example of his purported desire to a communist dictator.

* Campaign intervention: Every president has had a hand in campaign activities, with several presidents offering jobs to candidates to get them out of various races. When the Obama White House intervened in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- offering a House member an unpaid advisory gig -- the media found it fascinating and Republicans called for the FBI and a special prosecutor to intervene.

* Memorial Day: Many presidents have not appeared at Arlington on Memorial Day. When Obama does it, there's a "controversy."

I'm all in favor of holding presidents to high standards. They have enormous power and leadership responsibilities, and it stands to reason that much will be expected of them. I enthusiastically endorse demanding the most of our leaders.

But for a year and a half, the political world seems to have created whole new rules for Obama, which aren't applied to others -- and haven't even been applied to other presidents.

This week's flaps over Sestak and Memorial Day plans only reinforce how truly ridiculous the phenomenon has become.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an increasingly tense dispute over plans to build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. To say that conservatives are throwing a tantrum over this would be quite an understatement.

At issue is the proposed Cordoba House, a Muslim community center which would stand 15 stories tall and would be built not directly at Ground Zero, but rather at Park Place, two blocks north of where the Twin Towers stood in lower Manhattan. The center would include a prayer space, a performing arts center, a swimming pool, and other amenities. The effort is being spearheaded by a longtime local imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said the center would "bridge and heal a divide" and has said it's his mission to fight radicalism. A local community board voted this week by 29-1 to support the project.

But in the nightmares of right-wingers, the project has been transformed into something more like a shrine to the 9/11 terrorists stuck on top of the site where victims of the attack lay buried, and pushed by a radical Islamic cleric.

The far-right Washington Times argued a Muslim community center may represent "an attempt to hijack the memory of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks," a sentiment endorsed by Liz Cheney's right-wing activist group. A right-wing radio host told listeners he hopes "somebody blows it up" if the Cordoba House is built. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is disappointed that, under the First Amendment, the facility cannot legally be blocked.

One wonders if these conservatives appreciate the way this undermines the nation's diplomatic and foreign policy interests -- or the way in which this will be used by terrorists trying to recruit followers.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) tried to push a provision into this week's defense spending bill that would have empowered military chaplains to proselytize at public events. Military chaplains can already lead sectarian prayers at sectarian worship services, but for Bachmann that wasn't good enough. Her amendment failed.

* Gallup continues to track the growing number of Americans who have no religious identity: "Americans have become increasingly less tied to formal religion in recent decades, with the percentage saying they do not have a specific religious identity growing from near zero in the 1950s to 16% this year and last." (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

* The Obama White House this week hosted a reception marking Jewish Heritage Month. That may not seem especially noteworthy, but it was the first time any White House has hosted such an event.

* And finally, about three years after Rupert Murdoch purchased Beliefnet, one of the largest and most prominent religion sites online, the News Corp. CEO is looking to sell it.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

NO DRILLING, NO ENERGY BILL?.... It's tempting to think common sense would have a greater influence over the debate on a new energy/climate policy. With the oil spill disaster constantly getting worse, the need for alternative energies growing more obvious, and the public's appetite for coastal drilling fading fast, the way forward seems pretty clear.

And yet, a few too many policymakers fail to see it that way. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who recently walked away from his own tri-partisan proposal after months of work, argued yesterday that Democratic reluctance to expanded drilling means the legislation will likely die.

"Why would a person who really believes in drilling put a bill on the floor right now to expand drilling and revenue sharing, knowing it can't get 50 votes?" Graham told The Hill. "The resistance to drilling has hardened on the Democratic side, so we [Republicans have] got more votes to make up."

In other words, if Democratic skepticism of drilling is intensifying -- hardly an unreasonable position, under the circumstances -- then Republicans, who still demand more drilling, aren't willing to cooperate, no matter how dire the need.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who supported the lease sale off his home state's shores, said he backed Obama's decision [to freeze exploratory wells]. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), a crucial Republican swing vote on the climate bill, said the Gulf accident had created a crisis of confidence in drilling procedures and technology.

Graham believes this has sapped his rationale for convincing fellow Republicans to support the comprehensive energy and climate change legislation.

"If I go back into conference, what would I tell them?" he said.

Well, that one seems pretty easy, actualy. Graham can tell them the energy bill is still absolutely necessary in helping to create a new energy framework. He can point out the fact that the legislation will help create jobs and lower the deficit. He can tell them it improves American competitiveness in the key industry of the 21st century. He can point out the painful reality that under the status quo the GOP seeks to protect, much of our energy policy is built around sending exorbitant sums of money to the Middle East. (He might also mention combatting global warming, but I know his caucus considers it a Marxist plot to be ignored.)

Graham knows this. He must realize that the Republican Party can't be taken seriously if the entirety of their energy policy is coastal drilling at a time when an oil spill is wreaking havoc on an entire region.

Graham is worried about what he'll tell the Republican conference if Dems balk at more drilling. He should be worried about what he'll tell the country if the GOP blocks this much-needed legislation.

—Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

'TIME TO MOVE ON'.... One of the more annoying angles to the Sestak "story" was the underlying dullness. In any political "controversy," there are best-case and worse-case scenarios when measuring severity and consequences. When it came to the Sestak allegations, under the best-scenario, the story was meaningless. Under the worst-case scenario, it was still meaningless.

It was one of those rare stories in which news outlets played along, knowing full well that the entire matter was manufactured silliness.

And now that the story had run its course, those who know what they're talking about want to put a period at the end of already-obvious sentence. Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics officer under George W. Bush, took a look at the information released yesterday and told Greg Sargent that it's even clearer now that there's nothing of interest here.

"Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue," Painter said. "No scandal. Time to move on."

Sam Stein talked to Steve Bunnell, who led the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and has seen more public corruption cases that practically any lawyer in the country. He not only said the Sestak matter passes the smell test, he told Stein there's nothing to smell.

"I looked through it," Steve Bunnell of the firm O'Melveny & Myers, said of the job-offering related document released by the White House on Friday. "I don't see anything criminal about what happened. Basically you are talking about political horse-trading, which strikes me as an inherent part of democracy. There is nothing inherently bad about it unless you think politics and democracy are bad."

Bunnell added, "I don't understand what the big deal is."

Join the club.

Stepping back, it's also hard to miss the trend -- conservatives become convinced they've stumbled onto some wildly important "controversy," work themselves into a tizzy, and look pretty silly when the facts come out. Remember how excited the right was about the Gerald Walpin firing? Or the time conservatives were convinced that the White House was closing car dealerships based on owners' political contributions?

Kevin Drum had a very good item a year ago, arguing that there's nothing especially wrong with far-right activists watching the administration like a hawk, doing what the opposition is supposed to do. There's certainly something to be said for this -- if conservatives want to hold elected officials' feet to the fire, more power to 'em. It's what being politically engaged is all about.

The problem is, these folks keep crying "wolf" without thinking it through. Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts are constantly finding scandalous schemes and outrageous abuses relating to the White House, all of which appear pretty foolish soon after. As a result, it's easy to start ignoring them.

Maybe the right can start being a little more selective?

—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

TWO STEPS FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK.... The pattern is increasingly discouraging. On Thursday morning, officials dealing with the BP oil spill disaster offered some initial words of encouragement about the response efforts. As the day progressed, that optimism grew more tempered, and the top kill attempts had to be temporarily halted.

On Friday, we saw a replay -- cautious optimism in the morning, followed by measured remarks, followed by temporary suspension of pumping operations.

The New York Times reported this morning that by late in the day, officials "acknowledged that the effort was no closer to succeeding than when they started."

BP engineers struggled Friday to plug a gushing oil well a mile under the sea, but as of late in the day they had made little headway in stemming the flow.

Amid mixed messages about problems and progress, the effort -- called a "top kill" -- continued for a third day, with engineers describing a painstaking process of trying to plug the hole, using different weights of mud and sizes of debris like golf balls and tires, and then watching and waiting. They cannot use brute force because they risk making the leak worse if they damage the pipes leading down to the well.

Despite an apparent lack of progress, officials said they would continue with the process for another 48 hours, into Sunday, before giving up and considering other options, including another containment dome to try to capture the oil.

That the discussion is already moving to the consideration of "other options" suggests the expectations for top kill are moving in the wrong direction.

"I won't say progress was zero, but I don't know if we can round up enough mud to make it work," an anonymous technician on the project said. "Everyone is disappointed at this time."

For the record, BP we may not know with certainty about the outcome until tomorrow -- or perhaps later.

—Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

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

* Two junk shot attempts in the Gulf have come up short: "BP's renewed efforts at plugging the flow of oil from its runaway well in the Gulf of Mexico stalled again on Friday, as the company suspended pumping operations for the second time in two days, according to a technician involved with the response effort."

* POTUS on the scene: "Under pressure to step up his response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, President Barack Obama tried to assure the country Thursday that he and his administration are in charge and working feverishly to clean up the mess."

* "You are not alone, and you will not be abandoned," Obama said. "We are on your side, and we will see this through."

* A deadly milestone in Afghanistan: "The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, launched in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, reached a milestone today as reports of one more service member killed in the conflict raised the total number of U.S. military deaths in and around Afghanistan to 1,000."

* There's ample reason to be deeply skeptical about BP's claims.

* I continue to be amazed the deficit hawks are willing to undermine our fragile recovery: "The House passed a $93 billion package of jobless benefits and business tax breaks Friday after moderate Democrats fed up with deficit spending forced leaders to slice billions of additional dollars from the legislation. The House voted, 215 to 204, to approve the measure, which would extend expanded benefits for the unemployed through November, finance thousands of summer jobs and renew for one year dozens of expired tax credits and deductions for businesses and individuals."

* Consumer spending flattened in April.

* Peggy Noonan's column today was one of the more ridiculous pieces I've seen in quite a while. I lacked the stomach to pick it apart, but Andrew Sullivan, Ron Chusid, and Steve M. showed more patience.

* Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics officer under George W. Bush, considered the latest information in the Sestak "story." He told Greg Sargent, "Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue. No scandal. Time to move on."

* And yet, when Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) held another ridiculous press conference, MSNBC carried the whole thing live. It's painful to see the kind of judgments major media outlets will sometimes make.

* Will Folks released phone records today documenting phone calls between himself and South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R). Ed Kilgore bravely summarizes the latest details of the story.

* The Condition of Education is released with some interesting new revelations.

* And Glenn Beck used his radio show today to mock President Obama's 11-year-old daughter for several minutes. He later apologized, but it's a reminder that some of the leading right-wing voices are not only deranged, they're also classless.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

NRCC STOPS MEASURING THE DRAPES.... For the last several months, congressional Republicans acted as if taking the majority of at least one chamber was practically a foregone conclusion. The question wasn't whether the House GOP would be in the majority in 2011, but how big it would be.

Have you noticed the dramatic shift in rhetoric of late?

After spending months measuring the drapes in the Speaker's office, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said this week it would be a "steep climb" for the GOP to take control of the House this year. A few months ago, NRCC Recruitment Chair Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he saw Republicans gaining 45 seats this year, enough to get the majority.

The message has obviously changed.

McCarthy said that top GOPers have told him they hope to win in the neighborhood of 37 seats rather than 40 so they're in a stronger position to have good back-to-back cycles and win the WH in '12.

I find that pretty hard to believe. For a leading NRCC congressman, it's better not to get a House majority when the party thinks it has the wind at its back? Last month, NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) said anything less than a majority is worth "a warm bucket of spit." Now they're looking to set the party up for gains in the following cycle? It's not exactly persuasive.

Regardless, what's behind this shift? Why would McCarthy use 45 seats as a benchmark a few months ago, and use 37 now? Some of it is no doubt an effort to play a rhetorical game. If the Republican base assumes a House takeover is in the bag, the party may grow complacent. The NRCC fundraising letter, then, is easy to envision: "We're on track to win 37 seats, which is not quite enough for a majority, but if you write us a big check today...."

But I also wonder if some of the lowered expectations are the result of a rough spring for Republicans at the ballot box. The NRCC invested heavily in Tim Burns' race in Pennsylvania's 12th, and considered it a must-win. He lost by a quite a few. The NRCC was excited about Vaughn Ward in Idaho's 1st, and he lost in a primary. The RNCC saw Jeff Reetz in Kentucky's 3rd as a rising star, and he got beat in a primary, too. The NRCC had very high hopes about former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pennsylvania's 4th, but she not only lost in a primary, she lost by 34 points.

It raises questions about the NRCC's judgment in picking candidates, not to mention whether NRCC support still means anything to voters.

But it also helps explain why party leaders have traded measuring the drapes for measured expectations.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

HAS ACCOUNTABILITY BEEN DEEMED IMPOLITE?.... The name of the game is, "Talk about the oil spill disaster without implicating the Bush administration in any way, ever." Kate Sheppard reports on some of the latest efforts to play the game effectively.

The Obama administration has faced harsh criticism for its oversight of offshore oil and gas development in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The most absurd commentary, of course, comes from Republicans who have consistently pushed back against any attempts to regulate industry for years. The administration has been fighting back, but no one wants to actually call the problem by its name: the Bush administration.

At a House hearing Wednesday, Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) accused Salazar of "harping on what MMS did or didn't do in the previous administration. "Why aren't we talking about the here and now?" asked Lamborn.

Salazar shot back about the efforts they've taken to reform the beleaguered agency. "Unlike the prior administration, this is not the candy store for the oil and gas kingdom that you and others were a part of," he deadpanned.

Lamborn's question for Salazar was almost comical. "Why aren't we talking about the here and now?" Well, we are. And in the here and now, we're dealing with some of the consequences of the Bush administration's corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement. It's not some academic or partisan exercise -- the line between Bush/Cheney-era policies and today's nightmares is straight and direct.

But apparently no one is supposed to mention this. Blaming Bush/Cheney for their own administration's spectacular failures has been deemed ... rude. Uncouth. Downright uncivilized.

At yesterday's White House press conference, CBS News' Chip Reid sounded downright annoyed by efforts to connect Bush-era corruption and mismanagement to the mess -- not because the efforts were wrong, but because the statute of political limitations had apparently run out.

But that's ridiculous. As we talked about yesterday, it wasn't Obama who approved this rig. It wasn't Obama who ignored the need for remote acoustic shutoff switches. It wasn't Obama who corrupted the MMS. It wasn't Obama who spent eight years downplaying the need for regulations and oversight of the oil industry.

Sheppard added:

...Republican badgering of the administration over the issue is fairly absurd. Fixing the troubled agency was one of the very first things Salazar sought to address after taking office, announcing a restructuring of MMS's royalty-in-kind program, calling for a Justice Department investigation, and instating a new conduct code for the agency in the first days after taking office.

The Obama Department of Interior could have done more, of course, to improve the beleaguered agency. But the root of this is still the one name they won't say: George W. Bush.

I suspect the right wants to make discussion of Bush/Cheney off limits for one inescapable reason: the truth hurts.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

MAYBE TEA PARTIERS ARE HELPING -- THE OTHER PARTY.... Marc Ambinder ponders an interesting question today: "With the exception of Scott Brown's miraculous Senate race victory in Massachusetts -- and even there, one can question the premise -- has the Tea Party movement really done anything to help the Republican Party this cycle?"

As far as I can tell, not much. The trend started early on, in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, where Tea Party activism helped a Democrat win a seat that's been held by Republicans for about 150 years.

But notice how this has continued in the ensuing months. The Senate race in Kentucky was going to be an easy one for Republicans, but thanks to the Tea Party crowd, now it's a Democratic pick-up opportunity. The Senate race in Florida was a lock for the GOP, but thanks to Tea Partiers, the frontrunner is currently an independent who might caucus with Dems. The Senate race in Nevada looked very bad for Majority Leader Harry Reid (R), but thanks to Tea Party, his prospects have improved considerably in recent months.

In several other races -- Illinois, California, Colorado, Connecticut -- Tea Partiers keep pushing Republicans further and further to the right, which in turn gives Democrats stronger chances of success.

The Tea Party crowd also had a hand in ending Sen. Bob Bennett's (R) career in Utah, and while the race is almost certainly out of reach for Dems, the ordeal made the entire Republican Party look bad.

Ambinder explained:

[A]s one of my Twitter followers points out, it has helped to rid the party of its RINOs, which I suppose might be a good thing, but then again, depending upon your view of electoral politics, it might not.

I don't think the TPs energized the GOP base any more than it was already energized. The TP, indeed, is actually distributing that energy to regions of political space that might be harmful to the party itself. Democrats now have a foil, just as Republicans have Obama.

I had assumed that the TP movement would be beneficial to the party in the short-term and harm it in the long-term, but today, it is hard to see where the short term benefits are. Even Scott Brown is tacking back to the center and distancing himself from the TP movement.

That part about Dems having a foil seems especially interesting. We've all heard quite a bit in recent months about the "enthusiasm gap." Democratic voters may be more inclined to get excited about the midterm elections if the alternative is the success of candidates backed by unhinged, misguided, right-wing Tea Partiers.

—Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

WHAT SESTAK WAS OFFERED.... The year's thinnest, most vapid, most manufactured political "controversy" appears to be ending with a whimper.

President Obama's chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of a Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, people briefed on the matter said Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton to explore the possibilities last summer, according to the briefed individuals, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the politically charged situation. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week's Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because Mr. Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat.

When Sestak first claimed in February that he'd been offered a job, that was a bit of an exaggeration. The discussions apparently included a spot on the Intelligence Advisory Board, but even that was quickly dismissed as an idea because he couldn't serve on the panel while remaining in Congress.

So, what are we left with? Perhaps the dullest, most inconsequential White House "controversy" in a very long time.

The White House counsel's office prepared a memo, explaining the situation in a way that even Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) can understand: "There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements."

Obviously. When the Reagan White House offered Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R) a job in 1981 in the hopes of convincing him to drop out of the Republican Senate primary race in California, no one cared. When George W. Bush's White House approached Rep. Ben Gilman (R-N.Y.) about a job in the hopes of convincing him not to run for re-election, no one cared. Mundane political efforts like these fail to raise an eyebrow because they're the very definition of routine. As Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, said this week, "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington."

In this case, it's even thinner, since Sestak wasn't even offered a job, but rather an unpaid advisory position, which a) wasn't particularly enticing; and b) was quickly dismissed anyway.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, told Greg Sargent that this couldn't constitute bribery. "Beyond that, Sloan adds, the Federal bribery statute requires an offer of something of value in exchange for an official act. Sloan says that not running for Senate would not constitute an official act in any case, even if a paid position were offered in return for dropping a run for office."

The political world can now move on, hopefully feeling chastened for taking this nonsensical story seriously in the first place.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

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 new Research 2000 poll of Pennsylvania's Senate race shows Rep. Joe Sestak (D) with a narrow lead over former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), 43% to 40%. A few weeks ago, Research 2000 found Toomey ahead by five.

* In the first poll of Kentucky's Senate race taken after revelations about Rand Paul's (R) extremist worldview, Research 200 shows the GOP candidate with a narrow lead. The results, released late yesterday, has Paul up by three over state Attorney General Jack Conway (D), 44% to 41%.

* In Arkansas' Democratic Senate primary, Research 2000 shows Lt. Gov. Bill Halter inching past incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln, 47% to 44%. In general election match-ups, Rep. John Boozman (R) leads Lincoln by 20 points, while Halter trails Boozman by 11.

* A new Mason-Dixon poll in Nevada shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) far more competitive against his increasingly bizarre GOP challengers. Reid trails Sue Lowden by three points (42% to 39%) and leads Sharron Angle (R) by the same margin. In the Republican primary, Lowden now leads Angle by one, 30% to 29%.

* On a related note, as recently as 2006, Nevada Senate hopeful Sharron Angle voiced her support for Prohibition. Angle is also facing new questions about ties to the Church of Scientology.

* A new Ohio Poll shows the state's very competitive U.S. Senate race about as close as it can be. The survey find Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) with a one-point lead over former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman (R), 47% to 46%,

* The same Ohio Poll shows incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading John Kasich (R), 49% to 44%.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hasn't ruled out supporting former wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R) in this year's Senate race in his home state.

* And in Wisconsin, Republicans appear to be clearing the field for plastics manufacturer Ron Johnson to take on Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in November. Yesterday, Terrence Wall dropped out, without explanation.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

'TERMINAL SILLINESS'.... Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) has some thoughts on the politics of the BP oil spill disaster.

"In fairness, there's not a lot we can do. The federal government has no vehicle capable of going down there. None of our submarines can go down there. That is a pre-existing condition that was not the fault of the Obama administration."

But, he added, "As we know, politics is as much perception as reality." He said a "clear risk factor" in the fallout of the spill going forward was that it would sully the administration's record.

Rendell also noted a difference between Obama's style and that of the last Democratic president, a famous micromanager: "If Bill Clinton was president, he'd have been in a wetsuit, you know, trying to get down to see the spill," the governor said with a laugh.

I wish that were funny, but as Matt Zeitlin noted, it's an example of the "terminal silliness" of much of the crisis analysis.

I think this perfectly captures the vast majority of purely perception based criticism of Obama's personal response to the oil spill. Best I can tell, very few of the people who are saying that Obama hasn't been publicly aggressive and involved enough actually specify what he should have done as a matter of policy once the spill happened. Most of the commentary seems to be on the level of getting in the wetsuit.

Or complaining that the president doesn't "seem" to be "sufficiently enraged."

Our discourse too often leaves so much to be desired.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

IS IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE FOR THE GOP?.... It's too soon to know if Republicans will re-take the House majority, but it's probably a good time to consider the consequences of a GOP majority. The obvious outcome is gridlock, with Republicans passing right-wing legislation, which would either be blocked by the Senate or vetoed at the White House.

But Jonathan Bernstein argues that we can also expect a GOP majority to at least try to impeach President Obama.

I continue to believe that if Obama sits in the White House for six years with a GOP majority in the House of Representatives that the odds are very good -- better than 50 percent -- that he'll be impeached. Not convicted, of course, but impeached, forcing a Senate trial. [...]

In fact, impeachment talk moved [Wednesday] from Tea Party rallies to at least one Republican Member of the House, Darrell Issa. And Issa's not an obscure backbencher; he's the ranking Republican on Oversight and Government Reform, and he also sits on the Judiciary Committee.

The incentives all run to impeachment, as far as I can tell. The leaders of such an effort would find it easy to cash in (literally, I mean) with books and appearances on the conservative lecture circuit. It's hard to believe that Rush, Beck and the rest of the gang wouldn't be tripping over each other to wear the crown of the Host Who Brought Down the socialist gangster president. And we've seen the ability, or I should say the lack thereof, of rank-and-file GOP pols to stand up to the talk show yakkers. Besides, it's not as if a new Republican majority would have a full agenda of legislative items to pass, and what they did have would face an Obama veto (and most likely death in the Senate at any rate). Against all that is the collective preference of the Republican Party not to have a reputation as a pack of loons, but that doesn't seem to be much of a constraint in practice.

It's tempting to think of impeachment as a far-fetched, silly idea, barring actual impeachable offenses. But the more I think about it, the more I remember this is the House Republican caucus we're dealing with. They're a creative bunch, with no real appreciation for norms or limits.

For that matter, the GOP base would welcome the development -- in February, a national Research 2000 poll found that a plurality of rank-and-file Republicans wants to see President Obama impeached. About what? It didn't matter.

With the base and at least one GOP lawmaker already talking about this, it seems more than fair to ask Republican candidates to go on the record on this.

Throughout 2006, when Republicans realized that Democrats had a very good shot at reclaiming the congressional majority, one of the single most common GOP attacks before the elections was that Dems would try to impeach Bush and/or Cheney if they were in the majority. (The party had no policy platform or accomplishments to point to, so this became their campaign message.)

The talk was so common that Democratic leaders, much to the chagrin for the party's base, declared unequivocally before the election that impeachment was "off the table."

So, are Republicans prepared to also take impeachment off the table in advance of these midterm elections? There's no reason for the GOP to avoid the question -- they're the ones who brought it up.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

MORE EARLY SIGNS OF PROGRESS IN THE GULF.... Yesterday, around this time Adm. Thad Allen sounded very encouraged about the "top kill" efforts in the Gulf. Soon after, officials subtly walked his remarks back a bit -- Allen was apparently a little over enthusiastic -- and it would take more time before the results were clear.

This morning, the initial signs are, once again, generating cautious optimism.

By injecting solid objects as well as heavy drilling fluid into the stricken well leaking oil into the Gulf of Mexico overnight, engineers appeared to have stemmed the flow of oil, Adm. Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard, the leader of the government effort, said on Friday morning. But he stressed that the next 12 to 18 hours will be "very critical" in permanently stanching what is already the worst oil spill in United States history.

Admiral Allen, who spoke on ABC's Good Morning America, said the biggest challenge will be to sustain the "top kill" effort, which involves pumping material into the well to counteract the upward pressure of the gushing oil so that the well can be sealed."They've been able to push the hydrocarbons and the oil down with the mud," he said, referring to the heavy drilling fluid. "The real challenge is to put enough mud into the well to keep the pressure where they can put a cement plug over the top."

BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, also told ABC that the efforts were "going pretty well according to plan." He added, however, that he put the odds of success at 60 to 70 percent.

We'll know more in 48 hours.

In the meantime, with President Obama headed to the Gulf this morning, BP has revised its estimate of the scope of the disaster. While the company initially projected a "very modest" impact, the oil company now characterizes the spill as an "environmental catastrophe."

You don't say.

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

SELECTIVE EMBRACE OF THE CONSTITUTION.... It's hard not to notice that self-described "constitutional conservatives" are a bit like conservative Biblical literalists -- their fealty to the text depends on their preferred outcome.

Jillian Rayfield noted this morning the latest item on the list of Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul's (R) "out-there" policy positions.

Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants -- even if they're born on U.S. soil. [...]

The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. "shouldn't provide an easy route to citizenship" because of "demographics."

According to Paul, the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course "the Democrat [sic] Party is for easy citizenship."

He added: "We're the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also."

Some right-wing House Republicans are on board with this, too.

The position is wrong for a variety of reasons, but of particular interest, Paul and his allies claim to base their positions on a strict reading of the Constitution. And yet, the text is unambiguous: the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that those "born ... in the United States" are "citizens of the United States."

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."

If Paul and his cohorts want to argue that the Constitution is wrong, then they should make their case. If they want an amendment to alter the text, they can call for one. But the disconnect between "constitutional conservatives" who aren't particularly concerned with what the Constitution actually says makes it tough to take their worldview seriously.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

IF THE GOP WANTS TO TALK ABOUT PROPAGANDA, WE CAN TALK ABOUT PROPAGANDA.... Of all the things for congressional Republicans to pick a fight over, this one seems especially misguided.

As the secretary of health and human services explains it, the government has an obligation to spread the word about the new health-care law. To that end, the department spent millions of dollars printing a glossy brochure and mailing it this week to 40 million Medicare beneficiaries detailing what Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called "the facts."

Among the facts:

There are "Improvements in Medicare You Will See Right Away." There are "Improvements in Medicare You Will See Soon." There are "Improvements Beyond Medicare That You and Your Family Can Count On." And that's not all: These improvements "will provide you and your family greater savings and increased quality health care."

This hardly seems unreasonable. Given the significant changes to the health care system in the new Affordable Care Act, it stands to reason that the Department of Health and Human Services would produce materials informing the public about the new policy.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and some of his cohorts are complaining that the brochures constitute illegal government propaganda.

If McConnell and the GOP really want to talk about government propaganda, we can do that.

In 2001, the Bush administration sent letters to taxpayers through the Treasury Department to tout tax rebate checks and the "long-term tax relief" the administration was offering. McConnell & Co. thought this was fine. In 2004, Bush/Cheney sent out letters through HHS to tout Medicare Part D, and GAO later found that the taxpayer-financed letters included notable omissions and other weaknesses." McConnell & Co. had no problem with this, either.

The Bush administration also had a nasty habit of using our money to secretly pay political pundits to agree with its agenda; creating fake-news segments to be distributed to local television statements, to be aired without public disclosure; and hiring retired military officers to appear in the media to say they agree with the Bush administration's policies.

And just this week, House Republicans launched their "America Speaking Out" project, an election-year gimmick funded entirely by taxpayers.

In all of these cases, Mitch McConnell and his cohorts thought these efforts were entirely legitimate and an appropriate use of Americans' tax dollars.

But an HHS brochure about Medicare changes qualifies as illegal government propaganda? Please.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

A BREAKTHROUGH DAY FOR DADT REPEAL.... About seven months ago, a strategy was put in place to scrap the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Dems would add repeal to the defense appropriations bill, get the White House's blessing, and wrap the whole thing up by the early summer.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said at the time, "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was always going to be part of the military authorization." President Obama, Frank added, was "totally committed to this and has been from the beginning."

As it turns out, everything appears to be going according to plan.

The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as "don't ask, don't tell."

The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1.

A few hours before the House vote, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure, adding a repeal provision to the Pentagon spending bill that's headed to the Senate floor.

In the House, the final vote was 234 to 194. It was not a straight party-line vote, but it was close -- 26 Blue Dogs voted with the Republicans to protect the status quo, while five Republicans voted with Dems to support repeal. In the Senate Armed Services Committee, the vote was 16 to 12, with Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) voting with Republicans, and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) siding with the Democrats.

After the votes, the White House issued a statement from the president applauding the votes. "Our military is made up of the best and bravest men and women in our nation, and my greatest honor is leading them as Commander-in-Chief," Obama said. "This legislation will help make our Armed Forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity."

As for what's next, the House still needs to approve the larger spending bill, and will probably vote on it today. In the Senate, the appropriations measure will almost certainly face a Republican filibuster, though it's unclear if the GOP can sustain obstructionism against a bill that funds U.S. troops during two wars.

Regardless, we're quickly approaching a new day -- one in which all American patriots will be able to volunteer to serve their country and wear the uniform proudly. It's change I can believe in.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

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

* The "top kill" efforts had to be temporarily halted this afternoon, but officials intend to re-start the pumping tonight. We won't have a sense of the efficacy for a while, but there's still a fair amount of optimism about the strategy.

* Tensions continue to rise around the Korean peninsula: "North Korea said on Thursday that it was cutting off a naval hot line used to prevent clashes on its disputed sea border with South Korea, while the South conducted a large naval drill in a show of force after the sinking of one of its warships."

* The White House's first formal National Security Strategy was released today.

* Are the votes there in the House to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Speaker Pelosi thinks so. We may see a vote tonight.

* New unemployment filings dropped by 14,000 last week. The numbers are -- let's all say it together -- still far too high, and the modest drop was not as strong as expected.

* Germany may not fully appreciate what the regional economic crisis will do to Germany.

* First quarter GDP numbers were slightly lower than originally estimated.

* Do House Dems have the votes to pass a new, post-Citizens United, campaign finance reform bill? The leadership thinks so, and we can expect a vote on the DISCLOSE Act fairly soon.

* The Justice Department are moving forward with plans to challenge Arizona's new anti-immigrant law.

* Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor don't see a problem with Elena Kagan's lack of judicial experience.

* It's just astounding that "more than 113 census takers have been the victims of assaults or attacks this month."

* Kaplan University's agreement to offer some California Community College courses isn't working out well.

* And as a rule, House Republicans are at their absolute nuttiest when they're trying to rationalize their hatred of gay people. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

OTHER AMERICANS CAN SPEAK OUT, TOO.... This week, House Republicans launched their "America Speaking Out" project, a taxpayer-financed, election-year gimmick intended to help the GOP come up with a policy agenda to run on in the midterms. Participants are encouraged to go to the site and consider various conservative ideas, which, at least initially, proved to be something of a mess.

In its return volley, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has come up with a rival site that allows participants to vote for the worst Republicans ideas.

GOPContractWithAmerica.com is a campaign website that links to a new Facebook application that allows supporters to fill out a poll and share it with their Facebook friends. Republicans have said their new site is not campaign oriented.

"The DCCC launched this new initiative to enable our four million plus grassroots supporters to vote for the worst GOP priorities that benefited big corporate special interests under George W. Bush," DCCC Spokesman Ryan Rudominer told CNN in an e-mail. "The DCCC will continue on the cutting edge in allowing our grassroots supporters' voices to be heard."

As far as I can tell, the Dems' project is paid for with party money, not tax dollars.

Salon's Mike Madden, meanwhile, reports on another potential down-side to the Republicans' site: if it becomes more popular, it costs taxpayers more money. "[C]oncerned about keeping government expenses in check?" Madden asked. "Whatever you do, don't click on America Speaking Out."

Doug Thornell, a spokesperson for DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), added, "Republicans did enough damage while in power recklessly spending the American people's money on huge tax cuts for CEOs and big corporations, and an unpaid-for government-run prescription drug plan. The fact that they are continuing this fiscally irresponsible behavior with their glitzy new taxpayer-funded website reflects the GOP's arrogant belief that they should be held to a different standard from the people they lecture daily on government spending."

—Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

DEFINE 'SUFFICIENTLY ENRAGED'.... The New York Times's Jeff Zeleny live-blogged President Obama's press conference this afternoon, and wrapped things up asking whether the president demonstrated to the country that he's "in control of the crisis on the Gulf."

During a full hour of questioning, he illustrated that he has a grasp of the technical challenges at work in the oil spill. He said the government was calling the shots, the buck stopped with him and the ultimate responsibility rested in the Oval Office.

But it remains an open question whether the measured tone that has become the soundtrack of Mr. Obama's presidency -- a detached, calm, observational pitch -- served to drive the point home that he is sufficiently enraged by the fury in the Gulf Coast.

At least he resisted the urge to compare Obama to Spock.

Look, I appreciate the importance of appearances in politics, and I'm well aware of the general media criticism that the president is calm, professorial, and seemingly unflappable -- far too much for reporters' liking.

But basing an analysis of a presidential press conference on whether Obama seemed "sufficiently enraged" seems like an awkward standard. How does one even measure such things? If he's not pounding the podium with his fist, is he somehow less engaged?

And if he is pounding the podium, is that relevant to the response to the crisis?

Kevin Drum watched the CNN coverage, and saw the various on-air personalities "solemnly advising us one after one that Obama really needed to be more emotional because that's what the American people want."

I'm not going to pretend I know what "the American people" want -- and I wish CNN wouldn't either -- but if I had to guess, I imagine the public is more interested in stopping the oil gusher in the Gulf and mitigating the effects of the disaster, and less interested in whether the president meets some ambiguous, undefined standard of being emotional.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

DOES HATCH REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD?.... We learned yesterday that this was coming, but part of me hoped someone would pull Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) aside and explain that this is a mistake.

No such luck. Hatch wants to amend an existing law, which makes it illegal to lie about military service, to also make it illegal to make false claims about having served in a war. The Utah senator said:

My amendment would add to this existing statute, making false statements regarding participation in combat operations. It appears to me that individuals make these false claims in order to obtain honorariums, employment, elected office or other positions of authority.

If convicted of this misdemeanor offense, the perpetrator could face 6 months in jail and/or a fine. This is the same penalty for falsely obtaining and wearing awards or medals.

It seems pretty obvious that Hatch is targeting Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D), since Hatch has spent 34 years in the Senate, and it never occurred to him to pursue this measure until this week.

But I wonder if the senator appreciates what his partisan stunt might mean for some of his Republican friends. George W. Bush made false claims about his war record, as did Ronald Reagan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) greatly exaggerated his service in the first Gulf War, and Rep. Mark Kirk, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Illinois, claimed on his website to be "the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom," which isn't true. In California, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Chuck DeVore has had some trouble on this front, too.

Does Hatch really want to subject his GOP allies to a fine and possible jail time?

—Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

INADVERTENTLY ACCEPTING THE PREMISE.... Soon after the BP oil spill disaster became a genuine crisis, White House critics and the media were very aggressive in pushing the "Obama's Katrina" frame. The line faded, due in large part to the fact that it didn't make any sense.

And now it's back. Just because. NBC's Chuck Todd even asked the president directly today to respond to the media's interest in the comparison. Obama dismissed the inquiry, saying he's far more focused on the problem itself than what pundits have to say about historical comparisons.

But Karl Rove is doing his part to revive the narrative, prompting Alex Seitz-Wald to raise a good point.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove pens an op-ed titled: "Yes, the Gulf Spill is Obama's Katrina." He predictably places blame on Obama for a "lethargic," "slow," and "unacceptable" response to the BP oil spill. But the real significance of the op-ed is not what Rove has to say about Obama; rather, it's that Rove is implicitly acknowledging that Bush screwed up the response to Katrina. Rove is essentially trying to make the case that Obama mismanaged a disaster almost as terribly as he and Bush did.

This is breaking news because, for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Rove has defended his administration's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.

Exactly. Rove and Republicans invested heavily in the notion that the Bush/Cheney response to the Katrina disaster was perfectly admirable. The criticisms, they said, were groundless. Using Katrina as the basis for comparisons for failed government responses just wasn't fair.

And now Rove and other Republicans are accepting the premise.

As Jon Stewart recently explained, "The crazy part is, it's conservatives and Republicans that are in the biggest rush to make the comparison. 'Remember that terrible thing that Bush did that we fought for eight years to convince you wasn't bad, but actually good? Well, now we use those very incidents as the low-water mark for your guy.' ... The best part is they can't even recognize their own tacit admission of the previous administration's failure."

Indeed, it wasn't Obama who approved this rig. It wasn't Obama who ignored the need for remote acoustic shutoff switches. It wasn't Obama who corrupted the MMS. It wasn't Obama who spent eight years downplaying the need for regulations and oversight of the oil industry.

Karl, I hate to break it to you, but the BP oil spill disaster certainly seems like Bush's Katrina.

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

BIGGEST SPILL IN AMERICAN HISTORY.... The magnitude is just staggering.

A federal team created to produce a more precise estimate of the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico has determined that the rate is at least twice what was previously acknowledged and possibly five times as much, officials said on Thursday.

If the team's estimates are accurate, this spill would be far bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 and the worst in United States history.

Using two methods -- one based on the amount of oil on the surface and the other based on video of the oil emanating at the source -- the group settled on preliminary estimates of 12,000 barrels (504,000 gallons) a day to 19,000 barrels (800,000 gallons) a day, said Dr. Marcia McNutt, director of the United States Geological Survey and the leader of the team.

Also this morning, the White House is "extending the moratorium on permits to drill new deepwater wells for six more months."

President Obama's press conference on the crisis is ongoing, and I'll have more on this later.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

CHUTZPAH WATCH.... Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation into his humiliating sex-ethics-corruption scandal. The Senate Ethics Committee has also initiated a probe. The investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding.

Ensign's fellow Republicans don't want to be seen with him, and in the first three months of the year, the senator raised exactly $50 in campaign contributions -- the result of two donations from one guy.

What amazes me is that Ensign seems to think he can recover from all of this.

After delivering a floor speech against the financial overhaul bill last week, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) walked out of the Capitol into the spring sunshine and spoke optimistically of getting back to raising money for his reelection campaign -- never mind the looming ethics cloud stemming from his admitted affair with an aide. [...]

The Nevadan has started organizing fundraisers and making calls to donors for help in winning a third term in 2012. Ensign, once a rising star in the Republican leadership, collected a mere $50 during the first quarter of this year, but he's confident that is about to change.

Assuming, that is, that Ensign can stay out of jail.

Just last week, Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), another far-right moralist who's spent his career touting "family values," resigned after confessing to an affair. There wasn't anything unusually scandalous about Souder's story -- married congressman sleeps with part-time aide -- but there was an immediate realization that stepping down was the right thing to do.

With Ensign, it's much worse. He cheated with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. His parents offered to pay hush-money. He ignored ethics laws and tried to use his office to arrange lobbying jobs for his mistress' husband. The likelihood of Ensign being indicted seems fairly high.

That he's planning to run again is just astounding.

—Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

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.

* Rand Paul, the Republican Senate nominee in Kentucky, replaced his campaign manager yesterday, following last week's extreme difficulties.

* In Connecticut, speculation that the Vietnam story would derail Richard Blumenthal's (D) Senate bid appears to have been misplaced. A new Quinnipiac poll shows Blumenthal leading Linda McMahon (R), 56% to 31%. The pollster's analysis added, "The more voters get to know McMahon the less they like her."

* In related news, former Rep. Rob Simmons, who dropped out of the Senate GOP primary in Connecticut this week, said he doesn't think McMahon can win, and doesn't appear anxious to campaign on her behalf.

* And speaking of Connecticut, Quinnipiac also polled the gubernatorial race, and found Ned Lamont (D) and former ambassador Tom Foley (R) leading their respective primary fields.

* In Nevada's closely-watched Senate race, Sue Lowden's (R) troubles got a little worse, with the right-wing Club for Growth launching attack ads against her for not being conservative enough.

* The latest California survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) struggling with a low approval rating, but nevertheless maintaining modest leads over all of her potential Republican challengers.

* Disgraced former Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) will not be making a comeback this year after all.

* Also in New York, businessman Myers Mermel has entered the field of Republicans running for governor.

* And in Kansas, the latest SurveyUSA poll shows Rep. Jerry Moran pulling away in the Republican Senate primary, leading Rep. Todd Tiahrt by 24 points, 52% to 28%. The winner of the primary will be heavily favored to win in November.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

CLEANING HOUSE AT MMS.... For eight years, we saw an administration in which officials were kept on the job, regardless of job performance. Indeed, in many bizarre instances, we had a president who'd promote those who failed.

There's more accountability now.

Democratic sources say the Obama administration has fired the head of the U.S. Minerals Management Service in response to blistering criticism over lax oversight of offshore drilling.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity before the official announcement, tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama will announce the decision Thursday.

I guess this answers the question of whether "anyone in the government [will] be fired" as a result of the disaster in the Gulf.

Of course, whether anyone at the energy companies -- BP, Transocean, Halliburton -- might also lose their job remains to be seen.

Liz Birnbaum's departure, after less than a year at the Interior Department, comes just 10 days after the White House also accepted the resignation of Chris Oynes, the top Interior Department official who oversees offshore drilling for the MMS.

Given the damage to the Minerals Management Service during the Bush/Cheney era, and the breathtaking corruption that became the norm at the agency, it stands to reason the staff departures aren't finished yet.

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

POLITICS IS NOT A CRIME.... Add David Broder to the list of media voices who finds importance in the administration's possible job offer to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.).

Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago, where the Democratic Party had held formal "slating" sessions at which the elder Mayor Richard Daley and his colleagues decided who was worthy of machine backing for jobs large and small.... But Daley's son, the current mayor, Richard M. Daley, has recognized that times have changed, even in Chicago, and in a system dominated by primaries, voters want to choose candidates for themselves.

Apparently, some operatives at the White House didn't get the memo.... It's not the only time that this White House has been caught ham-handedly trying to play party boss. The governor of New York and his appointee to the U.S. Senate have both been targets of such manipulation -- with Gov. David Paterson being shoved out the door and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand protected from challenge.

So, David Broder is complaining because the president is a politician, and his White House exerts influence in developments related to his political party. In 2010, this is what constitutes a political controversy worthy of scrutiny, and to some, special prosecutors.

Maybe it's me, but I get the impression that our political discourse is growing more farcical by the day.

Similarly, Slate's John Dickerson, whose work I usually enjoy, complained yesterday that a White House talking to a Senate candidate about a possible job offer is somehow inconsistent with the president's promises about "new levels of transparency."*

I'm not even sure what this means. Obama really has brought about the highest levels of transparency in American history. A phone call between an official and a candidate is evidence of secrecy? Is that where the bar has been set? Every conversation that takes place between a White House official and a member of Congress must be quickly made public or the president is violating a campaign promise?

This may be the shallowest, most vapid political controversy in years.

For what it's worth, Jon Chait makes the case against the story at a conceptual level: "There's no such thing as offering somebody a job in return for them dropping out of a Senate race. The acceptance of a job means dropping out of a Senate race. The concept of offering somebody a job "in exchange" for them declining to seek another job is like offering to marry a woman in exchange for her not marrying some other guy. It's conceptually nonsensical."

* Update: Dickerson emails to note that the reference to "new levels of transparency" was criticism of the White House response to questions, not the issue itself.

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

GOP PREPARED TO FILIBUSTER TROOP FUNDING OVER DADT.... With Democrats likely to add a provision to the Pentagon appropriations bill to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, Republicans are moving forward with Plan B: blocking the vote on troop funding.

Senate Armed Services ranking member John McCain said Thursday that he would "without a doubt" support a filibuster if the bill goes to the floor with language that Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) plans to offer as an amendment during today's markup.

"I'll do everything in my power," the Arizona Republican said, citing letters from the four service chiefs urging Congress not to act before a Pentagon review of the policy is complete. "I'm going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda."

Another Armed Services Republican, Sen. Roger Wicker, also said he would support a filibuster if the repeal language makes it into the version of the bill that goes to the floor, possibly during the post-Memorial Day work period.

Just so we're clear, consider exactly what Senate Republicans are saying here. The GOP is prepared to refuse an up-or-down vote in the Senate on a bill that funds the troops during two wars because Americans will eventually be able to serve in the Armed Forces, regardless of their sexual orientation. That the policy has been endorsed by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- both Republican appointees -- is irrelevant.

What's more, as Dante Atkins added, "The funny part about this whole ordeal? The compromise that the Republicans are threatening to filibuster allows the Pentagon to have the final say in the issue, which is precisely why it is not receiving the broadest support in activist circles. And yet, despite the fact that the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs get to be the ultimate arbiters of whether the policy is repealed, that's not good enough for today's homophobic Republican Party. Today's Republicans don't want gay people to be able to serve in the military -- even if the Pentagon says it's okay."

I seem to recall Republicans screaming that those who oppose funding the troops during two wars are necessarily unpatriotic terrorist sympathizers, aiding and abetting the enemy. Now these same Republicans are boasting about their intention to prevent the Senate from even voting on troop funding.

It's funny how GOP standards change, isn't it?

—Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

SOME INITIAL SIGNS OF 'TOP KILL' PROGRESS.... We likely won't have a full account of whether the "top kill" method was successful in stopping the oil gusher in the Gulf until later today, at the earliest. But the initial reports offer some encouragement.

Engineers have succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico from a gushing BP well, the federal government's top oil spill commander, U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, said Thursday morning.

The "top kill" effort, launched Wednesday afternoon by industry and government engineers, has pumped enough drilling fluid to block all oil and gas from the well, Allen said. The pressure from the well is very low, but persists, he said.

Once engineers have reduced the well pressure to zero, they will begin to pump cement into the hole to entomb the well. To help that effort, he said, engineers are also pumping some debris into the blowout preventer at the top of the well.

Allen added, "We'll get this under control."

Update: As much as everyone hopes these initial assessments are accurate, we may not know the extent of the efforts success for several days.

For now, it appears the leak has slowed dramatically. That doesn't mean it can't start up again, and officials on the ground (and on the water) insist they're far from declaring victory.

—Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

GOP NARRATIVES VS. PUBLIC NEEDS.... House Democrats are ready to move forward on a package of economic policies -- jobless benefits, temporary health care subsidies, job creation investments -- that would bolster the ongoing recovery. But it's struggling, not because of its merits, but because many Democrats are worried about Republican narratives.

"We have put together a wonderful bill, and every piece in it can be justified as good public policy," said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, a freshman Democrat from Virginia. "But it is not paid for. Until somebody shows me a path for this being paid for, I am a no."

Aiming for a vote on Thursday, House Democratic officials said they had agreed to cut the cost of the measure by more than $40 billion by limiting a provision on Medicare fees paid to doctors and extending unemployment benefits through Nov. 30 instead of Dec. 31. Aides said the changes would result in about $90 billion of the measure's overall costs of around $150 billion being branded as emergency spending and added to the deficit -- a level they hoped a majority could swallow. [...]

[T]he difficulties top Democrats were experiencing in securing votes in both the House and the Senate illustrated the intensifying power of spending as a campaign issue and real concerns among lawmakers about the consequences of the growing debt.

During the Bush/Cheney era, it was, as Republicans have already conceded, "standard practice not to pay for things." Now, however, many Democratic lawmakers are terrified of deficit spending -- no matter how many people it will help, and no matter how fragile the economic recovery -- because they'll face attack ads launched by those who turned a huge surplus into a huge deficit, and who have no credibility on fiscal responsibility.

"Right now, jobs matter more than deficits," AFSCME president Gerald McEntee said yesterday. "And even if the deficit is your top concern, imagine what will happen to it if hundreds of thousands more Americans lose their jobs."

As sensible as this sounds, lawmakers' desire to help the economy is clearly in conflict with lawmakers' anxiety over common Republican/media frames ("spending = bad").

The spending bill carries a price tag on $127 billion bill, but would add $84 billion to the deficit, with some costs offset by new oil fees and tax reforms affecting multinational corporations. It also addresses the Medicare "Doc Fix."

Expect some close votes today.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

DADT SUPPORTERS GET A LITTLE HYSTERICAL.... We'll know fairly soon if the effort to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will succeed, but as the decision draws near, supporters of the status quo are having to scramble.

In general, Republicans on Capitol Hill, who will be nearly unanimous in their support for the discriminatory policy, have kept their response relatively low-key. They want to keep the ridiculous status quo in place, but given the popularity of repealing DADT, Republicans don't see the value in being particularly vocal about it. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is taking a leading role in trying to kill the Democratic proposal, but even his work is going on largely behind the scenes. [Update: Perhaps I spoke too soon on this front.]

The religious right movement, meanwhile, is doing what it does best: it's getting hysterical.

Unable to come up with compelling justifications for an expensive, discriminatory policy that undermines military readiness, religious right groups have gone off the deep end.

Here's how the Family Research Council envisions things going if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed: first, more straight soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will be fellated in their sleep against their will. Then, commanders afraid of being labeled homophobes will refuse to do anything about it. Eventually, the straight service members will quit out of fear.

On a conference call with reporters today, FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg delivered the results of what he said was the first-ever study of "homosexual assault" in the military. Joined by several former military officers opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, he warned Congress that the DADT repeal language currently under discussion with the agreement of the White House will turn the U.S. military into a terrifying free-rape zone where no heterosexual is safe.

The Family Research Council, which is a religious right powerhouse, has quite a case. As the right-wing group sees it, 8.2% of sexual assaults in the military were homosexual in nature. (I have no idea if that's true, and it's best not to take the FRC's word for it.) FRC added that less than 3% of the national population is gay (again, a dubious number). Ergo, gay soldiers commit more sexual assaults than straight soldiers, and ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would unleash a wave of gay sexual predators who will terrorize American fighting forces.

Who could argue with logic like this?

It wasn't just the Family Research Council. The FRC's friends at the American Family Association have begun pushing the line that Adolf Hitler was gay, and he recruited "homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers," because Hitler believed that only gay soldiers "had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after."

There's no evidence to support any of this nonsense, of course, but I can't help but find it amusing to hear the unhinged right argue that we can't have gay soldiers -- because gays are mean.

It seems unlikely that any of this will actually influence the policy debate, but it's a reminder of just how weak the conservative case against repeal really is. This garbage is the best the right can come up with.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

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

* The "top kill" effort to stop the oil gusher in the Gulf is underway. There is, of course, no guarantee it will work.

* BP's internal investigation of the disaster "points to a series of equipment failures, mistakes and missed warning signs that led to the blowout and fire on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, according to lawmakers briefed by the company."

* The Interior Department's Minerals Management Service is not held in high regard right now.

* Photo essays of the Gulf are not for the faint of heart.

* The State Department continues to state its support for South Korea, as tensions with North Korea escalate.

* New home sales got another boost, thanks to government tax credits. Orders on durable goods also offers signs of hope.

* With Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announcing his support, the Senate Armed Services Committee is likely to approve a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

* Service chiefs, however, still want to wait until after December (which, politically, would likely push off repeal until 2013, at the very earliest).

* Conservatives don't want to hear this, but police chiefs believe anti-immigrant measures like the one in Arizona will make crime worse, not better.

* The right has some new attack against Elena Kagan. It's already been debunked.

* Opponents still outnumber supporters, but health care reform's popularity has grown quite a bit over the last couple of months.

* Speaking of health care, the Affordable Care Act won't hurt state budgets.

* The return of the 'al-Qaeda Seven' witch hunt?

* Is the awards system for scientists way off?

* Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) is wrapping up his final year in the chamber on a classy note.

* Right-wing activist James O'Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

* And finally, once in a while, Fox News's style of reporting is offensive and wrong, even conservative congressional Republicans can't take it. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) said on the House floor this week, "I don't know what they're doing at Fox News, but they should stop smoking it and get back to reporting the facts."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

OBAMA MAKES THE ENERGY CONNECTION.... Many progressive voices have been urging President Obama to be more forceful and direct in connecting the BP oil spill disaster with the need for a comprehensive energy/climate bill pending on the Hill. We're starting to see evidence that he's doing just that.

The president, for example, appeared in San Francisco, and highlighted the larger context.

"Even if you hadn't seen the catastrophe down in the Gulf, the reason that folks are now having to go down a mile deep into the ocean, and then another mile drilling into the ground below, that is because the easy oil fields and oil wells are gone, or they're starting to diminish."

He added, "That tells us that we've got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country. And we've got to start -- we've got to start cultivating -- we've got to start cultivating solar and wind and biodiesel. And we've got to increase energy efficiency across our economy in our buildings and our automobiles."

Commenting on his message to Senate Republicans yesterday, Obama added, "There's been some good work done by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Let's go. Let's not wait."

The president emphasized a related point just a few hours ago:

"[T]he spill in the Gulf, which is just heartbreaking, only underscores the necessity of seeking alternative fuel sources. We're not going to transition out of oil next year or 10 years from now. But think about it, part of what's happening in the Gulf is that oil companies are drilling a mile underwater before they hit ground, and then a mile below that before they hit oil. With the increased risks, the increased costs, it gives you a sense of where we're going. We're not going to be able to sustain this kind of fossil fuel use.

"[E]ven as we are dealing with this immediate crisis [in the Gulf], we've got to remember that the risks our current dependence on oil holds for our environment and our coastal communities is not the only cost involved in our dependence on these fossil fuels. [...]

"[T]hat's why we've placed a big emphasis on clean energy. It's the right thing to do for our environment, it's the right thing to do for our national security, but it's also the right thing to do for our economy.... [W]e've still got more work to do, and that's why I'm going to keep fighting to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation in Washington. We're going to try to get it done this year, because what we want to do is create incentives that will fully unleash the potential for jobs and growth in this sector."

I haven't heard the president mention "this year" on the climate/energy bill in a while, so that was at least mildly encouraging, though he did preface it with "try," as opposed to "will."

In either case, drawing the connection between the disaster and the need for a new comprehensive policy is key. Here's hoping we'll hear this message more often, starting immediately.

—Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

IN SEARCH OF A 'VILENESS/ABSURDITY THRESHOLD'.... Former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who seems unfulfilled unless she's engaged in some kind of pointless feud, has decided to lash out wildly at an investigative journalist. The details aren't especially interesting.

What is interesting is a question Greg Sargent raised in light of the latest Palin nonsense.

A question for fellow reporters and editors: At what point do Sarah Palin's attacks and smears become so vile and absurd that they no longer merit attention? Is there such a point?

Palin, who has broken the mold in so many ways, has defied the laws of political and media gravity in another fashion: Despite the ever-mounting ridiculousness of her claims, she continues to get attention. This isn't so with other figures. Frequently those who traffic in absurdity and smears to get media attention keep upping the ante until their assertions become so grotesque and self-parodic that they are no longer newsworthy.

It's kind of like inflation: Keep printing more money and the value of it keeps dropping. That hasn't happened with Palin.

Quite right. I'd quibble a little with Greg's point about the applicability of the laws of political and media gravity -- Newt Gingrich is mad as a hatter, but the political establishment still takes him seriously and showers him with the attention he craves -- but the larger observation is compelling and persuasive. Palin just keeps getting more ridiculous, and there appears to be no breaking point. No matter how far she goes, there is no threshold to cross.

Making matters worse, the conspicuously unintelligent right-wing hero is shamelessly manipulating the media -- refusing to engage in actual interviews, she puts out bizarre messages on Facebook, and major outlets pass the missives along to the public, stenography-style.

So, what's a media professional to do?

I'll concede that I've been torn over this. Regular readers may not believe it, but I only mention a small fraction of the Palin-related nonsense that crosses my radar screen. I wasn't even going to mention the new feud against the investigative journalist.

I tend to keep an informal criterion in mind:

* Is Palin's latest nonsense part of a larger argument, echoed by others, that's likely to influence the national discourse?

* Is Palin's latest nonsense related to an issue of national significance, including errors in need of correction?

* Is Palin's latest nonsense deeply amusing, and further evidence of why her misguided minions need a new idol to follow?

To Greg's point in particular, I think the problem is not just that Palin's attacks and smears have become so vile and absurd that they no longer merit attention, but rather, that major media outlets pass along Palin's vile and absurd attacks without telling the public that her nonsense is nonsense.

As long as she remains a credible candidate for national office, I can appreciate why news outlets make note of her inexplicable garbage. I don't seriously expect a major paper or network to formally decide one day, "OK, that's it. Palin is now officially too pathetic to cover."

Sure, that'd be nice, but I know it's not going to happen.

For me, the issue isn't so much an attention threshold which, if Palin crosses it, she gets shunned. Rather, we need a credibility threshold which, if she crosses it, she becomes the humiliating laughingstock sensible people know her to be.

By most reasonable measures, Sarah Palin represents the very worst American politics has to offer -- a dim-witted, right-wing, demagogic liar, worshipped by misguided millions. This would be far less painful if media professionals had the courage to stop playing stenographer, and start scrutinizing the substance -- or lack thereof -- behind her vile, child-like gibberish.

Ruth Marcus asked today whether there's "value in pointing out that the empress has no clothes." There is, but only if Marcus' colleagues throughout the media are willing to be as candid.

—Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER NOVEMBER.... Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee commented on the reportedly tense discussion yesterday, between Senate Republicans and President Obama. (via Kevin Drum)

"We simply have a large difference of opinion, which [will] not likely ... be settled until November."

Really, Lamar? And then what happens?

If you had asked Alexander and his GOP colleagues exactly two years about the disputes between Democrats and Republicans, they likely would have offered the identical message -- there are large differences of opinion, which voters can settle in November.

And if the 2010 midterms come and go, and Republicans fall short of their majorities (and expectations), they'll go right back to the same tactics we're seeing now. And if asked when the GOP might start trying to play a constructive role in American governance, Alexander and his fellow Republicans can once again remind that there are large differences of opinion, which voters can settle in November 2012.

Which is exactly why Alexander's point is so vapid. To hear him tell it, the only time elections have consequences is when Republicans win.

We talked about this a few months ago, but I still marvel at the circumstances. Voters were confronted in 2008 with two parties with large differences of opinion, and asked to set the country in one direction or the other. Democrats dominated -- Obama had the highest popular vote percentage of any candidate in either party in 20 years, and the highest for a non-incumbent in 56 years. Senate Dems scored the biggest majority in two decades. House Dems were awarded the biggest majority in three decades.

Congressional Republicans decided, en masse, that after voters "settled" the debate, the majority still hadn't earned the right to govern. Why? Because the GOP didn't like the election results. It's the first time in memory that a major political party decided that elections simply shouldn't have consequences.

So, here's my follow-up for Lamar Alexander: if voters will settle the inter-party arguments in November, what do you consider the results from last November?

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

SENATE REPUBLICANS WANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.... It's hard to overstate how incredibly dumb this is.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."

The seven -- Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma -- allege that the offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position "as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity" or "in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office."

If I had to guess, I'd say these seven conservative senators are well aware of how blisteringly stupid this is, but desperate political considerations have led to this pointless manufactured outrage.

How misguided is this? Let us count the ways....

1. Given the timeline of events, it's not even clear that there was a job offer.

2. Even if a job offer was discussed, legal experts -- including the chief ethics lawyer for the Bush/Cheney administration -- have concluded that there's nothing scandalous about this. Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit, said, "Talk about criminalizing the political process! ... It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horse-trading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"

3. Every modern administration -- and even plenty of not-so-modern administrations -- uses appointment opportunities as leverage in political negotiations. Reagan did it; Clinton did it; Bush did it. The notion that any of this necessitated a special prosecutor is madness. Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, said, "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington."

And just as an aside, the seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really ought to be ashamed of themselves. These same senators saw the Plame scandal, Scooter Libby and his get-out-of-jail-free card, the warrantless-wiretap scandal, the torture memos, the purge of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, the no-bid Halliburton contracts, the cost estimates of Medicare Part D deliberately hidden from Congress, Interior Department officials literally in bed with oil company officials, the pundits paid to toe the administration's line in the media without disclosure, the probably illegal fake-news segments the administration created to run on local news outlets without disclosure, the misuse of "faith-based" grants to help Republican congressional candidates, Karl Rove's campaign "briefings" to federal offices in violation of the Hatch Act, and plenty more alleged crimes committed by the Bush/Cheney gang that I'm probably forgetting.

The seven GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee not only saw no need for a special prosecutor in any of these scandals, but they didn't even want to hold hearings on the controversies.

And now they literally want to make a federal case out of Sestak's dubious claim? It's genuinely pathetic.

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

LINDSEY GRAHAM'S BAD ADVICE.... I don't see the logic behind this at all.

The chief Senate Republican negotiator on energy legislation urged President Obama and Democrats to abandon comprehensive reform for the time being and push passable components of the bill instead.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said that in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf the votes simply aren't there for the Senate to pass far-reaching legislation.

"You have a comprehensive approach that can sell and I don't think many people believe that the oil spill has helped get more votes for offshore drilling," he said. "It has made it a hard climb. Let's do smaller version of the energy climate bill... and be realistic about what is possible or not."

Let me see if I get this straight. For Lindsey Graham, when the desperate need for an overhaul to the U.S. approach to energy policy is less obvious, he's willing to work on an ambitious, comprehensive solution. When there's a catastrophe, shining a bright light on the urgent need for a comprehensive approach, Lindsey Graham wants policymakers to scale back and accept less.

Or put another way, pre-catastrophe, Graham wanted to aim high. Post-catastrophe, Graham wants to aim low.

It seems pretty obvious that this is backwards. What more evidence could Graham and his cohorts need that a compressive approach -- which, as recently as a few weeks ago, had Democratic, Republican, and independent support -- needs immediate attention?

Graham reportedly conveyed his advice to the president yesterday at the Senate GOP luncheon. The White House issued a statement that said the president told Republican senators that the BP oil spill disaster "should heighten our sense of urgency to hasten the development of new, clean energy sources that will promote energy independence and good-paying American jobs."

That, apparently makes too much sense to succeed.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

BOEHNER GETS BY WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM HIS (LOBBYIST) FRIENDS.... Given the larger political environment, it's tempting to think political leaders would try to avoid being overly cozy with corporate lobbyists. Even for those members of Congress that serve as little more than K Street lackeys, there's a general desire to give the appearance of distance between them and the lobbying elites.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) doesn't even seem interested in keeping up appearances. Roll Call reports today that "lobbyists are not-so-quietly cozying up to the Ohio Republican," with the expectation that he might be the next Speaker of the House.

A regular on the cocktail and fundraising circuit, Boehner has long been friendly with a number of corporate and contract lobbyists -- a network that he is increasingly relying on now as he eyes the Speakership. Altria's Gates, along with his wife, Joyce Gates, who once served as Boehner's chief of staff, and Quinn Gillespie's Lampkin are considered key members of Boehner's inner circle, as are Gary Andres of Dutko Worldwide, Terry Holt, a former Boehner aide who is now with the Republican lobbying firm HDMK, and John Fish, an in-house lobbyist with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Ohio native Steve Clark of Clark, Lytle & Geduldig, his partner Sam Geduldig, who was Boehner's political director, and Glover Park Group's Brian Gaston, another one-time Boehner staffer, are also tight with the top House Republican.

"I think that he has an excellent relationship with a lot of people on K Street," Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) said.

I don't doubt that this is true. The oddity is the willingness to brag about it.

Indeed, this reinforces fears that Republicans' electoral success in 2010 will create a Capitol very much like the one we saw the last time the GOP was in charge -- with the corrupt scheme known as the "K Street Project," which already seems to be making a comeback, and with corporate lobbyists writing legislation affecting their industries, just like old (pre-2007) times.

What's more, Lee Fang reminds us that over the last year or so, Boehner has "consistently prioritized the interests of lobbyists over the public," including brazenly huddling with 100 corporate lobbyists to kill Wall Street reform, and an incident last July in which Boehner "interrupted House proceedings so Republican lawmakers could attend his annual 'Boehner Beach Party' fundraiser with corporate lobbyists."

Refresh my memory: isn't this the sort of thing the Tea Party crowd is supposed to find offensive? Under the circumstances, it's curious that the so-called "movement" is prepared to help make Boehner the Speaker of the House.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

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.

* House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), apparently hoping to lower the same expectations that he built up, said yesterday it would be a "steep climb" for Republicans to retake the House majority in the midterm elections.

* A new Quinnipiac poll shows Dems back out in front on the generic congressional ballot, leading 42% to 36%. Two months ago, the GOP led, 44% to 39%.

* In the latest twist in Arizona's Senate Republican primary, Sen. John McCain's campaign is strongly suggesting in a new web ad that former J.D. Hayworth is "dumb." The criticism comes on the heels of a video in which Hayworth insisted that the United States never declared war on Nazi Germany.

* As expected, former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) formally kicked off his Senate campaign in the state of Washington this morning.

* After struggling badly for months, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is starting to look a little stronger. A new Suffolk University poll shows the incumbent with a 13-point lead over Republican challenger Charlie Baker, 42% to 29%, with state Treasurer Tim Cahill (I) third with 14%/

* In Florida, the latest poll commissioned by the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/BayNews9/Central Florida News 13, shows state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) leading in this year's gubernatorial race, but not by much. The survey shows him up by just two points over state CFO Alex Sink (D), 34% to 32%.

* Speaking of Florida's gubernatorial race, state Sen. Paula Dockery (R), struggling to get noticed, ended her statewide campaign this week. Dockery cited poor fundraising in a statement.

* New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) announced this morning that Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy (D) will be his running mate in this year's gubernatorial campaign.

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

DRIVING AWAY A GROWING CONSTITUENCY, CONT'D.... We talked a few weeks ago about the risk Republicans are facing on immigration politics -- the party feels the need to satisfy the demands of the GOP's far-right base, while hoping to cultivate ties to Hispanic-American voters, a growing American constituency that's often considered a "swing" group of voters.

It's a fine line to walk, and as recent developments in Arizona have shown, Republicans aren't exactly pursuing both approaches with equal care.

We're now starting to see the results. Hispanic voters in Colorado and Arizona, for example, are moving quickly to support Democratic candidates.

Today, a new NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo poll shows a similar trend at the national level, where "Latinos, once a semi-swing group of voters, now have swung overwhelmingly for President Obama and the Democratic Party, and younger Hispanics are moving to the Democrats in even greater numbers."

For example, 68% of Latinos approve of Obama's job (compared with 48% of overall respondents and 38% of whites), and they view the Democratic Party favorably by a 54%-21% score (versus 41%-40% among all adults and 34%-48% among whites). And their views of the Republican Party? In the poll, the GOP fav/unfav among Latinos is 22%-44%.

What's more, Latinos think Democrats would do a better job than Republicans in protecting the interests of minorities (by 58%-11%), in representing the opportunity to move up the economic ladder (46%-20%), in dealing with immigration (37%-12%), and in promoting strong moral values (33%-23%). The only advantage they gave Republicans was in enforcing security along the border (31%-20%). And Latinos remain a sleeping -- yet growing -- political giant: 23% of them aren't registered voters (compared with 12% of whites and 16% of blacks).

As recently as 2004, Bush/Cheney was making real inroads with Hispanic voters, and there was some evidence to suggest the GOP would remain fully competitive with Democrats with this constituency for years to come.

In the years since, the Latino vote went from being up-for-grabs to solidly Democratic -- in large part because Republicans decided to stop trying to reach out.

The GOP can take some solace in the poll results, since they're getting a small bump in support from white voters who like the hard-line approach adopted in Arizona. But over the long term, Republicans have to realize the demographic trends do not work in the GOP's favor.

For what it's worth, Hispanic support for Democrats may fall if immigration reform fails this year, and voters blame the White House (even if it's Republicans and conservative Dems who are responsible for killing the bill).

It creates a very strong incentive for the GOP -- fight like hell to prevent immigration reform from succeeding. If voters blame the president, Republicans win. If voters blame the GOP, they'll be largely in the same position they're in now.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

IT'S NOT LIKE SOUTH CAROLINA NEEDED ANOTHER SCANDAL.... I've been reluctant to mention the sex scandal involving South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (R), in large part because the reports have seemed a little thin. One person claimed there was an affair; the other person argued the affair never happened. It's not much to go on.

The story, however, appears to be getting more interesting.

First, a quick primer for those just joining us. Will Folks, a former spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford (R), announced this week that he had an "inappropriate physical relationship" with Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. Folks has been a Haley supporter, so at least on the surface, he would not have an incentive to make her look bad. Haley, a state representative and the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, "categorically" denied the accusation, calling it a "disgraceful smear."

Folks wrote on his site -- which features the tag line, "Unfair. Imbalanced" -- that the affair happened "several years ago," before he was married. He offered no proof, but was apparently hoping to get out in front of local media outlets, which were looking into rumors about the affair. (A Columbia, S.C., paper later confirmed it's been working on a story about the supposed affair.) Folks added that he still supports Haley's campaign.

Folks subsequently said he has evidence -- text messages, emails, and phone records -- to bolster his claim, but no one knew if the evidence exists or not.

Today, Folks released what he says are text messages between himself, an AP reporter, another GOP political operative, and Nikki Haley's campaign manager.

The texts, posted on Folks site, FITSNews, are dated about 10 days ago and consist of discussions about various reporters working on a story that involves Haley and Folks, and how to kill the story. In one May 15 text, Haley campaign manager Tim Pearson tells Folks "I'm telling you man, we keep this under wraps and nh is going to win."

Just one of the texts, purportedly sent from GOP operative Wes Donehue to Folks on May 14, actually describes the topic of the story being discussed: "Now, I don't give a fuck of you believe me or not. Your the one who screwed her. You're the one who bragged about it. She's the one who told BJ. Yall point fingers at your own damn selves and leave me the fuck out of it."

According to Folks, "BJ" is B.J. Boling, a staffer for Haley opponent Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC).

It prompted David Kurtz to advise campaign consultants everywhere: "Do NOT have written communications with the alleged lover of your candidate."

For the record, I'm still not entirely convinced the story's legit. We don't even know if this morning's evidence is genuine. The story is, however, getting more interesting, not less, and if Haley is caught lying about the affair, her campaign is in very serious trouble.

The Republican primary is on June 8 -- less than two weeks away.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

AMERICA SPEAKING OUT, BUT NOT VERY WELL.... House Republicans launched their "America Speaking Out" project yesterday, an election-year gimmick intended to help give the GOP a policy platform to run on. One of the key problems, as we talked about yesterday, is that the party is asking taxpayers to foot the bill for this.

But there's also the matter of the Republicans' online discussion itself. As part of the initiative, the GOP is creating a forum for their supporters to discuss potential policy ideas. One of the first proposals, apparently promoted by a Rand Paul fan*, was to eliminate provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Republican officials monitoring the submissions removed it from their site.

But Dana Milbank highlighted some of "the early responses to the Republicans' request for ideas."

"End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."

"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."

"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

That last one was my particular favorite.

In fairness, there's no way to know if the participants are sincere. Some of the more ridiculous content may come from far-right nuts, or perhaps progressives who are trying to make Republican activists look stupid. Tragically, it's surprisingly difficult to tell the difference lately.

Republicans might want to take a hard look at the suggestion that "we need to reframe the discussion" about the BP oil spill to counteract the "environmental whackos" worried about wildlife. Republicans, this person proposed, should argue that "BP is creating a new race of faster dolphins. These fish are unable to compete against the fish of other countries, but now their increased lubrication will allow them to fly through the water. Faster fish = good."

I don't think I fully appreciated the comedic possibilities "America Speaking Out" offers.

* Update: Apparently, this wasn't a Rand Paul fan, but rather, was posted by a progressive who was testing to see how actual Tea Party ideas fared on the GOP's website. Like I said, the distinction between right-wing activists and progressives making fun for right-wing activists is often blurred.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

THE STIMULUS WORKED -- PART MMCXVII.... A few months ago, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) insisted that the economic recovery effort that prevented a depression "hasn't created one new job." A reporter gave him a chance to clarify, asking, "It didn't create one new job?" The new senator replied, "That's correct."

For Republicans in general, this is simply assumed to be true. Indeed, the standard conservative line is that the stimulus actually hurt the economy.

The evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming, the debate is over.

The $800 billion U.S. stimulus package has had a slightly bigger effect on the U.S. economy than was projected when it was passed more than a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday.

Through the first quarter of 2010, the stimulus boosted employment by an estimated 1.3 million to 2.8 million jobs, about a quarter or half million more than projected. Gross domestic product was 1.7 to 4.1 percentage points higher than it would have been without the stimulus, the nonpartisan budget office said.

Similarly, the unemployment would be up to 1.5 percentage points higher in the absence of the stimulus, according to the non-partisan CBO.

Looking ahead, the CBO projects that as many as "3.7 million American jobs could be attributed to the Recovery Act by the end of the September."

There's a word to describe a recovery effort like this: success.

Facing the greatest economic crisis in generations, the nation had two choices early last year: the Democratic stimulus or the Republicans' proposed five-year spending freeze. We're all very fortunate the latter was in the minority.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

DADT SHOULD BE AN EASY LIFT -- BUT IT'S NOT.... There's no shortage of contentious political disputes in Congress right now, but getting rid of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be fairly straightforward.

After all, repealing DADT enjoys the support of nearly 80% of the country. A compromise worked out this week enjoys the support of the White House, the Pentagon, and the leadership of both chambers. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has endorsed both repeal and the compromise measure, as have two of his predecessors. Even Dick Cheney is on board.

So, this is an easy one, right? Well, it should be, but in this climate, even wildly popular, common-sense proposals can come up short.

Yesterday, a few key senators announced their positions, and not all of the news was good. To her credit, Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine said she'll support DADT repeal, but Sen. Scott Brown (R) of Massachusetts, who was considered a possible pick-up, announced his opposition. Perhaps more alarming, Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee that will likely vote on this tomorrow, said he'll oppose repeal.

With some center-right Dems wavering, and Republicans nearly unanimous in their opposition, Roll Call reports this morning that ending the discriminatory policy remains "in doubt" the day before expected votes.

Gay rights advocates and their allies were furiously whipping a deal brokered Monday by the White House that would attach the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" law to the defense authorization bill. House Democrats face a floor fight on the issue, perhaps later this week, while the Armed Services panel is gearing up for a pivotal vote on the issue Thursday.

Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said Tuesday he still is not sure whether he has enough support to overturn the policy and will be talking to his colleagues heading into this week's markup.

Democrats enjoy a 16-12 edge on the committee, but with Webb voting with the GOP on repeal, and no committee Republicans willing to do the right thing, there's very little margin for error.

In the House, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D) of Pennsylvania is confident he has the votes, but there are still plenty of Blue Dogs who put the measure's fate in jeopardy. Complicating matters, repeal would be added to a defense appropriations bill, which many liberals Dems intended to vote against since it funds wars they disagree with. The repeal amendment may pass, under one scenario, only to see the larger spending bill falter for different reasons -- conservatives will oppose it because it ends discrimination, and liberals may oppose it because it finances current military policies.

Monday's agreement was a breakthrough, and I'm still cautiously optimistic, but this isn't going to be easy. Proponents of ending the existing policy are hoping to see the public get more involved in contacting members' offices over this issue, particularly today. Stay tuned.

Update: Sources tell me Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) will support repeal. This is unconfirmed, but if true, makes success more likely.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

A GOP UPSET IN IDAHO.... The Republican primary in Idaho's1st congressional district would, under normal circumstances, fail to generate national attention. But Vaughn Ward (R) proved to be so endlessly entertaining, the primary contest took on unexpected significance, just by virtue of the sheer comedic value.

In a bit of a disappointment for those of us hoping to use Ward for amusing blog posts for the rest of the campaign season, the Republican favorite was handed an upset defeat in the Gem State last night.

Top national GOP recruit Vaughn Ward on Tuesday lost his primary in Idaho after a series of missteps by his campaign, throwing the Republican Party's chances in doubt against top-targeted Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho).

Ward was trailing state Rep. Raul Labrador (R) 48 to 39 percent, with 90 percent of precincts reporting. The Associated Press called the race for Labrador early Wednesday.

For reporters anxious to argue that establishment-backed candidates are in trouble this year, I suppose Ward will be a useful data point. The national Republican Party is aggressively targeting Rep. Walt Minnick, Congress' most conservative Democrat, in a reliably "red" district. The state and national party enthusiastically embraced Ward as one of the year's top Republican contenders.

Indeed, the NRCC included Ward as one of the first candidates on the campaign committee's "Young Guns" program, and just last week, a certain former half-term governor campaigned alongside Ward in Idaho. Ward also enjoyed a six-to-one fundraising edge over primary challenger, Labrador.

But Ward managed to lose badly anyway, despite all the institutional support, because he was arguably the year's worst congressional candidate. His recent troubles included blatant plagiarism from an Obama speech; blatant plagiarism on his website of Ward's policy positions; and odd remarks during a debate in which he characterized Puerto Rico as a foreign country. Ward was also reprimanded last month for violating military protocol when he gave the impression that the U.S. Marine Corps was supporting his campaign.

The Republican Party stood by him anyway, making his defeat that much more embarrassing for everyone involved.

So long, Vaughn Ward. We knew ye a little too well.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

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

* This better work: "The most critical moment in the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is at hand, as BP engineers armed with 50,000 pounds of dense mud and a fleet of robotic submarines are poised to attempt a "top kill" maneuver to plug the leaking well a mile below the surface."

* President Obama will be back in Louisiana on Friday to assess the response to the BP oil spill disaster. In announcing the visit, the White House noted in a statement that the administration "has mobilized one of the largest responses to a catastrophic event in history, with more than 1,200 vessels in the region and more than 22,000 people, including many of the brightest scientific minds from both the public and private sector, working around the clock to mitigate the oil's impact."

* As far as the White House is concerned, there's no doubt this is the worst oil spill in American history.

* Tensions continue to rise: "Relations between North and South Korea, already strained over the sinking of a South Korean warship, deteriorated to their worst point in many years on Tuesday as the South Korean president redesignated the North as its archenemy, and the North retaliated by severing its few remaining ties with the South."

* Along the border: "President Obama will send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the Southwest border and increase spending on law enforcement, yielding to demands from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers there that border security be tightened, administration officials said."

* U.S. consumer confidence rises to its highest level since August 2007.

* For the first time in seven years, there are more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than Iraq.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) sees action on the climate/energy bill in mid-Summer.

* The administration weighs a new approach to the line-item veto.

* Get ready for Round 3 in the congressional fight to extend unemployment benefits.

* Fox News aired footage from Obama's speech at West Point, but carefully edited out all of the applause.

* Because college financial aid is tricky, many families rule out colleges they might be able to afford.

* Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) doesn't take criticism well.

* The chief ethics lawyer for George W. Bush believes there's nothing untoward about the Joe Sestak job offer.

* Vice President Biden will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day. Some conservatives are outraged that the president isn't doing this himself. They shouldn't be.

* Ouch: "When Ann Curry, news anchor of the Today Show, gave the commencement speech at Wheaton College in Massachusetts last Saturday, she listed several famous graduates -- Wes Craven and Billy Graham among them -- of the wrong Wheaton College."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

PAT ROBERTS WANTS OBAMA TO BE LESS 'SERIOUS'.... President Obama spoke to the Senate Republican caucus' lunch today, and by all accounts, there was no love lost. The discussion was held behind closed doors at the GOP's request, but participants later described the back and forth with words like "testy," "candid," and "frank."

Which, of course, is fine. Senate Republicans want to take the country in one direction; the president has a very different vision. The two sides disagree about practically everything. When they get together to chat about policy, it stands to reason that they would clash.

But there was one quote from a participant that stood out for me.

"The more he talked the more he got upset," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) said. "He needs to [take] a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don't take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean you're attacking their motives -- and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset." [emphasis added]

I haven't the foggiest idea what Pat Roberts is talking about here. He's complaining that the president cares too much about the substance of the discussion? That Obama should be less "serious"?

What?

Look, I know Pat Roberts isn't an especially profound senator, but he should at least appreciate the larger situation. President Obama is leading in a time of multiple generational crises, all of which he inherited from a failed Republican administration. While trying to clean up the mess, Senate Republicans have opposed everything -- usually just for the sake of opposing -- and taken institutional obstructionism to scandalous levels, without precedent in American history. On most of the major policy challenges, the same Senate Republican caucus has not only blocked reasonable proposals, it's also spent a fair amount of time blatantly and shamelessly lying.

No compromise, no good faith negotiations, no willingness to meet in the middle, no understanding that elections have consequences. This is the m.o. of the Senate Republican caucus for the last 16 months, no matter how much effort the White House invested in pointless "bipartisanship." I can see why Obama might feel a little aggravated when talking to a group that helped create the mess, refuses to help clean up, and spends every waking moment attacking him for the way he's tending to their mess.

So, when the president and this caucus get together for a chat, some heated exchanges are to be expected. But we can do without the frequently confused senior senator from Kansas encouraging the chief executive to "take a valium" and not take matters "so seriously."

—Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... We talked yesterday about former Nevada state Rep. Sharron Angle, a leading Republican candidate in the race to take on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D). Angle, who enjoys the enthusiastic support of the Tea Party crowd, has some unorthodox views about a wide variety of issues.

Here, for example, is Angle reflecting on her childhood:

"We moved to the state of Nevada when I was three-and-a-half. My father bought a small business out in front of the convention center in Reno -- and it wasn't a convention center then; it was an onion field. But his small business was a motel. And so we did those things as a kid growing up that Americans don't do. We cleaned bathrooms and made beds and swept floors, did laundry, those kinds of things." [emphasis added]

In my experience, Americans clean bathrooms, make beds, sweep floors, and do laundry all the time, even in motels.

For the record, the video in which Angle makes the remarks wasn't captured by some tracker hoping to embarrass the far-right candidate -- it was posted to YouTube by the Angle campaign.

—Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

THE ARC OF HISTORY BENDS JUST A LITTLE MORE.... Public attitudes about the LGBT community have, slowly but surely, grown more progressive in recent decades. Tolerance and respect had nowhere to go but up, but attitudes have improved. With that in mind, a new Gallup poll is not only encouraging, it points to something of a breakthrough.

Asked about gay and lesbian relations, a majority of Americans, for the first time ever, believes the relations are morally acceptable. The number currently stands at 52%, an all-time high, while 43% consider the relations "morally wrong," an all-time low.

To be sure, I'd prefer to see these numbers split 100% to zero. That 43% of Americans, in the 21st century, consider gay and lesbian relations immoral is embarrassing for the country. But it's hard not to feel encouraged by the clear and obvious trend in the right direction. What's more, much to the religious right's chagrin, there's no reason to think these numbers will ever reverse course.

We do, however, still have plenty of room for improvement. A narrow majority (53%) still opposes gay marriage, but 58% believe gay and lesbian relations should be legal. That, again, may sound painfully low, but that support has nearly doubled nationwide since the Reagan era.

Summarizing its findings, Gallup concluded that a "gradual cultural shift under way in Americans' views toward gay individuals and gay rights. While public attitudes haven't moved consistently in gays' and lesbians' favor every year, the general trend is clearly in that direction."

With each passing year, Republicans' ability to use LGBT issues as a divisive wedge gets a little more difficult. Good.

—Steve Benen 3:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

KRISTOL'S SELECTIVE EDITING.... The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol mocked a quote from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, from a speech she delivered last weekend to a group of artists. Here's how Kristol reported it:

"We see [health care reform as] a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care. You won't have to be job-locked."

Kristol used this to make an obtuse point about Marxism.

But people, of course, don't speak in brackets. Jon Chait, who has noticed Kristol distorting Pelosi quotes before, had the good sense to check the original to see how the Weekly Standard editor changed the wording. What did Pelosi actually say?

"We see it as an entrepreneurial bill -- a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative..."

This is a pretty significant difference. Kristol's version, which deliberately edited out the notion of the entrepreneurialism in the Affordable Care Act, makes it seem as if Pelosi is talking about Americans leaving the workforce to become bohemians.

But that badly misses the point, and through creative editing, Kristol is misleading his readers. Pelosi's point is an important one -- the existing health care system makes it extremely difficult for many Americans to start small businesses. They can't give up the health coverage from one job, and can't afford the premiums if they start their own enterprise.

This isn't just limited to those who want to be artists. Americans who have an idea for a tech start-up, or a pizza parlor, or a blog are all in the same boat -- they want to take a chance on a new idea, but frequently find that they can't because of the broken health care system.

The Affordable Care Act changes this, and encourages the American entrepreneurial spirit. If Kristol disagrees, he can make his case. But creative editing is unprofessional and dishonest.

Chait added:

Democrats are not, of course, proposing to provide some kind of welfare dole to individuals who wish to create art rather than work. Musician and artist, Kristol may be interested to learn, are actual job categories. And Pelosi was speaking to musicians and artists, so her emphasis on that category of self-employed businessperson is perfectly sensible.

Of course, one reason Kristol made this line the centerpiece of a Standard editorial is that artists and musicians are a prime example of the class of people who are Not Real Americans. Kristol never loses an opportunity to employ the classic trope of communist propaganda, embraced by neoconservatives on their journey from far left to far right, of painting liberals as coastal cosmopolitans, intellectuals, and other untrustworthy categories.

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

THE BOEHNER BAILOUT.... The House Republicans' "America Speaking Out" project was, as promised unveiled this morning at a glitzy event in D.C. Because Republicans are asking American taxpayers to finance the initiative, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) maintained the facade -- the project intended to help the GOP create its campaign agenda has nothing to do with the campaign.

House Minority Leader Boehner told reporters that the site was paid for out of members' personal budgets, and that it was not intended as a campaign program. The GOP has faced criticism from Democrats who say the House GOP is using public funds for campaign activity.

Boehner assured skeptical reporters that the GOP will likely roll out an agenda for the next Congress a la the 1994 Contract With America, but AmericaSpeakingOut.com is not it.

"Apart from this, Republicans are in discussions to present our plans for the future," he said. Boehner said that the new project and those discussions are "very separate."

Yes, of course. Why would anyone think otherwise? All we have here is a Republican election-year initiative, billed as a way to shape the Republican agenda, and used to produce a platform that will be released in September -- too late to be considered this year, and just in time for the midterm elections.

But this has nothing to do with the campaign cycle. Heaven forbid.

Unfortunately for the party, the memo to GOP leaders apparently wasn't explicit enough. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who's spearheaded the "America Speaking Out" project, told ABC News, "There are a number of seats that you get just by being 'no.' But you don't get a majority by just being 'no.' You've got to say what you're for."

I see. So, simultaneously, Republican leaders want us to know that the initiative is not about the elections and that the initiative is about helping Republicans win elections. Got it.

If taxpayers weren't paying for this, it might even be amusing. If Boehner & Co. think a gimmick like this will serve their party well, they really ought to have their party finance it.

Nevertheless, now that the project is underway, and the public is free to get engaged, how's the process going? The early favorite among the proposed idea is "DEFUND, REPEAL, & REPLACE GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE." I guess that means "America Speaking Out" intends to get rid of Medicare and the V.A. hospitals?

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

THE POINTLESS INTEREST IN THE SESTAK 'JOB OFFER'.... During his Democratic primary fight against Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, Rep. Joe Sestak claimed the Obama administration had offered him a job in the hopes he'd end his campaign. I'm still not exactly sure what point Sestak hoped to make -- that he's immune to pressure, perhaps? -- but Republicans seized on the claim as potentially scandalous.

As foolish as this may be, the GOP is genuinely excited about this. Karl Rove told Fox News last night that the job offer may have been illegal, because the law "prohibits a federal official from interfering -- a government employee -- with the nomination or election for office." Fox News' "Fox & Friends" openly speculated this morning -- without a hint of humor -- about whether the job offer may have been an "impeachable offense."

Now, predictably, real outlets are also starting to take this seriously, including the editorial board of the Washington Post. It was also a topic of conversation on the Sunday shows.

So, is there anything to this? Not really. To even call this a "controversy" is to define the term down to the point of meaninglessness.

First, the job that was reportedly offered to Sestak was a chance at becoming the secretary of the Navy. We know for sure that this isn't true; the timeline of events proves it.

Second, the allegation at the root of the story is itself largely meaningless.

"People offer members of Congress things all the time," Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor and now the executive director of the liberal government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told CNSNews.com. "I don't think there is any issue. I don't see the crime." [...]

If it is true, such a trade would be an indictment of the system, Sloan of CREW said, but not likely illegal.

"A quid pro quo has to offer something of value in exchange for something," Sloan said. "If you agree not to run for the Senate and we'll make you secretary of the Navy -- that offers no monetary value. It's just the unseemly side of politics."

Third, to me, it hardly even reaches the level of being "unseemly," given how exceedingly common and routine occurrences like these are. Every White House for decades -- even Ronaldus Magnus -- intervened in key elections and used possible job opportunities when negotiating with candidates. Literally criminalizing politics is ridiculous, even by contemporary Republican standards.

But of particular interest is Karl Rove's whining. If White House intervention in an election is illegal, Rove should prepare for a life sentence.

Indeed, as Satyam Khanna noted, "No one expects much from Fox, but could they have brought on a worse messenger to argue that the federal government should keep its hands out of elections? Remember GSA chief Lurita 'cookies on the table' Doan and Rove's powerpoint? The U.S. Attorney scandal? That whole year-long investigation into the Bush White House's political activities? The list is endless. I guess all those guys should have been fined or thrown in the slammer."

Move along. When it comes to the Sestak allegations, there's really nothing to see here.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

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.

* To the delight of the NRSC, former state Sen. Dino Rossi (R) has agreed to run against Sen. Patty Murray (D) in Washington this year. Rossi, who is best known for losing two close gubernatorial races in 2004 and 2008, has already hired a former Dick Armey aide to help run his campaign. Initial polling shows Murray with a narrow lead.

* The Service Employees International Union is enlisting a candidate to take on Rep. Larry Kissell (D), a Blue Dog from North Carolina, this year. The SEIU has already "privately reached out to Wendell Fant, an Iraq War vet, who used to work for Kissell, and is now in the process of collecting signatures to get him on the ballot as an independent."

* The latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll shows Gov. Rick Perry (R) up by nine in his re-election fight against Houston Mayor Bill White (D), 44% to 35%.

* A new SurveyUSA poll in California shows Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman with comfortable leads in their respective Senate and gubernatorial Republican primaries.

* Despite finishing third in the special election in Hawaii's 1st, former Rep. Ed Case (D) fully intends to try again in November. This time, he'll likely face state Sen. Colleen Hanabusa in a primary.

* The latest Siena poll in New York shows Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), slowly but surely, building a strong base of support.

* In Florida, Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) picked up an endorsement for his Senate bid from the Florida AFL-CIO, but he'll share an endorsement from the Florida Education Association with Gov. Charlie Crist (I).

* In related news, Crist is facing a lawsuit from the Talking Heads' David Byrne for using "Road to Nowhere" without permission or proper licenses.

* In Alabama, a Research 2000 poll shows Rep. Artur Davis (D) and Bradley Byrne (R), the chancellor of the Alabama Community College System, leading their respective gubernatorial primaries.

* And in Colorado, Tom Wiens (R) ended his Senate campaign, throwing his support to the Tea Party-backed Ken Buck.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

'JAM THROUGH' MAKES A COMEBACK.... Throughout the debate on health care reform, Republicans would routinely complain that if lawmakers voted to pass legislation they approved of, it was evidence of "jamming through" bills.

The odd phrase is back.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) lamented on Tuesday what he said were efforts to "jam through" a repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he welcomed a review of the military's prohibition on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers, but was chilly toward a deal struck by congressional Democrats and the White House on a roadmap to abolish the policy.

"This 'Don't ask, don't tell' issue, they're going to try to jam that through without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be," McCain said on KBLU radio in Arizona.

In the abstract, McCain's credibility on the issue is already non-existent. The senator publicly assured voters that he would reverse course on DADT "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy.'" That happened in February, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen told McCain it's time to end the policy. McCain not only ignored them, he also questioned their integrity.

But putting that aside, McCain's complaints are rather foolish on substantive grounds. For one thing, when lawmakers approve a measure by voting for it, this isn't an example of trying to "jam through" legislation. By McCain's reasoning, literally every vote in Congress is evidence of the majority trying to "jam" something through.

For another, the notion that policymakers aren't "even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be" suggests McCain isn't paying attention to current events. Thanks to multiple congressional hearings, lawmakers should already be well aware of the expected impact of the new policy. What's more, as part of the agreement reached yesterday, implementation of the DADT repeal would be delayed until after the Pentagon review is complete in December, and even then, would take effect only after the administration concluded that the new policy will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

Does McCain not understand what that means? Or is he just appearing on radio shows, talking about subjects without getting his facts straight?

In the meantime, a new CNN poll shows support for DADT repeal at a whopping 78% of the public. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said support for the Democratic proposal "is widespread, even among Republicans."

I guess they haven't heard the powerful and persuasive "jam through" talking point yet?

Update: In related news, Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who wanted Congress to wait until after the December review was published, "can accept" the agreement reached by Democratic policymakers yesterday.

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

CONNECTICUT OFFERS A SIGN OF THE TIMES.... At first blush, Rob Simmons looked like a very strong Senate candidate in Connecticut. A retired Army Colonel and fairly moderate, former three-term House member, Simmons kicked off his Senate bid last year and appeared very competitive. Democrats had reason to worry.

This morning, however, Simmons is done, effectively ending his campaign rather than fight an uphill primary battle against former wrestling executive Linda McMahon.

Simmons made the announcement on WXLM-FM in New London, but he stopped short of definitively saying he was dropping out of the race. He said he was releasing all his staff, ceasing fundraising and would no longer issue news releases.

Simmons planned an announcement later Tuesday morning. A Republican with knowledge of Simmons' plans told The Associated Press that Simmons is expected to withdraw from the race.

"I will no longer be campaigning," Simmons said during the radio interview.

As campaign developments go, this one is tough to understand. Indeed, after last week's controversy over state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's (D) rhetoric about his military service, Simmons would presumably be an even stronger candidate -- he's a decorated Vietnam vet.

So, why would Connecticut Republicans push aside the war hero with a track record of winning congressional elections, in favor of an inexperienced candidate best known for helping run a controversial wrestling company?

Part of it came down to ideology. Simmons had a moderate voting record, while McMahon, now the likely GOP nominee, embraced a far-right, Tea Party platform. For some Connecticut primary voters, Simmons may have been the stronger choice in November, and he tried to pretend to be as conservative as the party base is, but he just wasn't right-wing enough.

And then there's the money -- McMahon's lucrative wrestling business made her extremely wealthy, and she committed $50 million of her own money on the campaign. Simmons couldn't keep up, so he's quitting.

If the purported Republican "wave" fails to materialize in the midterm elections, it will have something to do with bizarre Republican electoral decisions like this one.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

MMS MANAGES TO LOOK EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS.... That the Minerals Management Service, the agency within the Interior Department responsible for offshore drilling, was farcical during the Bush/Cheney era isn't exactly a new revelation. MMS became one of the most corrupt government agencies in American history, embracing an anything-goes atmosphere that led to literally Caligula-like corruption and debauchery -- including federal officials trading cocaine and sex for lucrative oil contracts.

But as the BP oil spill disaster gets worse every day, and scrutiny of the scandal-plagued agency intensifies, new details make the Minerals Management Service look even more ridiculous.

Federal regulators responsible for oversight of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico allowed industry officials several years ago to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil — and then turned them over to the regulators, who traced over them in pen before submitting the reports to the agency, according to an inspector general's report to be released this week. [...]

The report includes other examples of troubling behavior discovered by investigators. In mid-2008, a minerals agency employee conducted four inspections on drilling platforms when he was also negotiating a job with the drilling company, a cover letter to the report said.

And an inspector from the Lake Charles office admitted to investigators that he had used crystal methamphetamine, an illegal drug. Investigators said they believe the inspector may have been under the influence of the drug during an inspection.

The department's acting inspector general, Mary L. Kendall, emphasized that all of the misconduct occurred before the Obama administration took office in January 2009. The Interior Department's efforts to clean up the MMS have been ongoing, and the agency's ethics code was overhauled soon after the transition between administrations.

Also today, the Washington Post reports that MMS officials "repeatedly ignored warnings from government scientists about environmental risks in its push to approve energy exploration activities quickly." Documents also show that the department "frequently changed documents and bypassed legal requirements aimed at protecting the marine environment."

We'll be dealing with the consequences for a very long time.

—Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

AMERICA SPEAKING OUT -- WITH AMERICA FOOTING THE BILL.... Sixteen years ago, House Republicans put together the "Contract With America" based on polls and focus groups. This year, House GOP leaders are launching the "America Speaking Out" project, in the hopes of crafting a new "contract" based on public feedback and interactive social media.

The biggest difference, however, is that this time, American taxpayers are being asked to finance the partisan initiative.

Republican officials will kick off the project with an event in D.C. this morning, and it's been described, accurately, as an initiative intended to help the GOP craft "a set of policy items that Republicans would pursue if they won back control of the House in November."

When asked about this yesterday, GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) was vague about financing. "'America Speaking Out' is not a project of the political" campaign arm, Pence said, reluctant to go into further detail.

Now we know why. Republicans are claiming that the project will be kept separate from their campaign committees, and can therefore be financed by taxpayers.

Congressional scholar Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said it is not credible to say the agenda is not intended for the 2010 campaign cycle.

"Its only purpose is as a campaign document," Mann said in an e-mail. "They are in no position to shape policy before the election. It is a defensive move, to deal with the criticism that they are the party of 'no.'"

But Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, said Republicans have to maintain that the document is not meant for the campaign trail, even if it is only a charade. "If they don't, they are in danger of using taxpayer funds for campaign purposes," she said.

But given what Republicans have already stated publicly, the notion that the "America Speaking Out" project isn't intended for the midterm elections is ridiculous.

This isn't even thinly veiled -- the partisan, campaign-related function is as plain as day.

House Republicans will unveil on Tuesday a Web site they will use to solicit policy ideas from the public, the first step in the development of a platform that they will present to voters this fall. [...]

The Web site formally starts the GOP's process of touting its own vision and policies to voters, after spending most of the last 16 months bashing President Obama and congressional Democrats.

And Republicans, aware that some of the anti-Washington fervor among the public is aimed at both parties, don't want to simply put out a formal agenda without buy-in from voters, particularly conservatives. So, along with the site, House Republicans will hold town hall meetings around the country starting next week. They want to use this process to get ideas for the "Contract With America"-style policy document they are set to release closer to the election, which would list principles and proposals that Republicans would adopt if they won control of the House.

Keep in mind just how transparently silly the argument is. Republicans will argue that all of this -- the website, the social media, the town-hall events, and the document to be released in September -- has nothing to do with the party's campaign efforts in the fall. They have to maintain this fiction with a straight face, in order to justify use of our money to pay for the effort.

This probably isn't the ideal way for the GOP to prove it can be trusted to spend the public's money wisely.

—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

WHEN RAND PAUL PUTS OTHERS ON THE SPOT.... One of the main downsides to a national controversy over the beliefs of a high-profile candidate: other candidates start fielding questions about their takes on the matter.

Last week, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul articulated his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as part of his larger extremist ideology. But given the controversy it generated, it was only a matter of time before Republicans elsewhere started feeling the heat, too.

In Nevada, Sue Lowden, the controversial GOP Senate hopeful, spoke to Politico yesterday, and refused initially to talk about her health care views. When the discussion turned to Paul, she refused to talk about that, too.

At the end of the interview, Lowden declined to discuss whether she shared Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act.

"You can't resist this, can you? I have no idea what another candidate says," Lowden said.

Asked whether she had any concerns about the law's reach into private business, Lowden said, "I'm going, thank you," then abruptly hung up the phone.

In Kentucky, Republican congressional candidate Andy Barr was less rude, but no more forthcoming when asked whether he agrees with Paul's worldview.

"Well, we'll, we'll, we'll certainly answer those questions later on."

At that point, Barr walked away, rather than continue the discussion.

A couple of things to consider moving forward. First, these questions are likely to continue. Republican campaigns would probably be wise to come up with a stock answer to the inquiries.

Second, coming up with that answer should be pretty easy. For crying out loud, we're talking about the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. I realize the Republican Party has shifted aggressively to the hard-right, but in the 21st century, even in contemporary GOP politics, there's nothing wrong with a Republican candidate endorsing some of the bedrock legislation of modern America.

"I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964." How hard is that to say?

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

DEAL IN PLACE FOR DADT REPEAL.... The effort to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy faced a challenge that put success at risk. The White House supported repeal, but was deferring to the Pentagon on timetables and implementation. The Pentagon supported repeal, but wanted to wait until after a review was complete in December. Congressional Democrats supported repeal, but were reluctant to move forward without the administration's endorsement. Worse, waiting until after the elections was a recipe for almost certain failure.

Yesterday, leading Democratic policymakers worked out the details of a breakthrough deal, and it appears that repeal is finally on track.

President Obama has endorsed a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that the administration "supports the proposed amendment."

Giving the effort an added boost, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced his endorsement of the agreement, as well.

As part of the deal, implementation would be delayed until after the Pentagon review is complete in December, and even then, would take effect after the administration concluded that the new policy will not adversely affect military readiness, recruitment, and retention.

Gay rights groups, which have been aggressive in urging DADT's repeal, are on board with the agreement. The Human Rights Campaign hailed the deal, and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network announced that it is "enthusiastically" urging members of Congress to support it.

The only variable at this point happens to be the most important one: it's still "not clear whether the deal had secured the votes necessary to pass the House and Senate." Efforts to convince wavering Dems, most notably some Democratic moderates on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are continuing apace. The agreement is in place, but no one should assume that passage is a foregone conclusion.

We're likely to see votes as early as Thursday. With support from the White House, the Pentagon, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Democratic leadership in both chambers, I'm cautiously optimistic.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

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

* With tensions escalating quickly, South Korea is ending nearly all trade with North Korea, and blocking North Korean merchant ships access to South Korean shipping lanes.

* Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton described U.S. support of South Korea as "unequivocal," and announced that the American military and South Korean forces would initiate joint military exercises.

* Yemen: "Yemeni tribesmen kidnapped two American tourists, a man and a woman, Monday morning outside the capital city of Sana, the American Embassy in Yemen confirmed on Monday." The kidnappers are reportedly seeking the release of an imprisoned ally.

* Construction gains: "The drills, saws and sanders that fell silent during the economic slowdown are beginning to whir again. For the first time in years, U.S. builders are hiring laborers. The nation's construction industry added 14,000 jobs nationwide in April, according to the Labor Department, marking the first back-to-back monthly gains in that sector since 2006."

* Housing gains: "Homebuyers rushed to take advantage of government incentives and low mortgage rates in April, giving the housing market its biggest boost in five months."

* The Kandahar operation: "The Obama administration's campaign to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan's second-largest city is a go-for-broke move that even its authors are unsure will succeed."

* Texas gubernatorial hopeful, Houston Mayor Bill White (D), will, if elected, try to undo the damage done to the state curriculum by the Texas Board of Education.

* There were many predictions that the Great Recession would lead to an increase in crime rates. The opposite occurred.

* Bagram: "A federal appeals court ruled Friday that three men who had been detained by the United States military for years without trial in Afghanistan had no recourse to American courts. The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight."

* Ron Chusid sets Arthur C. Brooks straight.

* Fox News' on-air news team probably shouldn't use the word "we" when talking about Republicans, at least if the network intends to keep up appearances.

* Can a college's emphasis on research prestige actually undermine undergraduate education?

* I have no idea why anyone at a major news outlet would find the crossing of Elena Kagan's legs interesting.

* Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's wife apparently calls him "Mr. Clueless." She's referring to his familiarity with technology, but I kind of like the broader applicability of the label.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

GIMMICK #3.... If the House Republican leadership invested as much energy into learning public policy as it did into coming up with new political gimmicks, they might be more effective lawmakers.

The first gimmick was the National Council for a New America, spearheaded by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), which would engage the nation in a dialog about Republican ideas. The project organized an outside-the-Beltway event, which just happened to be inside the Beltway. Despite having been launched to significant fanfare, the NCNA was unceremoniously scrapped.

The second was the YouCut project. Here, Republicans pick government programs they don't like, and invite the public to vote on which one they want to see eliminated. GOP lawmakers then try to cut the "winning" program, responding to public demand. The YouCut website garnered a fair amount of traffic, but the project ended up targeting a bipartisan jobs program, which made the whole initiative look rather foolish.

Which brings us to Gimmick #3.

House GOP leaders have planned a high-profile event at Washington D.C.'s Newseum Tuesday morning to launch the start of their "America Speaking Out" project.

Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is in charge of the initiative to result in the release of a set of policy items that Republicans would pursue if they won back control of the House in November.

According to officials involved in the effort, "America Speaking Out" will focus on gathering feedback from Americans on what items that lawmakers should be focusing on in the future.

GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) touted the project, but was oddly cryptic about which arm of the party was sponsoring it.

In any case, all things considered, this might be the least compelling gimmick so far. Democrats have been arguing for quite a while that Republicans are effectively out of ideas and have no meaningful policy agenda to speak of. The "America Speaking Out" project seems to be the GOP leadership's way of saying, "We're hoping the public will help us figure out what we think and what we want to do." Indeed, the materials announcing the initiative specifically say they want Americans to help the Republican leadership "develop a new governing agenda."

I can appreciate bottom-up politics as much as the next guy, but less than six months before national elections, the party that intends to take the majority needs help from the public figuring out its own agenda?

This is about the time in the process in which voters turn to the parties and candidates and say, "Tell me more about your priorities and principles." Under this new initiative, the Republican response seems to be, "You tell us."

Fewer gimmicks, please.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

CHRIS CHRISTIE AND HINTS OF WHAT'S TO COME.... We talked earlier about the fact that the Republican agenda is clear -- cut spending, reduce the size of government, cut taxes -- but the details remain elusive. We don't know what the GOP would cut, or by how much, or who would be affected. We don't which taxes the GOP would cut, or by how much, or to whose benefit. The details matter.

Reader L.G. reminds me, however, that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), just four months into office, is offering a blueprint of the kind of decisions we might see mirrored in D.C. in the event of a Republican takeover. In particular, Christie is slashing spending on everything from schools to first responders to mass transit to health care.

Republicans and their allies are giddy over Christie's budget ax. A fair number of his constituents are less impressed.

More than 30,000 angry New Jersey residents marched to the state capitol Saturday, delivering a blistering message to the governor in an effort to protect their turf and their paychecks.

At times resembling both a rock concert and a pep rally, more than 30,000 union employees and community activists gathered for a massive protest at the capitol to blast the governor.

Lately, it seems the only people taking to the streets are those who want to increase the burdens on working families. It's nice to see the opposite, for a change.

Indeed, Eric Boehlert reminds us that the "conservative Woodstock" in Nevada in March drew a whopping 10,000 people, and the media covered it extensively. "That massive NJ crowd blows away the turnout for virtually every state-run Tea Party rally held over the last year," Boehlert noted. But don't tell reporters, many of whom seem convinced that the Tea Party movement remains hugely important and growing by the day."

—Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

DID VAUGHN WARD THINK NO ONE WOULD NOTICE?.... In Idaho, Vaughn Ward is running for the Republican nomination in Idaho's 1st House district, and has received a fair amount of support from prominent right-wing voices. On Friday, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Fox News) even made a campaign appearance with him.

But Ward is quickly becoming one of the year's most embarrassing candidates.

Idaho Republican Vaughn Ward has already come under fire for mimicking other candidates' policy language on his website, but now the congressional candidate is facing accusations of plagiarizing from another source: President Barack Obama.

In a kickoff speech for his campaign in January, Ward used language that closely followed Obama's 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, and a conservative Idaho blog spliced together the two sets of remarks to show their similarities, accusing Ward of cribbing from Obama's remarks.

After watching the video released by a local far-right activist, it's hard to deny the fact that parts of Ward's speech were lifted directly, word for word, from Obama's 2004 speech. In fact, it seems more than a little bizarre that Ward and his campaign would assume no one would notice -- that '04 convention speech was pretty widely seen. Someone was bound to think, "Wait, that sounds kind of familiar."

In response, a Ward campaign spokesperson responded, "If anyone thinks he's anything like Obama, they're dead wrong." Of course, that's not the point -- the question here is why Ward's kickoff speech lifted whole sentences out of Obama's six-year-old convention speech.

What's more, Ward seems to keep running into trouble. Last week, he was asked in a debate whether he would vote in Congress to support Puerto Rican statehood, Ward said he opposes "extending statehood to some, to any other country," adding that he doesn't care "what country ... wants to become part of America." Told that Puerto Rico is an American territory, not a foreign country, Ward said, "I really don't care what it is."

Ward was also reprimanded last month for violating military protocol when he gave the impression that the U.S. Marine Corps was supporting his campaign.

And just to add insult to injury, Ward's published positions on a variety of issues were found to have been "borrowed," again word for word, from other campaign websites without attribution. (thanks to J.E. for the tip)

Where does the party find these guys?

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

RNC FUNDRAISING ANXIETY GROWS MORE INTENSE.... Since Michael Steele took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee, the party's budgetary decisions have been the subject of widespread consternation, intensified by the fact that RNC fundraising has fallen far short of expectations.

These concerns have escalated in recent months, in light of expense reports pointing to unnecessary spending on private planes, limousines, catering, flowers, softball equipment, and an outing at lesbian-themed bondage nightclub.

A CNN report this afternoon will likely raise the anxiety levels among Republicans to new heights.

An internal Republican National Committee document obtained by CNN paints a damning picture of the committee's financial standing compared to the past five election cycles.

The document, pulled together during a recent review sparked by concerns over RNC spending practices, said the committee had $12.5 million in cash on hand at the end of April.

By comparison, the average cash on hand at the end of April from 2002-2009 was $40.4 million. And that average includes the odd numbered years when there are fewer election contests.

Looking only at even-numbered years, this year's $12.5 million end of April COH is less than one-third the amount the RNC had on hand on April 30 for the 2002 ($47 million) and the 2006 ($44.6 million) midterms.

Republicans clearly believe 2010 represents a unique opportunity to elect a slew of right-wing candidates, and possibly even take control of Congress. But the fear within the party has been that the RNC would lack the resources necessary to take advantage of the opportunity. Those fears appear justified.

Indeed, the underlying message is a bit of a disaster -- while arguing that the GOP is best suited to manage the nation's books effectively, the GOP's national party is failing to manage their own books effectively.

There is, however, a catch, which should bring some comfort to the Republican base -- as donors have moved away from the RNC, at least in part due to a lack of confidence in the party's humiliating chairman, they haven't stopped donating altogether. Fundraising at the NRCC and NSCC has been strong, as have the totals from the Republican Governors Association.

And that's just the official party entities. Karl Rove is helping orchestrate a new Republican fundraising/mobilization machine, with vast amounts of money from far-right supporters.

Still, the RNC is supposed to lead the Republican charge, especially in a key election year. At this point, it's struggling -- with money, staff, message, and relevance.

—Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

WHITE HOUSE GETS INVOLVED IN ADVANCE OF DADT REPEAL VOTE.... It's a big week for the effort to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and the outcome of the dispute remains uncertain.

Key votes pending in Congress this week on whether to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law that prohibits openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military remain too close to call, advocates on both sides say.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote by the end of the week on an amendment to the annual defense spending bill that would end "don't ask, don't tell," which Congress passed in 1993. Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) favors a repeal, but it is unclear whether he has enough votes, with six senators on the panel considered undecided, legislative sources said.

The House is expected to vote on a similar measure this week, based on a repeal proposal sponsored by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran. The House Armed Services Committee declined to act on Murphy's bill in passing its version of the defense spending measure last week, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told gay advocacy groups that she will allow a floor vote if there is enough support in favor of a repeal.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, called this an "'all hands on deck' moment," adding, "For repeal to succeed, it is critical that all proponents for full repeal weigh in now, including the White House. We are only a few days away from this historic vote."

There have been rumors about increasing engagement on this issue from the Obama administration, and The Advocate reports that there were concurrent meetings this morning at the White House and on Capitol Hill that "could help clear the way" for a deal that would add a repeal provision to the upcoming defense appropriations bill.

According to one person familiar with the White House meeting, the proposal that is being considered would repeal the current statute this year, but implementation of repeal would not take place until after completion of the Pentagon's working group study in December. Further, repeal would require certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention and other key factors that affect the military.

We may see an S.A.P. (Statement of Administration Policy) on this as early as tomorrow, which would give the effort another added boost.

At this point, the scuttlebutt seems encouraging, but it's safe to assume the lobbying efforts -- including constituents reaching out to lawmakers -- will be fairly intense this week, especially when it comes to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE.... The headline on the Politico was no doubt meant to be provocative: "Obama campaigns against Bush -- again." The lede delivers the message that Republicans and much of the media establishment will no doubt embrace.

President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington.

It doesn't matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago.

The White House's mid-term election strategy is becoming clear -- pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.

It's a lot to ask an angry, finicky electorate to sort out. And even if Obama can rightfully make the case that the economy took a turn for the worse under Bush's watch, he's already made it -- in 2008 and repeatedly in 2009.

It's not clear that voters still want to hear it.

Let's unpack this a bit, because I feel like we run into this analysis quite a bit, and it seems pretty misguided, despite its ubiquity.

First, the notion that Obama is campaigning against Bush is itself dubious. Indeed, I think it's backwards -- many Dems wish the president invested far more time in blaming his failed predecessor, not less. Looking through the entire 1,300-word Politico piece, how many examples are there of Obama "taking on" Bush/Cheney? Zero.

There was room for eight separate sources complaining about Obama blaming Bush for Bush's spectacular failures, but there wasn't room for some evidence to bolster the premise of the argument? Maybe that's because the trend isn't as common as we're supposed to believe.

Second, while it may not be clear what voters "still want to hear," it's worth noting that several recent polls continue to hold Bush far more responsible than Obama for the ongoing mess(es) the president inherited last year.

And third, there's the small matter of reality. Bush really is responsible for the ditch we're slowly crawling out of. The inconvenience of this detail does not undermine its accuracy. As Paul Krugman explained, "To demand that everyone let Bush off the hook for where we are now because 16 months have passed under his successor is to defy the overwhelming evidence of history."

Jon Chait concluded, "What's false is the Republican effort to imply that Obama caused the problems -- an argument that collapses upon the slightest empirical pressure. But somehow the standard here is not what's correct but what's polite, and it's impolite for Obama to blame Bush."

It's quite a scam.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

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.

* Following a week of criticism, Connecticut Attorney General and Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal (D) apologized for having used misleading rhetoric about his military service. He told the Hartford Courant, "I have made mistakes and I am sorry. I truly regret offending anyone."

* As expected, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) launched his gubernatorial campaign on Saturday. A new Siena poll already shows him with enormous leads over his GOP challengers.

* A St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9 poll released over the weekend shows Gov. Charlie Crist's (I) departure from the Republican Party continuing to help his Senate prospects. Crist currently leads in the three-way match-up with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio (R) at 27%. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) is running third with 15%. (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

* Former wrestling executive Linda McMahon (R) won her state party's endorsement in the Connecticut Senate race. Former Rep. Rob Simmons (R), the one-time favorite, had said he would drop out of the race if he didn't receive the state GOP's nod at the convention. He's since changed his mind, and will take on McMahon in a primary.

* Colorado's major parties held their party conventions over the weekend. On the Republican side, Weld County Prosecutor Ken Buck came out on top, though former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton skipped the convention and plans to petition her way onto the primary ballot. Among Dems, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff defeated appointed Sen. Michael Bennet.

* Karl Rove began offering Rand Paul's Senate campaign in Kentucky some strategic/media advice last week.

* In a surprise move, Dick Leinenkugel ended his Republican Senate campaign in Wisconsin yesterday, just a month after getting started. Leinenkugel threw his support to businessman Ron Johnson, who kicked off his campaign after being inspired by a Dick Morris appearance on Fox News.

* The latest Research 2000 poll in California shows former Rep. Tom Campbell leading Carly Fiorina in the GOP Senate primary, 37% to 22%. The same poll shows Meg Whitman still leading the GOP gubernatorial primary over Steve Poizner, but the margin has shrunk from 33 points to 10.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

THE INFLUENCE OF OIL COMPANY DONATIONS As part of the Republican efforts to blame the White House for the BP oil spill disaster, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) appeared on Fox News yesterday to share a conspiracy theory of sorts.

"I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others if there is any connection with the contributions made to President Obama and his administration, and the support by the oil companies to the administration," Palin said, "If there is any connection there to President Obama taking so dog-gone long to get in there and dive in there and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

Let's just pause a moment to appreciate the humor in the dimwitted Fox News personality accusing anyone of failing to "grasp the complexity" of anything.

Soon after, "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the accusation. "I'm almost sure that the oil companies don't consider the Obama administration a huge ally," Gibbs noted, adding that Palin should probably "get slightly more informed as to what's going on."

But in case anyone's inclined to take the substance (I use the word loosely) of Palin's nonsense seriously, the Wall Street Journal had a worthwhile report.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans receive far more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than do Democrats.

So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

This is a decades-long trend, the center says: Since 1990, oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties, with 75% of the money going to Republicans.

To borrow Palin's phrase, does she wonder if there's any connection between the contributions made to Republican candidates and the Republican Party's support for the oil companies. "I don't know why the question isn't asked by the mainstream media and by others."

What's more, as Ben Armbruster noted, even conservatives seem to think Palin is on the wrong track with this one. Ed Morrissey warned Republicans not to "overplay their hand on this issue."

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

THE LESSONS OF MARK SOUDER.... It was bad enough when we learned that Mark Souder, the conservative Republican House member from Louisiana Indiana, resigned in disgrace last week because of a sex scandal. Souder was one of Congress' most pious moralists and a close ally of the religious right, making the revelations more potent.

But the story got just a little worse when we learned that Souder had an affair with a part-time aide, with whom he'd recorded a video just six months ago -- all about his tireless work in support of abstinence programs.

Souder, who officially gave up his office on Friday, talked to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, his hometown paper, over the weekend. Reflecting on the video, the Republican didn't sound especially embarrassed. "If some people see this abstinence video, I'm living proof of what we're saying in it," Souder said. "If they actually listen to the words, maybe it's worth it."

Souder may not fully appreciate this, but the abstinence video is now a punch-line, not a serious reflection on the issue. When the two people in the clip engaged in an extra-marital affair after preaching about abstinence, no one's going to take it seriously, nor should they.

E.J. Dionne Jr., meanwhile, notes in his column today that he "took no pleasure in Souder's resignation," having worked with the conservative lawmaker in the past. Despite the columnist disagreeing with Souder on many issues, Dionne said he found him to be "both serious and thoughtful in his approach to religious and political questions."

But Souder's fall from grace, Dionne added, can also serve as a teaching moment to the Christian right.

Enough with dividing the world between moral, family-loving Christians and supposedly permissive, corrupt, family-destroying secularists.

Enough with pretending that personal virtue is connected with political creeds. Enough with condemning your adversaries, sometimes viciously, and then insisting upon understanding after the failures of someone on your own side become known to the world. And enough with claiming that support for gay rights and gay marriage is synonymous with opposition to family values and sexual responsibility.

It's not the self-righteousness of religious conservatives that bothers me most. We liberals can be pretty self-righteous, too. It's the refusal to acknowledge that the pressures endangering the family do not come from some dark secular leftist conspiracy but from cultural and economic forces that affect us all.

That's valuable guidance, which the religious right and its allies will no doubt ignore. If they didn't have self-righteous, oblivious moralizing, what would this crowd have left?

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

RAISING THE PROSPECT OF PUSHING BP 'OUT OF THE WAY'.... For a month now, federal officials and BP have been acting as reluctant partners in addressing the ongoing oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The angle that the administration has pursued has been that the oil company created this mess, so it's inclined to have the oil company take the lead in addressing it*.

Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, I believe for the first time, raised the specter of removing the ineffective and unreliable company from its role in the response.

"I am angry and I am frustrated that BP has been unable to stop this well from leaking and to stop the pollution from spreading. We are 33 days into this effort and deadline after deadline has been missed," Salazar said at a press conference after meeting with BP officials in Houston.

Salazar noted that officials from the Energy Department and other federal agencies are involved in the effort to end the leak from BP's undersea well and contain the spreading pollution.

BP is the party responsible for the spill, but Salazar did not rule out a federal takeover.

"With respect to the rest of the responses, including keeping the oil from coming near shore and onshore and dealing with those ecological values, BP, again, is the responsible party and is on the hook for doing everything that needs to happen," Salazar said.

"If we find that they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, we'll push them out of the way appropriately and we'll move forward to make sure that everything is being done to protect the people of the Gulf Coast, the ecological values of the Gulf Coast, and the values of the American people," Salazar added.

The cabinet secretary was not specific as to what would force BP out, but Salazar added that he's "not completely" confident in the oil company's efforts, which is one of the reasons why the administration has so many top officials and departments on hand to oversee the response.

In the meantime, the EPA told BP late last week to start using a less-toxic chemical dispersant to break up the oil in the Gulf. Over the weekend, the company responded, "No." The administration, in turn, is "evaluating all legal options."

As for the next move, the new plan to address the still-gushing oil leak is what's called a "top kill," which involves shooting heavy mud and cement at the breach. That effort will reportedly get underway on Wednesday morning.

* One assumes that if the administration had immediately done the opposite, forcing BP out and putting officials in charge of the entire response, the same conservative Republicans who are complaining now would be howling about a "government takeover," and a heavy-handed federal government wasting tax dollars, when it should leave this to private enterprise.

—Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

THE OTHER REPUBLICAN IN NEVADA.... As of a couple of months ago, the Senate race in Nevada appeared to be following a predictable trajectory. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) was struggling in the polls, and Republicans were rallying around Sue Lowden, a former one-term state senator and the former head of the Nevada Republican Party. The central question of the race was how Reid would close the gap and manage to win re-election.

One chicken and a felonious campaign contribution later, Lowden and Reid have largely switched places. Last week, a survey from Public Policy Polling even found Lowden slipping to second place in the Republican primary, narrowly trailing former state Rep. Sharron Angle.

Perhaps now's a good time to ask, who's Sharron Angle?

Reid campaign spokesman Jon Summers said the majority leader is prepared to run against any possible opponent, but the campaign clearly relishes the thought of taking on Angle -- and claiming Lowden's scalp. Reid's campaign has already cut anti-Angle ads, and its oppo research operation has begun digging into her record.

Democrats are eager to lump Angle together with other tea party candidates across the country -- particularly amid the controversy Rand Paul has created with his comments about the Civil Rights Act.

And they believe an Angle win in the June 8 Nevada GOP primary would give them an appealing national narrative: that the Republicans' November ticket across the country is filled with "extreme" candidates well outside the mainstream of American politics.

On her website -- full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors -- Angle declares: "Like a soldier going to war, I am fighting for my country, the Constitution and a free society."

And as part of this effort, Angle reportedly wants to go to the Senate to fight to privatize Social Security; build nuclear power plants inside Yucca Mountain; eliminate the federal income tax; pull the country out of the United Nations; and allow unlimited campaign contributions. She's also a hard-right culture warrior, backing the far-right line on immigration and supporting bans on nearly all abortions.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, a conservative paper, conducted a survey that identified Angle as the Nevada Assembly's "Worst Member." Twice.

Angle does, however, enjoy the enthusiastic support of right-wing Tea Party activists, and thanks to Lowden's humiliating missteps, now has a credible shot at winning the GOP primary, which is just two weeks away.

The growing optimism at Reid campaign HQ is no accident.

—Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

LAST ONE OUT, TURN OFF THE LIGHTS.... It can't be easy doing working for the human resources department at the Republican National Committee. The turnover is brutal.

RNC Research Director Jeff Berkowitz has left his post, POLITICO has learned, becoming the latest party official to part ways with the national committee.

Berkowitz's departure was made official on Friday but it's unclear if he voluntarily left or was pushed out.

An ally of the oppo man , lamenting the state of the committee, said Berkowitz was asked to leave. RNC spokesman Doug Heye declined to offer details about why the staffer left.

Berkowitz's deputy, Matt Moon, parted ways with the RNC at the same time.

The departures began in earnest about two months ago, shortly after reports of the RNC spending nearly $2,000 in donor money at a nightclub called Voyeur West Hollywood, an establishment where "impromptu bondage and S&M 'scenes'" are "played out on an elevated platform by scantily clad performers throughout the night."

The heads have been rolling ever since, even in departments that had nothing to do with the controversy.

It's been tough to keep track of the staff shake-ups. The party's finance chief and deputy finance director were recently forced out, as were three members of the RNC's communications team. Those announcements came on the heels of departures from the party's chief of staff, a top RNC strategist, and Alex Castellanos, who was brought on to help shape the party's message. All of this has unfolded since late March.

The party may want to consider revolving doors at RNC headquarters.

It's hard to say exactly what's behind all of this. Some of the staffing changes are the result of the embarrassing "Voyeur" story, but other departures are reportedly the consequence of disarray in the main office.

It's quite a professional operation Michael Steele is running.

Update: And just like that, another RNC staffer is gone. This time, it's Elizabeth Saylor, who ran the party's Eagles fundraising program for top donors.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

BE SPECIFIC.... The NYT's Thomas Friedman was part of the roundtable on "Meet the Press" yesterday, and raised a point that doesn't come up nearly often enough.

The columnist noted that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was on the program earlier in the hour talking about cutting government, which, of course, is boilerplate rhetoric.

"Just tell me, 'Which service do you want to take away?'" Friedman asked. "Is it police, fire, Army, you know? I think we -- that's a serious discussion to have, smaller government. But to say we want smaller government, less government intrusion, tell me what you want to take away."

That seems like a reasonable expectation. Indeed, it seems more than fair to think one of the key missing elements of conservative discourse -- specificity -- should be addressed as part of the debate in advance of the midterms.

Speaking in broad strokes, the Republican vision couldn't be any more transparent: cut spending, reduce the size of government, cut taxes. It's only when one gets close that it becomes obvious that these broad strokes have no details. Cut spending where? By how much? Affecting whom? Cut which taxes? At what cost? GOP officials and candidates never quite get around to filling in these gaps, and seem to hope desperately that voters just don't ask.

It's politics by platitude, executed by those who can't be bothered to take public policy seriously. We're still recovering from the last time our elected leaders tried governing this way.

In some ways, it's almost amusing that, less than six months before the elections, no one seems to have the foggiest idea exactly how Republican officials intend to pursue their most sought after goals. The most detailed look we've seen on this front comes by way of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) "YouCut" gimmick, which told us a) GOP officials haven't identified much of anything in the way of waste in the budget; and b) when Republicans eye spending cuts, they have worthwhile programs that work in mind.

"Tell me what you want to take away." I'll look forward to the Republicans' response.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

YEARS, NOT MONTHS.... When we think about responses to disasters, we tend to consider recovery time frames in weeks and months. The BP oil spill disaster is another animal entirely. (via Atrios)

For those saddened by the scenes of thick oil washing into Louisiana's coastal wetlands a month after the BP oil disaster began, experts on oil spills and the coastal ecosystem have some advice: Get used to it.

The crews mopping up oil on beaches and marsh shorelines this week are fighting just the first of what will probably be a series of rolling skirmishes that will last for months, if not years -- even after the runaway well is finally capped. In fact, the untold millions of gallons of oil already fouling the Gulf off the Louisiana coast could stay in the area for at least a decade, and on the sea floor for more than 100 years. [emphasis added]

Robert Barham, secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "I think we're looking at many months of intense activity, but then years of follow-up work.... I've been told by the ocean experts this stuff could hang out there on the bottom of the Gulf for more than 100 years. And as long as it's out there, it can come ashore. We might not see big black waves, but we may be seeing a smaller, but serious problem, for years and years to come."

Meanwhile, the White House announced yesterday the creation of an independent commission to investigate the causes of the disaster, and assess culpability. It will be chaired by former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly.

Also, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CBS News this morning that the Justice Department is considering criminal charges against those responsible for the spill and has already begun "to gather information on this."

This comes within a week of members of the House Environment and Public Works Committee urging Attorney General Eric Holder to explore whether BP made "false and misleading statements to the federal government regarding its ability to respond to oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico."

—Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Following up on an earlier item, RNC Chairman Michael Steele conceded he's not "comfortable" with Rand Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act." It only took him the whole week to say so.

But on ABC's "This Week" earlier, host Jake Tapper asked a related question, which goes beyond the embarrassing chairman's comfort level.

TAPPER: [D]o you condemn that point of view? I mean, where would African-Americans be if the federal government hadn't come in and said, hotels, you have to--

STEELE: Exactly. That's very much a part of the debate back in the '60s, as it is going forward. But the reality of it is, our party has stood four-square behind, you know--

TAPPER: But do you condemn that view?

STEELE: I can't condemn a person's view. That's like, you know, you believe something and I'm going to say, "Well, you know, I'm going to condemn your view of it."

I have no idea what that means. In politics, when a prominent public figure believes something that's wrong, offensive, or insulting, condemnations are a daily occurrence. Michael Steele has condemned Democrats' beliefs every day for a year.

One of Steele's highest-profile statewide candidates this year opposes the Civil Right Act. Steele's not "comfortable" with such extremism, but he's also not prepared to condemn it? Why, because it's "like, you know, Rand Paul believes something"?

Soon after, Steele talked to Fox News, where he explained, "Rand Paul's philosophy got in the way of reality."

Now there's a ringing endorsement. Vote for the Senate candidate who puts philosophy ahead of reality. Brilliant.

—Steve Benen 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

VOTERS, MOTIVATION, AND THE 'ENTHUSIASM GAP'.... In the abstract, groups of voters are motivated by two forces, which aren't mutually exclusive. Voters can, for example, feel excited about supporting their preferred candidates because those candidates have performed well and delivered on key priorities/promises.

Voters can also feel motivated when they're disgusted by other party's candidates and agenda, and get engaged to prevent those rivals from succeeding.

This year, the Democratic Party really hopes that it can benefit from both. On the one hand, they argue, Democratic policymakers have an impressive list of accomplishments, mirroring the platform they ran on -- economic recovery, health care reform, Wall Street reform, student loan overhaul, withdrawing troops from Iraq, restoring the nation's global stature, advances on civil rights, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, expanded stem-cell research, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, etc. On the other hand, the Democratic argument goes, Republicans have moved sharply to the right, and generally act as if the GOP has gone stark raving mad.

It's a recipe for Democratic voter motivation, right? One might think so, but as Frank Rich notes in his column today, "the enthusiasm gap remains real," and it benefits Republicans.

Tea Partiers will turn up at the polls, and not just in Kentucky. Democrats are less energized in part because even now the president has not fully persuaded many liberal populists in his own party that he is on their side. The suspicion lingers that a Wall Street recovery, not job creation, was his highest economic priority upon arriving at a White House staffed with Goldman alumni. No matter how hard the administration tries to sell health care reform and financial reform as part of the nation's economic recovery, these signal achievements remain thin gruel for those out of work.

The unemployment numbers, unlikely to change drastically by November, will have more to say than any of Tuesday's results about what happens on Election Day this year. Yes, the Tea Party is radical, its membership is not enormous, and its race problem is real and troubling. But you can't fight an impassioned opposition merely with legislative actions that may bear fruit in the semi-distant future. If the Democrats can't muster their own compelling response to the populist rage out there, "Randslide" may reside in our political vocabulary long after "Arlen Specter" is leaving "Jeopardy" contestants stumped.

That sounds about right. Democrats have a reasonable pitch -- "We've delivered on a progressive agenda, and Republicans have become radical nutjobs" -- but the party is making it under difficult circumstances and repeating it to an angry electorate.

The midterms are less than six months away. Whether Dems will use them wisely -- sprinting to the finish line and generating excitment among Democratic voters -- remains to be seen.

—Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

BLAMING MADDOW FOR RAND PAUL'S EXTREMISM.... This week, Rand Paul explained his opposition to the Civil Rights Act in a variety of media settings. Today, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said it's time to point the finger where it belongs: at Rachel Maddow. After all, the MSNBC host had the nerve to provide Paul with a platform, and then -- get this -- ask the Senate candidate about his stated views on government.

"One thing we can learn in this lesson that I have learned and Rand Paul is learning now is don't assume that you can engage in a hypothetical discussion about constitutional impacts with a reporter or a media personality who has an agenda, who may be prejudiced before they even get into the interview in regards to what your answer may be," Palin said [on "Fox News Sunday"]. "You know, they are looking for the gotcha moment. And that evidently appears to be what they did with Rand Paul, and I'm thankful he clarified his answer about his support for the Civil Rights Act."

Paul sparked several days worth of controversial coverage when he suggested to Maddow that the government had meddled too far into private enterprise in the passage of the Civil Rights Act and other legislation.

As a rule, it's pointless to seriously consider arguments from such a conspicuously unintelligent person. But Palin isn't the only one to suggest this week that it's somehow Rachel's fault that Rand Paul has radical beliefs.

So, here are some follow-up questions for the former half-term governor and her cohorts to consider:

* When Rand Paul was asked about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act weeks ago by the editorial board of the Courier Review-Journal, did this have something to do with Rachel Maddow's "agenda"? How about when Paul made the same remarks to NPR before appearing on MSNBC? Was it all one elaborate conspiracy?

* While explaining his opposition to the Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul wrote in 2002 that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin." Was his concession the result of media "prejudice"?

* While campaigning for like-minded allies in 2008, Rand Paul warned of efforts to create a "NAFTA Superhighway," which doesn't exist in reality, and raised the specter of a "North American Union's" embrace of the "Amero," which is limited to overactive right-wing imaginations. Did Rachel Maddow make Paul spew nonsensical conspiracy theories two years ago?

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

BUSH DOCTRINE, R.I.P.... Eight years ago, then-President George W. Bush delivered the commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and presented a vision that some labeled the "Bush Doctrine." His vision was one of pre-emption -- the United States would launch military strikes against potential foes, with or without international support, before the threat was imminent. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have waited too long."

Yesterday, President Obama spoke at the same venue, and offered a fundamentally different view of how the nation would execute its national security strategy going forward.

President Obama previewed a new national security strategy rooted in diplomatic engagement and international alliances on Saturday as he essentially repudiated his predecessor's emphasis on unilateral American power and the right to wage pre-emptive war.

Eight years after President George W. Bush came to the United States Military Academy to set a new security doctrine after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Obama used the same setting to offer a revised vision vowing no retreat against enemies while seeking "national renewal and global leadership."

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system," the president told graduating cadets. "But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation. We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't."

Mr. Obama said the United States would "be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well," while also trying to "build new partnerships and shape stronger international standards and institutions." He added: "This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times."

The president is schedule to formally unveil a National Security Strategy this week, but we can safely consider his remarks yesterday as a sneak preview.

Spencer Ackerman has more, including his description of Obama's vision: "[A]n assertive multilateralism with 'American innovation' -- that is, a vigorous, healthy and balanced American economy -- at the core of the international order. And it's a rejection of the proposition that American power is either restricted by international cooperation or generally on the decline."

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

STEELE 'NOT COMFORTABLE' WITH SOME RAND PAUL VIEWS.... Rand Paul, the Republicans' U.S. Senate candidate in Kentucky, has repeatedly stated his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This morning, ABC's Jake Tapper asked RNC Chairman Michael Steele if he's "comfortable with" Paul's extreme ideology.

"I'm not comfortable with a lot of things," Steele said.

"It sounds like you're not comfortable with it," Tapper said.

"I just said I wasn't comfortable with it," Steele replied.

Well, Steele hadn't just said that, but it looks like he got there eventually.

The RNC chief added that Paul is motivated by a "philosophical position" and "philosophical perspective." I suspect that's probably true. But that doesn't change the fact that Rand Paul's political worldview is a) is poorly thought out; b) not even close to the American mainstream; and c) the kind of political philosophy that leads to unacceptable real-world consequences.

In other words, it's not much of a defense. Steele's point seems to be that Rand Paul is motivated by racism. That may be true. But when a U.S. Senate candidate in the 21st century opposes the Civil Rights Act, it's hardly acceptable for his allies to argue, "It's O.K.; his opposition is 'philosophical.'"

As for the electoral context, Steele, who had to know Tapper's question was coming, just handed Democrats a script for a campaign ad in Kentucky: "How extreme is Rand Paul? Even the Republican National Committee has said it's 'not comfortable' with Paul's ideology."

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

THE ORIGINAL KING OF IRONY LIVES.... Karl Rove thinks the Obama White House, unlike its predecessors, is filled with mean people who say bad things about their political opponents.

"President Bush, for example, never allowed a White House staffer or administration spokesman to go out and do what this administration and our predecessor routinely did -- that is to engage in calling the leaders of the opposition party disparaging labels and question their motives," he said.

The underlying complaint is itself dubious. This White House has its flaws, but in the face of hysterical criticism from clowns like Rove, the president and his team have shown considerable restraint when it comes to using "disparaging labels" and questioning critics' motives.

But the irony of Rove's criticism is that he's guilty of engaging in the very tactics he's whining about now. In 2005, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) described the Bush administration's torture policies and system of secret prisons as being reminiscent of "Soviets in their gulags." As Alex Seitz-Wald reminds us, Karl Rove, at the time a high-ranking White House official, argued that Durbin's quote was evidence that liberals are anti-American traitors.

If Bush "ever allowed" his aides to question rivals' motives, why did Rove specifically question, to use his words, "the motives of liberals"?

But the larger, and arguably more entertaining point, is that Karl Rove has made a habit of blasting Obama and his team for doing the exact same things Rove did when he helped run the White House.

Rove ran a White House that embraced a "permanent campaign," so he's accused the Obama team of embracing a "permanent campaign." Rove embraced the politics of fear, so he's accused Obama of embracing the politics of fear. Rove relied on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted " political events, so he's accused Obama of relying on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted" political events. Rove looked at every policy issue "from a political perspective," so he's accused Obama of looking at every policy issue "from a political perspective." Rove snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan, so he's accused Obama of snubbing snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan. Rove had a habit of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons, so he's accused Obama of burying bad news by releasing it late on Friday afternoons.

A lesser hack may find it difficult to launch political attacks that are ironic, wrong, hypocritical, and examples of projection, all at the same time, but Rove is a rare talent.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

GOP FINALLY WINS A HOUSE SPECIAL ELECTION.... Since President Obama's nomination, Democrats had gone seven for seven in special elections to the U.S. House, including wins in some traditionally "red" congressional districts. Yesterday, the streak came to an end, but the GOP's success comes with an asterisk.

A Republican candidate has prevailed over a crowded special election to represent President Obama's Hawaiian birthplace in the House of Representatives. The victory of Charles Djou, a Honolulu city councilman, was not a surprise, but it served to bolster his party as it seeks to chip away at the Democratic majority.

The special election was called after Representative Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, announced last year that he would resign before completing his 10th term in order to focus on his candidacy for governor.

Mr. Djou beat out 13 other candidates with 39.5 percent of the vote in Hawaii's First Congressional District, which encompasses the Honolulu metropolitan area and gave Mr. Obama 70 percent of its vote in 2008.

In a statement, RNC Chairman Michel Steele said Djou's win is "evidence his conservative message ... knows no party lines."

It was a half-hearted boast because no one, not even Steele, seriously believes the special election was a legitimate Republican triumph. Hawaii's 1st is a heavily Democratic district, which would have stayed "blue" had this been a traditional match-up of one Dem vs. one Republican.

But it wasn't. There was no primary, and two credible Dems -- State Senate president Colleen Hanabusa and former Rep. Ed Case -- were both on the ballot. Party leaders hoped to force one from the field, but personality conflicts and lingering hard feelings from a previous cycle made that impossible. The DCCC, realizing that the two candidates would inevitably split the Democratic vote, gave up on the contest altogether weeks ago.

On its face, it's silly when partisans argue that the only races that count are the ones they win, but in this case, the Dems' argument has merit. Unlike Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, the Hawaii special election is impossible to interpret as some kind of important GOP coup. The only real lesson here is that a party that has two credible candidates on the ballot at the same time is almost certainly going to lose.

Looking ahead, count on Hawaii's 1st being near the top of the Democrats' list of midterm pick-up opportunities.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

EVIDENCE OF A 'THIRD WAVE'.... I'm occasionally reminded of a David Brooks column from early February. Scott Brown had just been sworn in to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and there was a real and pervasive sense that the Obama presidency was not just moving in the wrong direction, but would fail to achieve anything else of consequence.

"If, a year ago, you had been asked to describe the administration's goals in one sentence it would have been this: Barack Obama will usher in the third great wave of Democratic reform," Brooks wrote at the time. "Franklin Roosevelt had the New Deal. Lyndon Johnson had the Great Society. Obama would take the third step, transforming health care, energy, education, financial regulation and many other sectors of American life.... It was not to be.... [T]he original Obama project, the third Democratic wave, is dead."

Three months later, with milestone accomplishments having been completed and Wall Street reform nearing completion, the NYT's David Leonhardt considers an alternate look at the same historical model.

With the Senate's passage of financial regulation, Congress and the White House have completed 16 months of activity that rival any other since the New Deal in scope or ambition. Like the Reagan Revolution or Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the new progressive period has the makings of a generational shift in how Washington operates.

First came a stimulus bill that, while aimed mainly at ending a deep recession, also set out to remake the nation's educational system and vastly expand scientific research. Then President Obama signed a health care bill that was the biggest expansion of the safety net in 40 years. And now Congress is in the final stages of a bill that would tighten Wall Street's rules and probably shrink its profit margins. [...]

[T]he turnabout since Jan. 20 -- the first anniversary of Mr. Obama's inauguration and the day after Scott Brown, a Republican, won a Senate seat in liberal Massachusetts -- has been remarkable. Then, commentators pronounced the Obama presidency nearly dead. Today, he looks more like a liberal answer to Ronald Reagan.

Of course, the very notion of a liberal Reagan has been to reverse the public's approach to how (and whether) government should be used. President Obama's efforts to shift the paradigm away from Reagan's first inaugural ("government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem") have been subtle but persistent, though public attitudes haven't budged significantly.

Then again, it's hard to change three decades of a prevailing political ideology in 16 months -- and in the midst of multiple crises.

But the president is giving it a shot. "The last 16 months seem most similar in scope to three other periods in the last 80 years," Leonhardt noted, identifying FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, and Reagan's conservatism as the three benchmarks of the 20th century.

Electorally, the next question is whether the beneficiaries of the shift will punish those laying the new foundation.

Leonhardt emphasized the fact that Obama's efforts have a theme:"try to lift economic growth while also reducing income inequality."

Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled. Every major piece of the Obama agenda is meant, in part, to push back against inequality. Government may grow, but the bigger change will be how the government is spending its money.

The health bill expanded insurance coverage largely for middle-class and poor families and paid some of the bill by taxing households making more than $250,000 a year. Attached to the final health bill were also education provisions that cut subsidies to banks making student loans, and used much of the money for college financial aid instead.

The financial regulation bill, meanwhile, would take several steps likely to reduce Wall Street's profits -- and Wall Street has created more multimillionaires in recent decades than any other industry.

It's possible, if not likely, that the middle class that stands to benefit most from a progressive agenda will reward those fighting against their interests. It wouldn't be the first time. The benefits of the policymaking from 2009 and 2010 can far outlive the results of a midterm election cycle.

Either way, when we can look back at this transitional moment in history with hindsight, it's hardly unreasonable to think the accomplishments of Obama's first two years will belong in the same conversation as the first two Democratic "waves."

—Steve Benen 5:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

THE FAMILIAR RING OF THE K STREET PROJECT.... The notorious K Street Project became synonymous with Republican excesses of the Gingrich/DeLay/Bush era, and for good reason. Among its components was a heavy-handed scheme to "encourage" corporate PACs to contribute to Republican candidates, or face adverse consequences.

It became a devastating scandal for the Republican Party, and Exhibit A in the culture of corruption that drove the GOP from power in 2006. Indeed, when John Boehner (R-Ohio) sought a leadership post in January 2006, he vowed that under his guidance, "[T]here will no longer be a K Street Project, or anything else like it."

The elaborate scheme has not been resuscitated, at least not yet. But corporate PAC money has shifted heavily in Republicans' direction this year, at least in part because of the kind of tactics we saw when the K Street Project was in full force.

Corporate America is gambling on the minority in its political giving this year, assuming that Republicans will win big in the November midterm elections, an analysis of campaign finance reports shows.... The change comes as top Republicans lawmakers appeal more directly to business leaders, putting them on notice that the GOP is keeping track of the corporate donations ledger and will remember who stood by the party.

As part of an effort dubbed "Sell the Fight," House Republican leaders have met privately with corporate executives and lobbyists to argue that their giving has tilted too far toward Democrats and that they need to steer more money to industry-friendly GOP candidates in key races in 2010.

"These corporate leaders and lobbyists have got interests and clients they need to look out for, and they are reading the tea leaves just like everyone else," said Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the deputy chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, who has made several private pitches to corporate PAC leaders.

When the K Street Project began, part of the larger scheme included Tom DeLay keeping a list of corporate lobbyists categorized as "friendly" and "unfriendly" based on campaign contributions. "Friendly" corporate lobbyists who directed PAC contributions to Republicans were rewarded with influence and access. "Unfriendly" corporate lobbyists and those who dared to donate to Democrats were locked out, or in some cases, blacklisted.

It would be an exaggeration to suggest these tactics have been brought back in earnest. But we're starting to see hints of the old, ugly, corrupt machine when Republicans leaders not-so-subtly remind business leaders that the party is "keeping score." In other words, GOP officials expect to be back in the majority in 2011, and if corporate lobbyists want to start writing legislation again, the way they did before there was a Democratic majority, they'll have to buy that influence again.

When the NRCC's Greg Walden met with 80 corporate PAC leaders in March, for example, he said he wasn't making any threats. He simply said Republican leaders are "evaluating giving patterns," and in the next breath, he pointed to competitive congressional races where these lobbyists "can make an investment in a Republican candidate you will like."

I seem to recall subtle messages like these being featured on "The Sopranos." I can hear Boehner now, "That's a nice amendment you want in the appropriations bill. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Republicans gave the American political system a bad name during their reign of error. There are already hints that the sequel will be more offensive than the original.

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

WHEN EXTREMISM AND IGNORANCE COLLIDE.... Republican Senate candidate and right-wing ophthalmologist Rand Paul got into a little trouble this week while explaining his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To a lesser extent, his disagreement with the Americans With Disabilities Act also raised a few eyebrows.

When Wolf Blitzer asked Rand about his ADA opposition, he tried to make his concerns sound reasonable. "[L]et's say you have a local office and you have a two-story office, and one of your workers is handicapped," the Republican said. "Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor or should you be forced to put in a $100,000 elevator? ... [M]y understanding is that small business owners were often forced to put in elevators, and I think you ought to at least be given a choice. Can you provide an opportunity without maybe having to pay for an elevator?"

At first blush, that may not sound ridiculous. The problem, as Yahoo News' John Cook discovered, is that Rand Paul has no idea what he's talking about, complaining publicly about the ADA without knowing what's in it.

The legislation specifically exempts the vast majority of buildings three stories and under from any requirement to install elevators. In other words, if you are a small business owner and you have a two-story office and one of your workers is handicapped, no one can force you to build an elevator. It's true that the exemption doesn't apply to health care facilities or shopping malls or buildings four stories and up -- and Paul, who has an ophthalmology practice, may have been thinking of those provisions when he insisted that businesses are "often forced to put in elevators."

Trouble is, we searched far and wide for a single instance in which a private employer was successfully sued under the ADA for failing to provide an elevator, or was compelled by a lawsuit to do so, and we came up empty. We searched the case law, contacted ADA experts -- both proponents and opponents of the law -- the Justice Department, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Not one of them knew of any case involving the government-ordered installation of an elevator. It looks like Rand Paul is either peddling a myth or spinning some vanishingly small number of elevator installations we've yet to hear of into an epidemic big-government overreach.

That's because, while the ADA does impose a burden on employers and business owners to make their facilities accessible, it also contains reasonable restrictions on what owners and operators of existing buildings can be forced to do.

When Cook asked the Paul campaign to substantiate the candidate's concerns, it did not respond.

Paul's bizarre worldview is troubling enough; is it too much to ask that he read up on the issues he claims to care about?

—Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is an interesting twist at the intersection of religion and politics. Generally, at least in recent years, when policymakers reach out to evangelical Christians, it's Republicans seeking support on culture-war measures. Now, we're seeing efforts to build a very different coalition.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) have turned to evangelical Christians in a last-ditch effort to move immigration reform and climate change legislation.

Democrats are making a direct appeal to the GOP base by turning to evangelical Christian and other religious leaders, and there's some evidence that the talks could be fruitful.

In particular, Schumer has been engaged directly with Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, about generating support for a comprehensive immigration reform package. Kerry has reached out to evangelical leaders, including Florida mega-church leader Joel Hunter, in the hopes of giving a boost to his climate/energy bill.

Burns Strider, a former aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has also been part of the larger effort, keeping in regular contact with evangelical groups, including state affiliates of the Christian Coalition,

"It's very surprising," Hunter said. "These are times of interesting coalitions."

Whether these efforts pay legislative dividends is, however, another matter. The Democrat's health care reform initiative generated considerable support in a variety of faith communities, but that didn't stop Republicans from unanimous opposition and endless demagoguery -- even if it meant bearing false witness.

Still, it's a trend worth watching.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Earlier this week, the Vatican offered its "most detailed defense yet against claims that it is liable for U.S. bishops who allowed priests to molest children." Among the new arguments: the Roman Catholic Bishops are not technically Vatican employees.

* Late last year, a critically ill woman at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, had an abortion in order to save her life. She was, at the time, 11 weeks pregnant, when pulmonary hypertension made the abortion necessary. This week, the head of the Phoenix diocese excommunicated the hospital nun who signed off on the surgery, despite the fact that her decision saved a woman's life. (thanks to reader D.J. for the tip)

* Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express, is lashing out wildly and attacking Islam following reports of a mosque being built in Manhattan, not far from 9/11's Ground Zero. Williams referred to the Islamic deity as a "monkey-god" and to Muslims as "the animals of allah." He added that Islam attracts "mental cases," and published an image of the prophet Muhammad with a swastika on top of his head. Another setback in the effort to make the Tea Party crowd appear tolerant and mainstream.

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)