DON'T BLAME BOEHNER; HE JUST WORKS THERE.... President Obama hosted a meeting at the White House with the leadership of both parties, from both chambers, and the discussion reportedly turned to Bush's tax cuts. GOP leaders want all the cuts to remain in place, no matter how many billions of dollars it adds to the deficit. The president wants to keep the cuts for everyone except the very wealthy.

By all accounts, the chat wasn't especially constructive, but I was glad to see this exchange took place.

Mr. Obama, who did not join the Senate until 2005, reminded Mr. Boehner and the Senate Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that the tax cuts' architects purposely left the deficit problem to a future administration, according to aides from both parties.

"I wasn't there," Mr. Boehner quickly countered. "I didn't structure that deal."

The room briefly went quiet as participants seemed to ponder that statement from a legislator first elected in 1990. "How long have you been here?," a Democrat asked Mr. Boehner, and the others broke out in laughter.

They're laughing at you, John, not with you.

It's a telling anecdote. The White House vision is to largely follow the game plan crafted by congressional Republicans less than a decade ago. It was the GOP's idea -- they passed tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, and set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cuts' cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP wouldn't have to pay for their own experiment. We saw the results, which can only fairly be described as "total failure."

Obama is prepared to do part of what Republicans included in their own plan -- letting tax rates for those making more than $250,000 return to the same levels that existed when the economy was strong, as was outlined in the Republican plan of the Bush era. Reminded of whose idea this was in the first place, Boehner, in effect, argued that he has nothing to do with the plan he voted for, and which was crafted by his own caucus.

Indeed, Boehner was, at the time, responsible at the committee level for helping shape the tax-cut package, and was on hand at the White House for the bill-signing ceremony.

No wonder the room broke out in laughter.

As for the substance, Boehner told the president allowing the higher rates to return to pre-Bush levels would be bad for small businesses (small businesses that need some help, which Senate Republicans have blocked). As a policy matter, Boehner's argument is patently ridiculous, but the fact that he's pushing it in a private meeting confirms my suspicions -- Boehner actually believes his own nonsense, and isn't quite sharp enough to realize he doesn't know what he's talking about.

In the meantime, Boehner is also urging Republicans to stop referring to the Bush tax cuts as the Bush tax cuts. GOP members are supposed to fight for the failed former president's tax policy, but avoid using the failed former president's name.

They really do think voters are fools.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

A VICTORY LAP.... When President Obama intervened last year to rescue American auto manufacturers, Republicans were apoplectic, and felt they had all the proof they needed that the White House was bent on a radical, socialistic agenda to destroy capitalism. The GOP screamed that the industry rescue wouldn't -- and couldn't -- work, and that the entire scheme would be a disaster for taxpayers and our very way of life.

A year later, the president is understandably boasting about getting the policy right, and as the Washington Post noted this morning, "many of the critics have retreated from their sharpest attacks as they watch the auto industry once again turn a profit."

With this in mind, the president used his weekly address to take a victory lap, and explain that while the industry bailout wasn't ideal, he had to make the tough call -- a decision that we now know was correct.

Recording the address at a GM plant in Detroit, Obama explained, "[I]f some folks had their way, none of this would be happening at all. This plant might not exist. There were leaders of the 'just say no' crowd in Washington who argued that standing by the auto industry would guarantee failure. One called it 'the worst investment you could possibly make.' They said we should just walk away and let these jobs go. Today, the men and women in this plant are proving these cynics wrong. Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, our auto industry has added 55,000 jobs -- the strongest period of job growth in more than ten years. For the first time since 2004, all three American automakers are operating at a profit. Sales have begun to rebound. And plants like this that wouldn't have existed if all of us didn't act are now operating maximum capacity. "

The president made nearly identical points in a speech to factory workers yesterday. The point wasn't subtle, but it was accurate -- if we'd listened to Republicans, the American auto industry would be left in shambles, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost, and the backbone of American manufacturing would have been broken. At a moment of crisis, Republicans got it wrong. Again.

MSNBC's First Read noted yesterday, "We said it at the time: As the GM bailout goes, so goes the Obama presidency. It was the bailout everyone in America could understand, and it wasn't popular.... A year later, however, the Obama administration believes it has a good story to tell."

There are worse things to base an election on -- Republicans were prepared to let the American auto industry fail at the height of the Great Recession, but President Obama rescued it instead. If the auto bailout and Obama's presidency are inextricably tied, the White House has reason to boast.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is the deeply offensive, increasingly-ugly conservative crusade against Muslims, which was initially limited to opposing the construction Islamic community centers and mosques, but it's metastasizing quickly.

On September 11, 2010, the extremist evangelical Dove World Church -- whose pastor, Terry Jones, has written a book called "Islam Is Of The Devil" -- plans to host "International Burn A Quran Day," when it will burn Muslims' sacred text and encourage others across the world to do so as well. Churchmember Wayne Sapp has even posted an instructional video that explains how and why to burn the Islamic text.

CNN host Rick Sanchez invited Jones on his show [Thursday] to ask him about the inflammatory action.... Jones later went on to explain, "What we are also doing by the burning of the Quran, we're saying stop, stop to Islam, stop to Islamic law, stop to brutality. We have nothing against Muslims, they are welcome in our country." When Sanchez asked him how he would feel if Muslims burned the Bible, Jones admitted he wouldn't like it but emphasized that it was his "right" to burn the Islamic text because "we live in America."

So, the anti-Muslim, Quran-burning preacher wants us to believe he has "nothing against Muslims." Why would anyone doubt that?

Another pastor from Dove World explained that his church believes in burning Islamic texts "because we're Christian," adding, "Being Christian does not mean you go to church. Being Christian does not mean you believe in God. Being Christian means you are Christ-like, or at least attempting to go in that direction. And Jesus, the Christ, he was sent -- he appeared -- to destroy the works of the Devil. So that's what we're gonna do."

Maybe there's some director's cut version of the New Testament I'm not aware of, featuring a hateful, book-burning Jesus.

For the record, the National Association of Evangelicals, the nation's largest body of evangelical Christians, has denounced Dove World's efforts.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Evangelical Christian minister Tim LaHaye, best known for helping write the best-selling "Left Behind" series, told Fox News this week that the Obama administration's agenda is bringing us "closer to the apocalypse." Asked if we're "now living in the end times," LaHaye said, "Very definitely." (thanks to reader D.J.)

* California Tea Party activist Diane Serafin organized a protest at a Riverside County-area mosque this week, and urged Christians to bring dogs to the demonstration because "they hate dogs." The point of the protest was to denounce the construction of a new mosque, which Serafin perceives as part of an effort to "take over our country." She told Evan McMorris-Santoro, "I want you to stress this -- I'm not prejudiced. I worked retail for nine years and I didn't even know my manager was gay until someone told me. And when I found out, I didn't care." I guess that settles it, then.

* Newsweek reported the other day that, over the last four decades, church attendance goes up when the GDP goes down.

* And Ted Haggard this week said he "over-repented" for having an affair with a male prostitute. Whatever you say, Ted.

—Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

HEALTH-CARE SCHEME SCUTTLED IN FLORIDA.... It's a fairly straightforward strategy: get a measure on the state ballot in opposition to health care reform; boost right-wing turnout; and expect those voters to support GOP candidates while they're at the polls. We saw a similar strategy play out in 2004 with far-right activists getting measures on the ballot to prevent marriage equality.

Assuming that Republican voters hate the Affordable Care Act at least as much as gays, there's an effort underway to repeat the model in a variety of states. One party official conceded, "What we're trying to do is give voters an added reason to show up to the polls."

In Florida, the GOP-led state legislature did just that. Yesterday, a state judge threw the scheme out.

Calling the wording of a Republican-backed constitutional amendment on health care "manifestly misleading," a Circuit Court judge in Leon County has tossed it off the November ballot.

The proposal had been drafted and put forward by the GOP-led state legislature as a counter to the new federal health care plan. It would prohibit the state from participating in any health insurance exchange that compels people to buy insurance.

State law requires ballot summaries to be clear and accurate. Circuit Court Judge James Shelfer said a proposed ballot summary for the amendment contains several phrases that are political and list issues that are not addressed in the proposal.

The first sentence of the summary says the amendment would "ensure access to health care services without waiting lists, protect the doctor-patient relationship, (and) guard against mandates that don't work."

Shelfer said the amendment does not guarantee any of those things.

Imagine that -- right-wing Republicans making "manifestly misleading" claims about health care policy. Who would have imagined?

Of course, it's a cynical exercise anyway, since state measures, even those approved by voters, can't trump federal law. But the point had nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with Republicans' get-out-the-vote efforts.

While the issue in Florida is being appealed, identical efforts are continuing elsewhere. Ben Armbruster noted, "[N]ext Tuesday, Missouri voters will vote on a similar measure challenging the health insurance mandate Congress passed with the reform bill last year. The proposal 'would prohibit governments from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for paying health bills entirely with their own money.'"

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

AND THEN THERE WERE TWO.... Rep. Charlie Rangel's (D-N.Y.) ethics charges are obviously generating a lot of attention, but the issue will likely become even bigger if there are two long-time House members facing allegations at the same time.

Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, will face charges of misusing her office and is expected to contest the claims in a House trial, the second powerful House Democrat to opt for such a public airing in recent days, Congressional officials said Friday.

A House ethics subcommittee has charged Ms. Waters, 71, a 10-term congresswoman, in a case involving communications that she had with the top executive of a bank that her husband owned stock in while it was applying for a federal bailout in 2008, two House officials said.

Charges are expected to be announced next week, several Congressional officials said, speaking only on the condition of anonymity because the proceedings remained confidential.

In the meantime, there are now eight House Democrats calling on Rangel to resign. They were bolstered, at least indirectly, when President Obama told CBS's Harry Smith yesterday, "I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served -- his constituents very well but these -- allegations are very troubling.... He's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens."

By all accounts, the president's comments didn't change matters for Rangel, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus were reportedly annoyed by Obama's criticism -- not because Rangel is innocent of the ethics allegations, but because Rangel "served our nation with honor and distinction for more than four decades, before ... the president was a twinkle in his parents' eye."

As for the charges themselves, a investigative subcommittee of the House ethics panel that oversaw the two-year probe into Rangel's alleged wrongdoing recommended that the New York Dem "be punished with a reprimand, rather than a more serious censure or expulsion from office," a recommendation that may carry "significant weight with the full 10-member House ethics committee."

While the Rangel and Waters allegations will no doubt be welcome news to Republicans, who'd love to exploit the ethics controversies for electoral gain, the GOP should probably be reminded of the dangers of throwing stones in glass houses.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

TAKING A CUE FROM ABE SIMPSON.... Way back in the sixth season of "The Simpsons," Springfield Mayor Joe Quimby was telling a group of seniors about a new highway, explaining that it would "bring increased commerce to our local merchants." Grandpa Simpson was unimpressed, asking, "What's in it for us?" Jasper added, "Yeah, give us something we like or we'll ride you out of town on a rail!"

The mayor, flustered, replied, "Well, uh, what do you people like?" Grandpa Simpson eventually says, "Maaatloock!" Quimby acts quickly, and declares, "Well, I suppose I could name it ... the Matlock Expressway." And with that, the seniors are happy.

This occurred to me when I saw the latest ad from the Obama administration related to health care policy. There's ample polling that suggests there are generational differences in how Americans perceive the Affordable Care Act -- and seniors' attitudes are easily the most negative. Given that the right went to great lengths to try to terrify the elderly with ridiculous lies, the polls aren't especially surprising.

So, the administration created a new spot starring ... Andy Griffith. The actor who played Matlock talks up the new law, telling a targeted audience, "With the new health care law, more good things are coming -- free checkups, lower prescription costs and better ways to protect us and Medicare from fraud.... I think you're going to like it."

The 30-second ad went live yesterday, and will air on four national cable networks: CNN, Weather Channel, Lifetime, and Hallmark.

If this doesn't help address seniors' concerns, I might recommend labeling the new law Matlock's Affordable Care Act.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

HALF NELSON.... Yesterday, Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire announced his support for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination, bringing the total number of Republicans backing confirmation to five (and counting). For Democrats who might be looking for bipartisan cover, there's plenty here.

But for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), it's apparently not good enough.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska announced Friday that he will not vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, becoming the first Democrat to oppose the president's nominee.

"I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded," he said in a statement. "Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan's nomination."

But Mr. Nelson said that he would not join Republicans if they attempt a filibuster.

"In my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate."

Yes, let's all marvel at Nelson's graciousness.

This is all rather hard to believe. It seems unlikely Nelson's office lines have been burning up with anti-Kagan calls, and even if the senator has heard from some constituents on this, he should probably realize that organized right-wing activists aren't going to vote for him anyway, so there's no real point trying to impress them.

But note the specific rationale -- Nelson's heard from opponents of the Kagan nomination, which he's struggled with because of her inexperience as a judge. I'm not even sure what this means, exactly. He would "discount" far-right complaints if Kagan had been a judge? What does one have to do with the other?

For the record, the "lack of a judicial record" canard is still weak.

Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of conservative justices, and experts agree that she is qualified for the Supreme Court. The American Bar Association gave Kagan its highest rating: well qualified. Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly said that he was "happy to see that this latest nominee" is "not a judge at all." Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said it didn't matter that Kagan had not been a judge. In addition, other legal experts and prominent conservatives reject claims that Kagan isn't qualified. At least 38 justices -- including two of the past four chief justices -- had no judicial experience when they were first nominated for the Supreme Court. And Kagan's legal experience is comparable to that of several recent conservative justices at the time of their nominations: William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts.

The Kagan confirmation vote will likely occur on Tuesday. Whether Nelson will switch parties won't be clear until January.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

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

* Afghanistan: "Three U.S. troops died in blasts in Afghanistan, bringing the death toll for July to at least 63 and surpassing the previous month's record as the deadliest for American forces in the nearly 9-year-old war."

* The Bush Recession was even worse than we realized: "The worst U.S. recession since the 1930s was even deeper than previously estimated, reflecting bigger slumps in consumer spending and housing, according to revised figures."

* Federal court judge Susan Bolton, recommended for the bench by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), blocked the implementation yesterday of several provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant bill. Now, she's facing death threats.

* Rangel's reprimand? "The subcommittee that investigated Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has recommended that the embattled lawmaker face just a 'reprimand,' a mild form of punishment similar to that given to Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he was rebuked in 1997."

* Keep standing up for yourself, EPA.

* Happy Anniversary, Medicare. Here's hoping the next Congress doesn't try to subject you to a death panel.

* Something to keep an eye on: "The world's first authorized test in people of a treatment derived from human embryonic stem cells has been cleared to begin by the Food and Drug Administration. The trial will test cells developed by Geron Corporation and the University of California, Irvine in patients with new spinal cord injuries."

* Unacceptable: "Someone accused of killing a white person in North Carolina is nearly three times as likely to get the death penalty than someone accused of killing a black person, according to a study released Thursday by two researchers who looked at death sentences over a 28-year period."

* Rumor has it that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is one of the sharper members of the House Republican caucus, but when one considers his actual ideas, Ryan is still "stone-cold ignorant."

* Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) will vote to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He's the fifth Republican senator to announce his support for the nomination.

* Even Robert Kagan, a bona fide neocon, supports ratification of New START. It just needs eight Republicans.

* Newt Gingrich is deeply confused, but so is his spokesperson.

* The GAO offers more support for those who believe there's money to be saved in the Pentagon budget.

* Sorry to see True/Slant close its virtual doors.

* There are no credible defenses for crack/powder sentencing disparities, but Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) gives it a shot (and fails miserably).

* Fixing California's higher education problems is harder than it looks.

* If it never occurred to you to connect "The Simpsons" to Weather Underground and '60s-era radicalism, then you're probably not watching Glenn Beck.

* And Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner continues to make a name for himself, this week suggesting it's time for Arizona to consider secession. He seems quite serious about it.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

A TEST FOR THE SENATE GOP 'MODERATES'.... It's been pretty unpleasant watching the Senate lately. The DISCLOSE Act came up, and every single Senate Republican joined together to block the bill from even getting a vote. A package of incentives and tax breaks for small businesses looked to be in good shape, but every single Senate Republican joined together to knock that down, too. Twenty obviously qualified judicial nominees were brought forward, and the GOP blocked votes on all of them. Medical care for 9/11 victims came up, and Republicans prevented it from passing, too.

And these are just developments since Tuesday.

But early next week, the chamber will have another important opportunity to pass a critical piece of legislation. Annie Lowrey reported:

[Thursday night], Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attached an amendment with funding to preserve teachers' jobs and to provide much-needed Medicaid funding to states to a Federal Aviation Administration bill. The amendment is fully paid-for, and the FAA bill is just a vehicle. Reid filed cloture, meaning the Senate will vote on the provisions on Monday.

The amendment includes $10 billion in funding for teachers' jobs and $16.1 billion in funding for the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, or FMAP, program, which provides Medicaid funding to states. For offsets, it closes foreign tax credit loopholes to raise $9 billion; it also cuts $2 billion from Medicaid drug pricing, $8.4 billion in rescissions and $6.7 billion from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

There were no further details released at the time. At first blush, cutting food stamps to pay for Medicaid -- both problems aid the most economically distressed Americans -- and teachers' jobs seems like a hard compromise to swallow, though it is unclear when the cuts will take effect and what portions will be cut.

Paying for this through food stamp offsets is rough, but it may not quite as bad as it appears. A source close to the talks told me this afternoon that the $6.7 billion from SNAP won't go into effect until 2014 and the money comes from an increase that came through the Recovery Act. For Democrats, it seems like a reasonable trade-off -- they get to save a lot of jobs and bolster Medicaid in the short term, while having three years to replenish the extra funds for food stamps.

But what about for Republicans? What kind of resistance should Democrats expect when this comes up on Monday night?

I don't doubt they'll come up with something, but Republicans -- especially Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine -- really don't have any excuses here. This bill will help states, save jobs, and improve the economy ... without adding a penny to the deficit.

On Monday, Snowe and Collins specifically endorsed a Medicaid funding extension, but said they didn't want to vote for a bill that wasn't paid for. Well, this bill is paid for. Collins said the job-saving state aid should phase down over time. Well, to accomodate her concerns, this bill does exactly that.

So, Republican moderates, what's it going to be? Are you willing to take "yes" for an answer?

—Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

SPARE US THE ETHICS LECTURE, FRED.... Last week, Republican pundit Fred Barnes did his very best to pretend to be outraged about the existence of Journolist -- the former listserv featuring left-of-center media professionals, scholars, and wonks (including, for the record, me).

"If there's a team, no one has asked me to join," Barnes said in a Wall Street Journal piece. "As a conservative, I normally write more favorably about Republicans than Democrats and I routinely treat conservative ideas as superior to liberal ones. But I've never been part of a discussion with conservative writers about how we could most help the Republican or the conservative team." Barnes added that he's pained by the betrayal of "traditional journalism."

The layers of misjudgment are numerous, especially coming from a shamelessly partisan Fox News contributor publishing an item on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.

But Joe Conason takes this further, and notes that Barnes is very much part of "a team," which is evident every time Barnes helps Republican fundraising efforts and accepts tens of thousands of dollars from GOP organizations.

* In February 2006, Barnes was paid $10,000 plus travel expenses by Oregon's Lane County Republican Central Committee to deliver the keynote address at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner. (Thanks to Carla Axtman for research assistance.) These payments, recorded in filings with the Oregon secretary of state, were evidently made through the Premier Speakers Bureau of Franklin, Tenn., which represents other Fox personalities including Sean Hannity, Dick Morris and Mike Huckabee. Barnes is no longer listed on the Premier website, but the company did not respond to phone or e-mail inquiries about its relationship with him.

* In February 2007, Barnes spoke at the annual Lincoln-Reagan Dinner held by the Republican Party of Fort Bend County, Texas -- home of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who purchased a ticket to the event. The party organization's filing with the Texas Ethics Commission shows two payments of $5,000 each on April 26, 2007, to Premiere Speakers Bureau (with the notation "LRD 2007 Speaker - Fred Barnes") and travel expenses of $1,823. Photos of a smiling Barnes with various local dignitaries at the event, which netted a reported $70,000 for the party, can be viewed here.

* In early March 2008, Barnes served as the keynote speaker for the Republican Party of Palm Beach County at its annual Lincoln Day Dinner. Whether he received the customary $10,000 is not clear because the party's filing with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections show only a single payment of $5,500 to Premiere Speakers Bureau on Feb. 18. The committee reported net $120,000 in net proceeds from the event.

Tell us again, Fred, about your unwavering commitment to the standards of "traditional journalism," and your independence from any "team."

And while you're at it, Fred, tell us how an online discussion group with media professionals is more offensive than your Republican fundraising efforts.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

ADL'S MOST MISGUIDED MOMENT.... When I heard that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had issued a statement on the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, I was relieved. Finally, I thought, a sensible, credible voice committed to combating bigotry and prejudice could remind the right-wing about the importance of respect, freedom, and how there are no second-class faith traditions here in the United States.

And then I read the statement, and my relief disappeared.

The ADL's statement started off really well. It reiterated its commitment to religious liberty, "categorically" rejected the "appeals to bigotry," and condemned those "whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry."

But then the ADL went badly off course.

"The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found."

What? That doesn't make any sense. The right manufactures a controversy, motivated by nothing but bigotry, so the facility should be built elsewhere? Why, to reward the bigots? And how many blocks away would be necessary to satisfy these demands?

"Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain -- unnecessarily -- and that is not right."

This is genuinely incoherent, and a statement I suspect the ADL will one day look back on with regret and embarrassment.

What the Anti-Defamation League is arguing is that the sensitivities of bigots are more important than the religious liberty of American Muslims. The ADL believes faith communities should be free to build buildings, unless it might bother those who hate those faith communities.

The ADL seems to acknowledge and fully appreciate the fact that opponents of the Cordoba House are motivated by bigotry, but inexplicably calls for the accommodation of that bigotry.

As Adam Serwer concluded:

Let's be clear. This is not about the proposed Islamic Center. There is already a masjid in the neighborhood, and it's been there for decades. This is about giving political cover to right-wing politicians using anti-Muslim bigotry as a political weapon and a fundraising tool. By doing this, the ADL is increasingly eroding its already weakened credibility as a nonpartisan organization.

I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone. Someone at the ADL needs to go back to Hebrew School.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

APPROPRIATELY NAMED BROTHERS.... It's almost enough to make me believe in karma.

Samuel and Charles Wyly, the billionaire brothers from Dallas who are large donors to philanthropies and to conservative causes, were charged Thursday with conducting an extensive securities fraud that the Securities and Exchange Commission said reaped $550 million in undisclosed gains.

The brothers, who founded Sterling Software, a business software and services company that they sold for $4 billion in stock to the software company CA in 2000, were also charged with insider trading violations from which they profited by more than $31 million, the S.E.C. said.

And who are the Wyly brothers? You may not recognize their names right away, but you no doubt know their friends -- the Wylys have given more than just about everyone else to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and former House Republican leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), in addition to generous support for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).

The Wyly brothers were also "substantial contributors" to the Swiftboat liars who smeared Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) military service in the 2004 presidential race.

Perhaps my favorite story involving the Wylys and politics relates to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). In 2000, the Wyly brothers created a front group called Republicans for Clean Air, whose sole purpose was to attack McCain in order to help then-Gov. George W. Bush's presidential campaign.

McCain accused the Wyly brothers of being corrupt, and having spent "dirty money" to "hijack" a presidential election. McCain even filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law. Six years later, McCain changed his mind, and begged the brothers for campaign donations.

And now these two find themselves with a serious SEC problem. What goes around comes around, I guess.

For the record, I think it's a mistake to condemn politicians for the actions of those who've raised money for them. Officials and candidates can hardly be expected to keep up on the shenanigans of every high-dollar donor, bundler, and financier, so I'm not suggesting these Republican candidates did something wrong by taking the Wylys' money (though in McCain's case, it was rather ridiculous).

I'm just saying, in light of their efforts, it's kind of nice to see the Wyly brothers run into some trouble.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

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.

* In Florida's closely-watched Senate race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Charlie Crist (I) still out in front, enjoying 37% support, followed by Marco Rubio (R) at 32%, and Jeff Greene (D) third with 17%. With Rep. Kendrick Meek as the Democratic nominee, Crist's and Rubio's numbers are a little higher, but the margins are about the same.

* On a related note, Quinnipiac also polled Florida's open gubernatorial race, and found an even more competitive contest. With Rick Scott as the GOP nominee, he leads with 29%, just two points ahead of state CFO Alex Sink (D) at 27%, and Bud Chiles (I) with 14%. If Bill McCollum wins the Republican primary, he's ahead 27% to 26% over Sink.

* In Nevada, a new Mason-Dixon poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) leading former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R) by just one point, 43% to 42%. The last Mason-Dixon poll showed Reid with a larger lead.

* Speaking of Reid, Kentucky Senate hopeful Jack Conway (D) has been under pressure from right-wing candidate Rand Paul (R) about whether he'd support Reid for Majority Leader if elected. This week, pressed on the issue, Conway hedged, suggesting Reid might still lose his re-election bid.

* We're just days away from Michigan's GOP gubernatorial primary, and a new EPIC/MRA poll shows a very competitive three-way contest. Rick Snyder is ahead in the poll with 26% support, followed by Mike Cox at 24%, and Pete Hoekstra at 23%. Among Democrats, Virg Bernero leads Andy Dillon by eight, 40% to 32%.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R) is leading Sen. Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin, 48% to 46%.

* In Nevada, Rasmussen shows Brian Sandoval (R) leading the gubernatorial race over Rory Reid (D), but Sandoval's lead is down to 10 points, and the poll was taken before Sandoval's controversial comments about Arizona's anti-immigrant policy.

* In Pennsylvania, Rasmussen shows former Rep. Pat Toomey (R) leading Rep. Joe Sestak (D) by six, 45% to 39%.

* And in the state of Washington, Rasmussen shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading GOP frontrunner Dino Rossi by two, 49% to 47%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

IF SESSIONS WANTS TO COMPARE, WE CAN COMPARE.... Yesterday, Senate Democrats tried to win confirmation for 20 pending judicial nominees, nearly all of whom enjoyed bipartisan support at the committee level, and all of whom have run into needless Republican obstructionism. How many of the 20 were approved yesterday? None -- Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) blocked all of them.

"President Obama's nominees are moving considerably faster ... than President Bush's nominees," the right-wing Alabaman said on the floor. Senate Dems put together this fact-checking video, which makes plain that Sessions either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately trying to deceive, hoping those listening don't know the difference between fact and fiction.

The White House has faced some criticism, much of it deserved, for not being more aggressive in sending judicial nominees for consideration. But it's certainly not the administration's fault that the Senate confirmation process is effectively broken, with Republicans using filibusters and holds to block votes on qualified would-be jurists.

The Center for American Progress released a report this morning, and the results are both striking and irrefutable. Even district court nominees, whose confirmations used to be routine, are being blocked in record numbers, thanks to Republican tactics that have never even been tried in the Senate.

From the report: "Such tactics are completely unprecedented, and so are their results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. And President Obama's nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor -- nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed."

The report added, "It is easy to manipulate the Senate rules to create a crisis. If a minority of senators broadly object to the Senate's entire agenda, then it is literally impossible to confirm more than a fraction of the hundreds of judges, executive branch officials, ambassadors, and other nominees that each president has a responsibility to appoint, even if the Senate shuts down all other legislative business to do so."

This political paralysis is unsustainable, and it's going to get even worse if the Senate Republican caucus grows in the next Congress, as seems extremely likely.

It's ridiculous to think of a judiciary filled with recess appointments, but it may come to that.

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

A COMEBACK STORY AMERICANS (EVEN THE GOP) SHOULD LOVE.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gets a lot of things wrong, for a lot of wrong reasons. But of particular interest today was Steven Pearlstein's sweeping rejection of Chamber politics, most notably, how wrong it and its president, Tom Donahue, were about President Obama's rescue of the U.S. auto industry.

Perhaps none was more controversial than the decision to rescue Chrysler and General Motors, using $86 billion in taxpayer funds and an expedited bankruptcy process that wiped out shareholders, brought in new executives and directors, forced creditors to take a financial haircut, closed dealerships and factories and imposed painful cuts in wages and benefits on unionized workers. It was an extraordinary and heavy-handed government intervention into the market economy that left the Treasury owning a majority of both companies. As one participant recalls, public opinion was divided among those who believed that the companies should have been allowed to die, those who believed they would never survive bankruptcy and those who believed the government would inevitably screw things up. Among the most vocal skeptics: the Chamber's Donohue.

A year later, the auto bailout is an unqualified success. The government used its leverage to force the companies to make the painful changes they should have made years before, and then backed off and let the companies run themselves without any noticeable interference.

The results, which President Obama will tout on a visit to Michigan on Friday: For the first time since 2004, GM and Chrysler, along with Ford, all reported operating profits in their U.S. businesses last quarter. The domestic auto industry added 55,000 jobs last year, ending a decade-long string of declines. Auto sector exports are up 57 percent so far this year and, thanks largely to new government regulations, the industry is moving quickly to introduce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Most surprising of all, GM and Chrysler have already repaid more than $8 billion in government loans, while GM is preparing for an initial stock offering later this year that would allow the government to recoup most, if not all, of its investment.

There was a time, not long ago, when real business leaders encouraged these kind of public-private partnerships.

It's worth noting that the administration's auto industry bailout not only worked, it exceeded expectations. Just as importantly, it fit comfortably into an existing model -- every time the federal government bails out key national industries, the results are encouraging.

A year ago, the Monthly's Phillip Longman argued that "any honest reading of history suggests that the federal government has quite an impressive record of rescuing institutions considered too big to fail." Quite right. When the government bailed out Lockheed in 1971, the company thrived and taxpayers profited. The government bailed out Chrysler in 1980, and saw similar results. The government bailed out the railroad industry, and saw it flourish.

In each case, the government spent lots of taxpayer money, used bureaucrats to engineer the revival of an industry, recouped the money, and produced a success story. Conservatives howled in every instance, but as is usually the case, their complaints and dire predictions were wrong.

After Obama intervened to rescue auto manufacturers a year ago, the right insisted it was an example of his purported desire to be a communist dictator. A year later, his efforts look pretty smart, and his detractors' apoplexy looks pretty foolish.

For that matter, the conservative theme of the year is that government spending is the single most odious phenomenon in the known universe. And yet, it was government spending that prevented a depression, and it was government spending that rescued the American auto industry.
Maybe the right can pick something else to complain about? This talking point isn't working out well for them.

When the president takes a victory lap (so to speak) at a GM plant this morning, it will be well deserved. We can all be very thankful Obama didn't listen to conservatives, that there wasn't a conservative in the Oval Office, and that this industry was spared a looming catastrophe.

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

A DEMOCRAT'S ETHICS PROBE VS. A REPUBLICAN'S CRIMINAL PROBE.... If the accounts from major media outlets are any indication, the political world is awfully excited about the ethics allegations against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). To be sure, the interest is warranted -- the allegations against the former Ways and Means Committee chairman are serious; Republicans are thrilled; and the controversy has literally become front-page, above-the-fold news.

There may be some rule that I'm not aware of, prohibiting coverage of Republican scandals, but while a House Democrat's ethics problems intensify, a sitting Republican senator is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation, which is also getting more serious.

The Senate on Thursday night quietly approved a resolution that will allow Sen. John Ensign's aides to testify to a federal grand jury investigating the aftermath of the Nevada Republican's extramarital affair with a former campaign aide.

By voice vote, the Senate approved the resolution that would authorize employees of the Senate to give testimony to a grand jury in Washington.

Senate aides said that the resolution was necessary because Senate rules would prohibit employees from testifying outside of the halls of Congress.

Politico added that the move, which nearly every major outlet ignored, "is the latest sign that the investigation ... continues to move swiftly."

This development comes just a week after Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a former Ensign housemate, announced that he'd agreed to cooperate with the federal criminal investigation surrounding the conservative Nevadan. Coburn turned over more than 1,200 pages of documents to the Justice Department, including emails from Ensign.

And that development came on the heels of news that Ensign's aides have told investigators that the senator knew he was violating ethics rules on lobbying restrictions, but did it anyway.

As a rule, when a high-profile U.S. senator is facing a criminal investigation, the media shows at least some interest. When that investigation involves sex, the media tends to show quite a bit of interest.

But for reasons I still can't explain the Republican Nevadan is getting a pass. Here we have John Ensign, a "family values" conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. Ensign's 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.

And yet, there's no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media's fascinated with Charlie Rangel.

Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI.

Is this just the IOKIYAR rule taken to the extreme? Was there some kind of memo stating that only Democratic scandals deserve media attention in an election year?

—Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

ECONOMY STILL GROWING, BUT NOT VERY WELL.... The good news is, the economy is still growing, and has grown for four consecutive quarters for the first time in three years. The bad news is, the growth in the most recent quarter -- April through June -- was weak and far short of what the country needs.

The recovery lost momentum in the second quarter as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.

Weaker spending by consumers, less growth coming from companies restocking shrunken stockpiles and a bigger drag from the nation's trade deficits were the main factors behind the second quarter's slowdown.

Economic forecasters were expecting that the GDP would grow in the second quarter at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent, so the results are largely in line with expectations, but that doesn't change the fact that such sluggish growth isn't enough.

It's cold comfort, but it's worth noting that first quarter growth was revised upwards quite a bit. A month ago, growth from January to March was estimated at 2.7, but the Bureau of Economic Analysis this morning put the number at 3.7.

In the bigger picture, it's tempting to think weak growth like this would encourage policymakers to act, but all evidence suggests that's impossible. Republicans in Congress oppose any and all stimulus efforts, and won't let Democrats vote on any additional recovery initiatives. The GOP will, however, fight with everything they've got for massive tax breaks for the wealthy, which we've already seen fail as a measure of generating economic growth.

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

—Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (5)

HOUSE GOP KILLS MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... Following up on an item from yesterday, it appears Republican reverence for all things related to the 9/11 attacks is officially over.

Congress turned thumbs down on the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act on Thursday night, raising doubts it will ever pass.

Most Republicans refused to back the measure, calling it a "slush fund," and saying it was another example of Democratic overreach and an "insatiable" appetite for taxpayers' money.

The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center. It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.

So, as Republicans see it, we can afford tax breaks for billionaires. But care for 9/11 victims, not so much.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), perhaps best known for his apology to BP after the company's oil spill, "said the rest of the country should not bear the brunt of helping New Yorkers cope with the aftermath of the terror attacks." [Update: To clarify, this is a paraphrase from the New York Daily News, not a direct quote of Barton.]

How could House Republicans kill the bill in a majority-rule chamber? As it turns out, Dems brought the measure to the floor as a "suspension bill," because they didn't want the GOP to try to gut the legislation with poison-pill amendments. But this strategy meant the bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass. The final vote was 255 to 159 -- far short of the two-thirds threshold -- with 155 Republicans in opposition, many of them saying they would consider supporting the bill, but only if the GOP were allowed to push unrelated amendments intended to embarrass the majority.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose constituents include many directly affected by this legislation, wasn't especially impressed with the Republican argument:

—Steve Benen 8:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

WHAT NOW ON SMALL BUSINESS AID?.... Going into yesterday, hopes were relatively high that the Senate would make progress on a package to aid small businesses, including tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks. Hopes were dashed when Republicans, throwing a bit of a tantrum over the number of amendments they were allowed to consider, voted unanimously to block the chamber from voting on the bill.

There's no real mystery about the partisan gamesmanship on display.

Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks, in a procedural blockade that underscored how fiercely determined the party's leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments ahead of November's midterm elections.

The measure, championed by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, had the backing of some of the Republican Party's most reliable business allies, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. Several Republican lawmakers also helped write it.

But Republican leaders filibustered after fighting for days with Democrats over the number of amendments they would be able to offer.

So, the bill with 59 supporters and 41 opponents is at least temporarily stuck. What now? The Senate leadership is moving forward on a separate measure to help states avoid teacher layoffs and cover Medicaid costs (EduJobs and FMAP), but there's still talk that aid for small businesses can survive.

At issue are Republican demands that they be able to offer amendments to the small-business package that have nothing to do with small businesses -- including border security and Bush tax cuts. They don't really expect the amendments to pass, but GOP leaders hope (a) that the votes put Dems in an awkward spot; and (b) the process of considering them will take up more floor time, and make it impossible to consider other legislation this year.

As it currently stands, after yesterday's nonsense, the earliest the Senate would approve the small-business package is September. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who's taken the lead on this bill, noted that for struggling businesses, that's not nearly soon enough. Republicans, in effect, replied that the number of amendments they'd be allowed to consider was more important than whether those businesses might fail.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

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

* In Battle Creek, Michigan, federal regulators told Enbridge Energy Partners, a Canadian company, that its "monitoring of corrosion in the pipeline was insufficient." That pipeline has now spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a major river in southern Michigan.

* Manhunt ends on the outskirts of Kabul: "The second U.S. sailor who went missing in eastern Afghanistan last week has been found dead and his body recovered."

* Despite some talk earlier today of a possible settlement, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is now facing 13 charges of House rules violations.

* This afternoon, President Obama signed the Tribal Law and Order Act, giving tribes the right and resources to "investigate and prosecute rapes perpetrated by non-Natives on tribal lands."

* Is it really that hard to get a warrant? "The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation."

* The president maps out a defense of his education reform agenda.

* Better, but still too high: "The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance fell to 457,000 last week, a figure that signals the labor market will be slow to improve even as the economy grows."

* Citigroup settles with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

* Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee want a hearing on the New Black Panther Party. They're not going to get one.

* And the media rejoices: Shirley Sherrod intends to sue right-wing hatchet-man Andrew Breitbart.

* Congress is considering lifting a ban on Internet gambling, originally imposed by Republicans in 2006.

* Jonathan Cohn considers the "stupidity of liberal apathy."

* Brendan Nyhan considers the persistence of the death panels myth.

* Michelle Cottle watches Obama on "The View" so I don't have to.

* The End of Sallie Mae?

* If there's one thing the right-wing loves, it's selective editing.

* And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) reminds us why he's definitely a #1 seed in the brackets for Most Conspicuously Unintelligent House Member contest.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

SCHLAFLY DOES IT AGAIN.... In Michigan's 9th congressional district, Republicans hope to take down freshman Rep. Gary Peters (D) in what has historically been a relatively "red" area. One of the leading GOP candidates is Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, who apparently thought it'd be a good idea to prove his right-wing bona fides by campaigning with Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the far-right Eagle Forum.

What could possibly go wrong? Well, for one thing, Schlafly could start sharing some of her radical beliefs in public. (via Melissa McEwan)

During her speech at a Saturday fundraiser at the American Polish Cultural Center in Troy for Oakland County congressional candidate Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski, Schlafly compared unmarried women to welfare recipients.

The conservative commentator is under fire from many women's rights groups for her comments.

"Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama," Schlafly said in her speech. "And this is because when you kick your husband out, you gotta have Big Brother government to be your provider."

Schlafly went on to note that President Obama was elected thanks to support from "the blacks," before lamenting all the babies born "illegitimately" in the U.S. The Obama administration, she added, "wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes."

As for comment, Raczkowski said Schlafly's remarks did not "reflect" his "personal beliefs."

How big of him. Raczkowski has not yet apologized, however, for bringing his unhinged special guest to the area to spew her crazy nonsense.

It hasn't been a good year for Republicans and women's issues -- see Vitter, David among others -- but the ugliness and misogyny on display in Michigan are a reminder that matters might yet get worse.

Update: There are 75 Republican congressional candidates running this year who enjoy the Eagle Forum's endorsement, financial support, or both. One wonders whether they're comfortable with Schlafly's comments -- and her campaign contribution.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

THE 'LET THEM EAT WANT ADS' CAUCUS.... Some GOP officials continue to push the line that both parties support expanded unemployment benefits; they just differ on how (and whether) to pay for them. As the argument goes, Dems see jobless aid as an emergency, while Republicans didn't want the costs added to the deficit. But don't worry -- everyone just loves to look out for the unemployed.

This really is nonsense. Greg Sargent has labeled the conservative Republicans with ideological opposition to jobless aid as the "Let Them Eat Want Ads" Caucus, and it's a contingent that keeps growing.

Here's Oregon congressional candidate Scott Bruun (R), explaining why he would have voted against the extension:

"When we're talking up over close to two years and longer with jobless benefits, I think we really start talking about a European style system and all the problems that that sort of system brings if you try to bring that sort of system to the United States."

I don't know what that means, exactly, but Brunn went on to say unemployment benefits may be "encouraging people to stay out of the workplace longer."

This comes the same day as Delaware congressional candidate Michele Rollins (R) insisting that helping struggling families get by after a job loss encourages the unemployed to "do nothing for a very long time."

I'm probably missing some, but it seems like the "Let Them Eat Want Ads" Caucus is getting to be pretty big. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) dismissed jobless aid as money that offers "a disincentive" to getting a job, a sentiment endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R).

Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) compared the unemployed to "hobos"; Nevada's Sharron Angle blasted the unemployed as "spoiled"; Wisconsin's Ron Johnson said those without jobs won't look until their benefits run out; Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett said the unemployed choose not to work because of the benefits; and Kentucky's Rand Paul thinks it's time to cut off aid, whether it's paid for or not, because, "In Europe, they give about a year of unemployment. We're up to two years now in America."

GOP media personality Ben Stein went so far as to characterize those out of work as having "poor work habits and poor personalities."

The moral of the story seems to be that conservative Republicans just don't seem to like the unemployed. If every American who's had to rely on jobless benefits since the start of the recession was poised to vote in November, the GOP would be in a bit of panic right now.

—Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

LINDSEY GRAHAM'S CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.... Remember, as far as much of the media is concerned, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a reasonable, pragmatic Republican, with whom Democrats should have no trouble finding common ground.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.

Currently, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to any child born within the United States.

But with 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States, Graham said it may be time to restrict the ability of immigrants to have children who become citizens just because they are born within the country.

In fairness, Graham didn't come right out and demand an amendment, but he told Fox News he's close. "I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here," Graham told Greta Van Susteren. "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake, that we should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

Asked if he'll seriously pursue this, Graham said, "I got to." He added that the 14th Amendment "attracts people here for all the wrong reasons," with pregnant women from other countries coming to the U.S. "to drop a child."

Maybe Graham is trying to repair his reputation with the hysterical right; maybe he actually believes this stuff. Either way, trying to address immigration policy through a constitutional amendment is pretty crazy.

Jamelle Bouie's take was spot on:

It's genuinely difficult to overstate the radicalism necessary to seek a transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed to ensure that slavery could never again happen in the United States and is now integral to keeping the United States free of a permanent underclass of immigrant workers. At its core, birthright citizenship gives immigrants a reason to stay and provide lasting contributions to the United States.

In assaulting birthright citizenship, Graham is attacking an incredibly important part of the American social contract. If the media has any sense, this should kill the narrative that Lindsey Graham is a maverick or a reasonable Republican.

It won't, of course, but it should.

—Steve Benen 2:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

SENATE REPUBLICANS BLOCK BILL SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES.... It seems like the kind of bill that should pass pretty easily. As the job market continues to struggle, Democrats have proposed a package to aid small businesses, including tax breaks, new incentives, and an attempt to expand credit through a lending program that utilizes local banks.

Today on the Senate floor, it had 59 supporters and 41 opponents, which means it failed, and the entire effort is in jeopardy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to break a weeks-long GOP filibuster of small-business jobs legislation and was forced to scramble to figure out his next move after Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) bitterly attacked his handling of the bill Thursday. [...]

But Snowe's attack on the Senate floor -- in which she accused Reid of performing "political theater. It's not about legislating anymore" -- clearly caught Reid and other Democrats off guard and forced the Democratic leader to make a last-ditch effort to salvage the bill.

(For the record, the final vote was technically 58-42, but only because Reid had to switch his vote for procedural reasons. Every member of the Democratic caucus opposed the GOP filibuster, and every Republican voted to kill the bill.)

In a display that can best be described as insane, Senate Republicans demanded all week that the chamber act on the small-business-incentives measure, and not waste time with measures like campaign-finance reform. But this morning, when the small-business package was ready to move, Republicans balked.

To hear them tell it, GOP senators aren't against helping small businesses -- at least not explicitly -- but they're filibustering to get more time for more votes on more amendments to the bill.

In other words, Republicans have gone from complaining about the bill not coming up sooner to trying to drag out the process out.

So, the good news is the bill isn't dead, at least not yet. The bad news is, Republican senators are acting like spoiled children, in the hopes of eating up valuable pre-recess calendar time, making it impossible for the Senate to do anything else with its limited schedule. The energy bill is in trouble anyway, but by playing games with small businesses, making any progress on energy is looking even less likely.

Olympia Snowe was especially embarrassing this morning. Her argument was that the Senate needs to act quickly to help small businesses -- which is why she's supporting the filibuster to prevent a vote on helping small businesses.

What a ridiculous mess.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Brian Sandoval, the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Nevada, was asked by Univision if he was at all worried about what might happen to his kids if they visit Arizona. The question was in reference to Arizona's anti-immigrant law.

Sandoval, Nevada's first Hispanic federal judge, said he wasn't worried -- because his kids don't look Hispanic.

Sandoval later denied (twice) making the comment, but reporter Jon Ralston has this item:

I have confirmed that Brian Sandoval, as reported by Univision's news director in a column and revealed in an earlier blog post, did indeed say that his children don't look Hispanic when asked by the Spanish-language station whether he was worried about his kids being profiled if they were in Arizona.

Sandoval denied (twice) making the comments during an interview with "Face to Face" this week. But the comments are on videotape, I have confirmed. Univision, however, is declining to release the tape, claiming (as most media organizations would) that it is work product.

My guess, too, is that Univision will not air the video now -- why wouldn't the reporter have used it originally???? -- because the station higher-ups are mortified about the disclosure of Sandoval's comments in a scathing column in El Tiempo by news director Adriana Arevalo. My guess is that station folks also are apoplectic that a news director would consider it appropriate to write a harsh column about a gubernatorial hopeful -- they are saying she did it in her capacity as an El Tempo columnist but she can't just wash away her TV title.

What is it about Nevada Republicans and bizarre remarks this year?

I haven't seen the tape, and maybe there's some exculpatory context I'm not aware of. But if the reports are accurate, it's a pretty awful comment. What does Sandoval think should happen to children in Arizona who do "look Hispanic"?

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

BIDEN LAMENTS 'BUSH RECESSION'.... Vice President Biden appeared on NBC's "Today" show earlier, and used a line I don't recall leading White House officials using before, at least not lately.

Ann Curry noted that the administration has been blamed for high unemployment rates, and asked, "Has this administration done enough?"

Biden replied, "Let me put it this way: there's never enough until we restore the 8 million jobs lost in the Bush Recession. Until that happens, it doesn't matter. I mean, it matters, but it's not enough."

Asked about his message to struggling families, the V.P. added, "My message is, keep the faith. We are moving in the right direction. We are not going to let you go without food or basic services. That will not happen in this country, in our administration. And secondly, we're creating new jobs that are going to be the kind you can raise your family on."

Maybe I've missed it, but the line about the "Bush Recession" struck me as new. Biden said it casually, as if it were common, but it's generally been a phrase Democrats have avoided.

Here's hoping it's the start of a new rhetorical emphasis. After all, Republicans have been candid about their desire to go back to the "exact same agenda" Bush/Cheney used to get us into this mess in the first place.

It is curious, though, why the White House didn't embrace this sooner. Maybe the line took on new urgency when Republicans started talking up their intentions to return to Bush-era policies more earnestly, but it seems overdue.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

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.

* In Nevada, Rasmussen has shown Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing former state Rep. Sharron Angle (R), but closing the gap. In its newest poll, Rasmussen has Reid climbing ahead for the first time, leading 45% to 43%.

* On a related note, Angle was asked yesterday about her approach to campaign finance reform. She insisted that the DISCLOSE Act is already law. (It's not.)

* The DCCC released a memo yesterday, making the case that the Democratic majority in the House will persevere through the midterms. Nate Silver didn't find it especially persuasive.

* A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) leading fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R) by five, 39% to 34%. The same poll also found state Attorney General Jerry Brown leading former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R), 37% to 34%.

* In Missouri's closely-watched Senate race, Rasmussen shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), 49% to 43%. The results are largely in line with a Mason-Dixon poll released last week.

* In related news, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) endorsed Blunt in Missouri, which drew the ire of Bachmann's Tea Party allies, who don't consider Blunt extreme enough.

* In Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows challengers surging ahead in their primary contests. Rick Scott now leads state A.G. Bill McCollum in the Republican gubernatorial primary, 43% to 32%, while Jeff Greene leads Rep. Kendrick Meek in the Democratic Senate primary, 33% to 23%.

* On a related note, Meek was asked yesterday whether he'd support Greene if his opponent won the primary. Meek was non-committal.

* And in another of this year's electoral mysteries, former state Rep. Kevin Calvey was supposed to win the GOP primary in Oklahoma's 5th congressional district fairly easily, and enjoyed the backing of the party and right-wing activist groups. Instead, a camp director named James Lankford, who has never sought political office before, won the primary -- and no one knows how this happened.

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

MOUNTAIN-TOP REMOVAL JUST NEEDS SOME REBRANDING.... Most reasonable people should be able to agree that mountain-top removal is an environmentally destructive practice. The idea is to mine for coal by literally blowing the tops off of mountains, which occasionally sends thick sludge into area waterways, poisoning nearby lands.

As Brad Johnson noted a while back, "Mountain-top mining has been more accurately described as the 'rape of Appalachia,' as rural communities are destroyed economically and environmentally for coal industry."

Rand Paul (R), the extremist U.S. Senate candidate in Kentucky, doesn't quite see it that way. Last year, the right-wing ophthalmologist dismissed concerns, arguing, "I don't think anybody's going to be missing a hill or two here and there."

Today, Evan McMorris-Santoro flags remarks Paul made to Details magazine, suggesting mining through mountain-top removal would not only be more popular if it was given a better name, but moreover, is actually a good thing.

Paul believes mountaintop removal just needs a little rebranding. "I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

As for the destruction associated with the practices, Paul added that legal restrictions on gutting the regional environment are a mistake. "Let's let you decide what to do with your land," he said.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

I FEEL E.J. DIONNE'S PAIN.... The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. has long been a favorite of mine. I don't agree with every word of every piece, but for the most part, Dionne has been an insightful and clever observer for quite a while.

But I've noticed of late that Dionne, a pretty level-headed, even-tempered pundit, is getting increasingly frustrated, even agitated. I've noticed this because I can relate to the columnist's exasperation. Today, for example, Dionne asks a question I've asked myself: "Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?"

The piece takes note of recent developments that seem to defy all reason -- despite talk of fiscal responsibility, Republicans are demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, which they have no intention of paying for. Despite the overwhelming evidence on the efficacy of the stimulus, much of the nation chooses to ignore the facts and resist steps that would improve the economy. Despite the need for the government to be able to respond to challenges, Republicans won't let the Senate function.

I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.

We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.

And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.

Not surprisingly, I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. But the more interesting thing to keep in mind here is that while Dionne laments "incorrigible stupidity" today, he's been embracing this kind of tone more and more. His last column blasted Fox News and "right-wing propaganda." Two weeks ago, he took note of Tea Party racism. A few weeks earlier, he lamented "conservative militancy" and Tea Party "extremism." He's knocked down efforts to equate ideological purges in both parties, and he's taken a leading role in shining a light on conservative judicial activism.

To an extent, it's tempting to hope this is evidence of a larger phenomenon. Maybe millions of mild-mannered, center-left patriots are so bewildered by recent political nonsense, they'll turn out in record numbers, feeling exactly the way Dionne does about recent events. Or maybe not.

Either way, I can't help but enjoy -- and feel vaguely validated by -- Dionne getting angrier about what he perceives as the absurdities of the status quo. It's an emotion I can relate to.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

A BANNER DAY FOR THE GOP'S CULTURE OF CORRUPTION.... Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama made a name for himself in February, when he held several national security nominees hostage in the Senate, demanding to be paid off in pork. It was the kind of casual corruption of American politics that's been all too common.

As it turns out, Shelby may also be caught up with a more pernicious kind of corruption.

Since 2008, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby has steered more than $250 million in earmarks to beneficiaries whose lobbyists used to work in his Senate office -- including millions for Alabama universities represented by a former top staffer.

In a mix of revolving-door and campaign finance politics, the same organizations that have enjoyed Shelby's earmarks have seen their lobbyists and employees contribute nearly $1 million to Shelby's campaign and political action committee since 1999, according to federal records.

It's quite a scheme, isn't it? Shelby's aides become lobbyists ... Shelby directs our money to his former aides' new employers through earmarks ... Shelby then gets campaign contributions from those employers.

This comes, by the way, the same day as a report on House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) new fundraising scheme, which effectively sells access to the man the GOP bills as the next Speaker.

But while the effort plays up Boehner's modest roots, the going rate to participate is pricey: According to materials distributed by Boehner's camp and obtained by POLITICO, lobbyists and other major donors across the country who give the maximum or help raise $100,000 will get meetings with Boehner, calls from senior aides with updates on the campaign and "VIP access to all events, including roundtables, briefings, breakout discussions and interactive panel discussions."

The initiative is being organized with the help of several corporate lobbyists "Boehner is close to."

And Shelby's and Boehner's schemes come to light just as we see House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) support from Wall Street soar after he helped organize opposition to new financial industry safeguards.

For a cynical observer, [Cantor's outreach to Wall Street] appeared to be a signal that the GOP was prepared to do the financial services industry's bidding.

Either way, they appeared to have worked.... Data released on Wednesday morning by the good government group Public Campaign shows that Cantor received more than $460,000 from the financial sector during the second quarter of 2010. That total represents a "32 percent increase from the average of the previous five quarters," the group found. And the donors included some of the biggest names on the Street as well as those they pay to lobby on their behalf in Washington.

Cantor fights to kill Wall Street accountability, and Wall Street writes a bunch of checks for Cantor.

Care to guess who'll be writing the legislation if there's a Republican majority next year?

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

GOP OPPOSES MEDICAL FUNDING FOR 9/11 VICTIMS.... I was under the impression that the emergency teams who responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are considered American heroes. The nation's support for these men and women is unequivocal and unending.

At least, that was my impression. I guess I underestimated congressional Republicans again.

House Republican leadership is advising its members to vote against a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, bolster medical support to Sept. 11 victims.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, sponsored by New York City Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D), provides medical monitoring to those exposed to toxins at Ground Zero, bolsters treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11 and reopens a compensation fund to provide economic loss to New Yorkers.

And it's all paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries, Democrats say.

A policy statement from the House GOP leadership believes a victims' compensation fund is too large, and would remain open too long, which in turn creates a "massive new entitlement program" -- and Republicans hate entitlement programs.

As for financing, because the right pretends to care about the deficit, Dems made sure that every penny of the proposal is paid for. This, too, outraged House Republicans, because tax increases, even on foreign companies, even to benefit 9/11 victims, are always evil.

We're left with Republicans, in an election year, taking a bold stand against funding for medical care for 9/11 heroes.

Amazing.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

DEMS EYE A TEA PARTY WEDGE.... As you may have heard, the Democratic National Committee launched a new message campaign yesterday, called the "Republican-Tea Party Contract With America." The point is probably obvious: Dems intend to remind voters that when it comes to issues, priorities, and agendas, the Republican Party and the Tea Party zealots are effectively "one and the same."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and several Democratic House members today unveiled the new Democratic midterm attack plan against Republicans: GOP = Tea Party.

In an effort to demonstrate what they see as the dangers of Republican Congressional control, Democrats will spend the next few months until Election Day trying to tie all Republicans to policies advocated by some members of the Tea Party, including repealing the health care and Wall Street reform laws, abolishing the Departments of Labor and Education and the EPA, and ending Medicare.

Kaine said the DNC has an "aggressive" plan, along with the White House "to make sure the American people know what the Republicans really believe what their blueprint for governing is," tracking candidates' comments on the campaign trail, distributing research, and airing commercials nationwide.

The initiative included the unveiling of a new video, highlighting the kind of specific policy efforts the country can expect from the "Republican-Tea Party Contract."

At first, I was a little skeptical about this tack. To be sure, the charge is accurate. My skepticism, though, has to do with public awareness -- do enough Americans even know about Tea Partiers' extremism? Or are we still at a point where Americans hear "Tea Party," and think of Boston colonists in 1773?

Presumably, the DNC has extensive polling data on this, which likely shows the American mainstream -- especially self-described "independents" and swing voters -- turned off by Tea Partiers' radicalism. Which leads to the stronger part of the Democrats' plan: it puts Republicans on the defensive.

Indeed, yesterday, GOP leaders were quick to denounce, and sometimes even mock, the new Democratic effort. But when reporters asked if the DNC's charges are true -- in other words, whether Republicans and Tea Partiers really are one and the same, with an identical right-wing agenda -- those same GOP leaders suddenly felt shy.

An RNC spokesperson "would not say whether the RNC disagrees with any of the 10 agenda items." A wide variety of Republican officials were quick to respond to the DNC's initiative, but not one was prepared to "refute specific points."

That's not surprising. When Dems insist Republicans and Tea Partiers are identical, GOP officials can either (a) disagree, and offend their base; or (b) embrace the criticism, and risk turning off everyone else.

Looking at the big picture, Dems have struggled to settle on a specific campaign theme. "Party of No" was dubious, in part because Republicans seem to like it. The ideal for the DNC, then, is to figure out how to characterize Republicans as the "party of crazy." Equating them with anti-government zealots and wild-eyed conspiracy cranks might just do the trick.

Marc Ambinder explained the strategy this way: "The Republicans want to be mayors of crazy-town. They've embraced a fringe and proto-racist isolationist and ignorant conservative populism that has no solutions for fixing anything and the collective intelligence of a wine flask."

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

A CHANGING POLITICAL LANDSCAPE FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM.... At the height of the debate over health care reform, a certain set of political assumptions set in -- the Democratic proposal was unpopular, thanks to a scathing misinformation campaign. Republicans would base much of their midterm strategy on running against the new law, while Democrats hoped to see the law's popularity grow as the right-wing lies faded.

We're not yet near the point at which the Affordable Care Act could be characterized as "popular," but Dems are likely pleased with the recent trend.

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Since April, the tracking poll has found support for the health care reform law go up four points, while opposition has gone down five points. Less encouraging were results that showed more than a third of seniors still believe made-up "death panels" are real -- zombie lies are surprisingly hard to kill -- but overall, proponents of the ACA who predicted that blind hatred for reform would fade over time appear to be correct.

In fairness, not every recent poll offers such encouragement. A recent Pew Forum/National Journal survey (pdf) still showed opponents outnumbering supporters by a fairly wide margin.

On the other hand, last month, a national Associated Press-GfK poll found that support for the Affordable Care Act was not only on the rise, but had reached new heights -- health care reform's supporters outnumbered opponents, 45% to 42%. A week later, a Gallup poll found 49% of respondents agreeing that passage of the law is a "good thing," while 46% think it's a "bad thing."

The point isn't that all the recent data offers good news for ACA backers; the point is that assumptions that Americans hate the new law are wrong. House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) office argued recently that "the American people remain squarely opposed" to health care reform, and pointed to "the rising public backlash against the new law."

The evidence to support such observations is still lacking.

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

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

* The Beige Book disappoints a bit: "The economic expansion has proceeded unevenly this summer, according to a new Federal Reserve report, with new pockets of weakness emerging in parts of the country."

* On a related note: "The latest report on orders to factory for big-ticket items on Wednesday offered another sign that the United States economy was losing strength in the second half the year."

* The oil from the disaster in the Gulf "appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected." This does not, however, "end the many problems and scientific uncertainties associated with the spill."

* President Obama talks up the Democrats' small-business-incentives bill in New Jersey: "The provisions of this bill are things that the Republican Party has supported for years," Obama said. "This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are central to our identity as a nation.... I expect us to get this done."

* U.S. troops continue to return home from Iraq.

* Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced today she will vote for Elena Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation. She's the fourth Senate Republican to announce her support for the nominee.

* Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) is starting to lose some of his Democratic friends.

* A worthwhile first for the VA: "The Under Secretary of Health at the Veterans Administration issued a little-noticed directive to VA medical facilities recently, informing facilities that patients who legally use medical marijuana may not be denied access to health services because of their outside prescription."

* The sooner the Senate acts, the better: "The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday approved the nomination of three new members to the Federal Reserve's powerful board, including Janet Yellen for vice chairman, clearing the way for a final vote by the whole Senate."

* Is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) obsessed with gutting the EPA? Yep.

* Disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), still mad as a hatter.

* Not good: "There's not going to be enough money to fully fund Pell Grants, the government program that provides money to help low-income students to attend college."

* Jeffrey Lord just can't bring himself to shut up.

* Bill O'Reilly joins the rest of the sensible universe in opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

* Glenn Beck's Goldline scheme, illustrated.

* I intended to highlight the pathetic op-ed from Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen in the Wall Street Journal today, but just didn't have the stomach for it. Thankfully, Alex Pareene was on the case.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

SOMEONE BUY THUNE A CALCULATOR.... Politico reported this week that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is trying to "build up his policy credentials," in advance of a possible presidential campaign in 2012. With that in mind, the conservative, unaccomplished senator intends to "make a name for himself on budgetary matters."

He's off to a rough start.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) -- the fifth highest ranking Republican in the Senate -- has a new plan for lowering deficits, and as you might expect from GOP leadership, it involves zero tax hikes. It does however, involve math and, if his appearance on Fox News last night is any indication, Thune finds math rather difficult. There's really no other way to explain his utter failure to remember the law of diminishing returns when he talked about the benefits of his deficit reduction plan.

Appearing on Fox News, Thune and host Greta Van Susteren discussed the bill's call for the creation of a Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with reducing the deficit 10 percent year over year.

"It would be required to find 10% in savings -- 10% of the deficit in savings every budget cycle," Thune said.

"So in 10 years we wouldn't have a deficit?" van Sustern asked.

"Theoretically, yes," Thune replied.

Mathematically, no.

Let's say the government starts with a $1 trillion budget deficit. If Thune's committee reduces it by 10%, it would be a $900 billion deficit a year later. The next year, it cuts another 10%. Would that bring it down to $800 billion? No, it'd be $810 billion ($900 billion - 10% = $810 billion). A year later it would be $729 billion, followed by $656 billion, and so on.

Thune thinks this approach would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, but he forgot to do the math, so he's off by an entire decade*. It's understandable for van Sustern to mess this up -- she's a Fox News personality -- but this is the senator's own plan, intended to give him credibility in advance of a national campaign.

Someone couldn't let him borrow a calculator?

Arithmetic aside, if Thune's idea is part of a larger effort to "build up his policy credentials," the senator might need a back-up plan. His scheme seems like a pretty thin gimmick -- task some committee with coming up with ideas to reduce the deficit without raising taxes. At that point, Congress would be free to ignore the committee's ideas.

The reason it's hard to take Thune's national ambitions seriously is that he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Think back over the last couple of years -- when was the last time you remember Thune saying or doing something noteworthy? There was that time a year ago when he urged President Obama not to pick a gay Supreme Court nominee, which came soon after his argument that economic recovery efforts are bad because $1 trillion, if stacked by $100 bills, would make a very tall pile.

When Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) pushed a measure to protect victims of sexual assault who work for defense contractors -- the Jamie Leigh Jones effort -- Thune dismissed it as a "Daily Kos-inspired amendment." Soon after, Thune said a colleague often disagrees with Republicans because he understands policy details.

This guy has presidential ambitions? Please.

* Update: Brian Beutler emails to note that he had a minor math error of his own, and that Thune was off by far more than a decade. Using Thune's model, it would take 43 years to get deficits down to 1% of current levels, making his observation that much more incorrect. (And as some of you have also noted, if one reduces a debt by 10% a year indefinitely, it's impossible to ever eliminate the total altogether.)

—Steve Benen 4:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

CLOSER TO SENTENCING SANITY.... Sentencing disparities when it comes to cocaine have been a national embarrassment for nearly a quarter-century. We've been dealing with an indefensible 100-to-1 ratio established in 1986 -- a person caught selling five grams of crack will face the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as someone selling 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Because the majority of crack convictions involve African Americans, while powder cocaine convictions tend to involve whites, there's also an obvious racial component to the sentencing disparity.

The Obama administration strongly endorsed changing the law and ending the disparity altogether. Regrettably, Congress wouldn't oblige. Lawmakers did, however, take a step in the right direction today, making the disparity less ridiculous.

Congress has changed a quarter-century-old law that has sent tens of thousands of blacks to prison for crack cocaine convictions while giving far more lenient treatment to those, mainly whites, caught with the same amount of the drug in powder form.

House passage of what was called the "fair sentencing act" sends the legislation to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The sentencing disparity has been a 100-to-1 ratio. Now, it will be 18-to-1. The House was prepared to go further, but ending the disparity ran into trouble -- where else? -- in the Senate. As a result, the law will be vastly improved, though the disparity will remain a problem.

Let's not, however, brush past how significant this is. The AP noted that the success of the Fair Sentencing Act marks "the first time in 40 years that Congress has repealed a mandatory minimum sentence."

That, alone, is pretty amazing. For over a generation, a vote like this would have been the subject of shameless "soft on crime" demagoguery. Instead, the Obama White House pressed hard for the change, with no real fear of political pushback, and Congress approved a significant improvement -- in an election year -- with no qualms about how this might be twisted into an attack ad.

David Dayen added, "[Y]ou know what we don't so a lot of in this country? Reduce sentences. Check out the makeup of the world's largest prison population and you'll see what I mean. 'Law 'n' Order' and 'Tough on Crime' remain shibboleths used by politicians to hammer away at criminal sentencing reformists. So ANY change in a positive direction takes a ridiculous amount of work and struggle. This is a small step, but it's a step in the right direction."

It is, indeed. And the fact that the right isn't running around screaming about "Democrats love drug addicts" this afternoon also reflects meaningful progress when it comes to our public discourse on this issue.

Here's some additional background on the details of the bill.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

QUANTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT'S RESCUE OF THE ECONOMY.... In politics, perceptions arguably matter more than anything, and when it comes to the federal government intervening to rescue the economy, the perceptions are less than kind.

If polls are any indication, the efforts launched by federal officials in 2008 and 2009, when the economy was teetering on the brink of wholesale collapse, were unacceptable. The financial industry bailout seems to be universally reviled, and last year's Recovery Act is only marginally more popular. (In fact, in many instances, the public thinks both efforts are the same thing.)

President Obama and Democrats routinely, if not explicitly, argue to voters that "it would have been worse." But is there way to prove that empirically? Two respected economists gave it a shot.

In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program, the nation's gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year.

In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation.

The paper, by Alan S. Blinder, a Princeton professor and former vice chairman of the Fed, and Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, represents a first stab at comprehensively estimating the effects of the economic policy responses of the last few years.

"While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective," they write.

Zandi, by the way, was an advisor on economic policy to the McCain/Palin presidential campaign.

The two looked at the totality of the federal response -- TARP, stimulus, auto industry rescue, intervention from the Federal Reserve -- and concluded that the collected efforts prevented an economic catastrophe.

"When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policy makers had not acted at all," they write.

The economists didn't measure what would have happened if policymakers had followed the right's recommendations -- no TARP, no auto industry rescue, and a five-year spending freeze -- but the word "cataclysmic" comes to mind.

Indeed, the Zandi/Blinder paper concluded, "[I]t is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act. Not responding would have left both the economy and the government's fiscal situation in far graver condition. We conclude that [Federal Reserve Chairman] Ben Bernanke was probably right when he said that "We came very close in October [2008] to Depression 2.0."

—Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

ARIZONA ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW PUT ON HOLD.... Today's the day that Arizona's odious S.B. 1070 -- the notorious anti-immigrant law -- takes effect, but thanks to a court order today, the most problematic provisions of the law are now on hold. The Associated Press reports this afternoon:

A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

Until the court resolves the legality of these issues, the provisions will not take effect.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) will no doubt appeal, and the New York Times noted that "legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court."

Update: CNN posted the entire ruling here (pdf).

—Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

HALPERIN ON 'THE MEDIA SPIRAL'.... At first blush, Mark Halperin's latest piece in Time deals with subjects I'm not inclined to read more about: O.J. Simpson's criminal trial and the media's handling of the Shirley Sherrod story. But there are actually some noteworthy observations in the piece, with real merit. (via Adam Serwer)

[T]he coverage of both sagas -- Simpson's, literally, for years; Sherrod's for the better part of a week -- was insanely overblown. The Sherrod story is a reminder -- much like the 2004 assault on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- that the old media are often swayed by controversies pushed by the conservative new media. In many quarters of the old media, there is concern about not appearing liberally biased, so stories emanating from the right are given more weight and less scrutiny.

Additionally, the conservative new media, particularly Fox News Channel and talk radio, are commercially successful, so the implicit logic followed by old-media decisionmakers is that if something is gaining currency in those precincts, it is a phenomenon that must be given attention. Most dangerously, conservative new media will often produce content that is so provocative and incendiary that the old media find it irresistible.

So the news-and-information conveyor belt moves stories like the Sherrod case from Point A to Point Z without any of the standards or norms of traditional journalism, not only resulting in grievous harm to the apparently blameless, such as Sherrod, but also crowding out news about virtually anything else.

I take issue, from time to time, with Halperin's coverage of the political world, but on this, he couldn't be more right. It's an observation that usually goes overlooked, which makes it all the more encouraging that it's coming from Halperin -- who enjoys enormous credibility with the political media establishment.

He concludes that last week's obsession was a "low point" for political reporting, which should lead the media to "start climbing out of the pit."

Halperin doesn't explicitly call himself out on this -- The Page was complicit with last week's coverage -- and the piece brushes past the racial component of both stories. Nevertheless, he deserves a lot of credit for making plain how that conveyor belt operates, and highlighting why it's not working.

Here's hoping Halperin's piece is taken seriously by his colleagues.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

A POLL TAX FOR A NEW GENERATION.... One of the most amusing aspects of "Fox & Friends" is their habit of phrasing ridiculous points as questions. It's a classic cop-out -- they're not making an insulting point; they're just posing a question for debate. ("Are liberal Democrats more likely to hurt puppies? We're not saying they are; we're just asking a question.")

This morning, host/activist Steve Doocy posed a "controversial" question: "With 47% of Americans not paying taxes -- 47% -- should those who don't pay be allowed to vote?"

As is always the case, he's not necessarily saying they should be denied the ability to vote; Doocy was just posing a question.

Well, it's a stupid question. For one thing, Doocy's simply wrong on the facts. When he expresses amazement that 47% of Americans are "not paying taxes," he's making a deliberately misleading claim. Yes, many middle- and lower-class families get a break on their federal income taxes, but what Doocy neglects to mention is that these same folks still pay sales taxes, state taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare/Medicaid taxes, and in many instances, property taxes.

To suggest, as Doocy does, that 47% are somehow getting away with something is crazy.

For another, does Doocy think it's a bad thing that so many Americans get a break on their federal income taxes? As a Republican, wouldn't it be odd for him to support tax increases on nearly half the country?

And finally, even if Doocy's bogus claim were accurate -- it's not, but let's say it is for the sake of conversation -- in what universe would we deny Americans the right to vote based on the size of their tax burden?

Tune into "Fox & Friends," where you'll get a glimpse of Jim Crow laws for a new generation.

—Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

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.

* In California, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) building on her earlier lead, and now has a nine-point advantage over fired HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R), 49% to 40%.

* On a related note, PPP also found that state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) leads former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) in California's gubernatorial race, but the leading is shrinking. Brown is now up by six, 46% to 40%.

* In New York, a new Quinnipiac poll shows state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) continuing to enjoy huge leads in his gubernatorial race, leading former Rep. Rick Lazio (R) by 30 points, 56% to 26%,

* Oklahoma will have its first woman governor next year, after yesterday's gubernatorial primaries. Rep. Mary Fallin, as expected, won the Republican nomination, and in a bit of a surprise, Lt. Gov. Jari Askins edged state Attorney General Drew Edmondson for the Democratic nod.

* As of this morning, former Rep. Rob Simmons' (R) on-again/off-again Senate campaign in Connecticut is back on again.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, Illinois state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) has a narrow lead over Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in this year's Senate race, 43% to 41%.

* In an interesting Democratic primary in Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen (D), a white lawmaker running for re-election in a majority-African-American district, now enjoys support from the Congressional Black Caucus for the first time.

* It almost certainly won't amount to much, but Rep. Mike Castle (R), the leading candidate in Delaware's U.S. Senate race, is facing a primary challenge from Christine O'Donnell. Yesterday, O'Donnell picked up support from the Tea Party Express, which has previously helped right-wing candidates in GOP primaries in Nevada, Kentucky, and Utah.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

LAY OF THE LAND.... The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's estimable Jay Bookman tried to wrap his head around the current political landscape, and felt like he'd fallen down a rabbit hole.

Here we are in the smoldering ruins of an economy recently wrecked by Wall Street greed, in a country where for 30 years almost all income growth has been concentrated among the richest 1 percent of Americans. Rising populist anger, massive long-term unemployment and record home foreclosures serve as counterpoints to soaring corporate profits, while the Supreme Court rules that corporations are people and can spend limitless amounts of money trying to elect candidates willing to serve their interests.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party defends massive tax breaks for the wealthy while blocking aid to the unemployed, fights bitterly against regulations designed to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown, blocks legislation that would at least require corporate and special interests to identify themselves when they invest in elections and does all that while proclaiming itself to be the party of the little people.

Do I have that right?

Yep.

I'd just add two things. One, congressional Republicans also hope to block a bill to offer economic incentives to small businesses, while blocking all related efforts to improve the economy, including aid to states.

Two, they're the party that's expected to do extremely well in November, all of these details notwithstanding.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

THE GOP'S WELL-HIDDEN AFFECTION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.... A mistaken impression quickly took hold recently during the debate over extended unemployment benefits, and much of the media bought it. The assumption became that everyone on both sides supported the extension, it was simply a debate over how. Dems saw the aid as an emergency, while Republicans didn't want the costs added to the deficit.

In effect, the GOP argued, "We're not callous; we love the unemployed. We're anxious to extend benefits. We just want the kind of fiscally responsible approach we cared nothing about when we were in the majority."

They're still pushing this line, probably aware of voters' support for the benefits.

In a blog post yesterday, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) argued that the "Unemployment Extension Should Have Been Paid For." Sen. Johanns works hard to defend the GOP, but in order to believe his excuses you'd have to ignore the past six months of Republican talking points, filibusters and anonymous holds.

"I don't know a single Senator in Washington who didn't want to see these benefits extended," Johanns claims.

This is pretty silly. As Alan Pyke noted, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) dismissed jobless aid as money that offers "a disincentive" to getting a job, a sentiment endorsed by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R) . For that matter, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested that if you don't have a job, you might very well be a drug addict.

Johanns specifically referenced sitting senators, but if we expand the view a bit, we see even more Republican hostility towards the unemployed. One GOP congressman recently compared the jobless to "hobos." Nevada's Sharron Angle blasted the unemployed as "spoiled"; Wisconsin's Ron Johnson said those without jobs won't look until their benefits run out; Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett said the unemployed choose not to work because of the benefits; and Kentucky's Rand Paul thinks the jobless should just quit their bellyaching and "get back to work."

Johanns would have us believe that both parties were looking out for the unemployed, just in different ways. That's nonsense.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

CAN THE DREAM ACT BECOME A REALITY?.... The chances of the Senate taking up a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year are about zero. But there is time, and at least some political will, to tackle smaller measures related to the larger policy.

Some immigrant rights groups are shifting the strategy in their so-far unsuccessful push to overhaul immigration law: They're calling the new tactic the "down payment" approach.

"We are aware that the clock is running out, and there are no guarantees that a Congress that is supportive of immigration reform will be returned in November," said Antonio Gonzales, president of the William C. Velasquez Institute, a Latino public policy group. "We took a deep breath and said, 'Okay, we need a Plan B.' "

And part of Plan B is pursuing a measure called the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), which is sponsored by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). I'd like to think a bill like this would be a no-brainer. Every year, tens of thousands of young illegal immigrants graduate from American high schools, but are quickly stuck -- they can't qualify for college aid, and they can't work legally. America is the only home they've ever known -- in most cases, they were brought into the country illegally by their parents -- but at 18, they have few options.

The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for these young immigrants -- graduate from high school, get conditional permanent residency status, go to college or serve in the military, and become eligible for citizenship.

The road ahead for the measure is tricky. On the right, Senate Republicans have predictably vowed to filibuster the measure. On the left, there are concerns that passing the DREAM Act might make passing a comprehensive bill more difficult. For now, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seems serious about trying to get it to the floor before the elections.

In theory, getting enough Republican votes to overcome a filibuster shouldn't be difficult. Not only is Lugar co-sponsoring the bill, but Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) helped write the policy a few years ago. Better yet, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), before his transformation into a right-wing hack, not only endorsed the DREAM Act, he offered congressional testimony in support of the idea, and promised the National Council of La Raza two years ago that he would support the bill if elected president.

To be sure, consistency isn't their best quality, but conservative Republicans have been on board with the DREAM Act for years. If just a few of them would let the Senate vote, up or down, on the bill, it stands a chance.

Update: As recently as April, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he was open to working on immigration reform. Today, commenting on the bipartisan DREAM Act, Cornyn said Dems are just trying to "play to the peanut gallery."

I sure hope he's not referring to those kids who need a hand.

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

PREFERRING POLITICAL PARALYSIS.... If there's one thing that should be overwhelmingly obvious after the last four years, it's that the Senate process is broken. Obstructionist tactics that were once rare have been scandalously routine -- for the first time in American history, a Senate supermajority is necessary for literally every bill of consequence. The result is a legislative paralysis that undermines America's ability to thrive in the 21st century.

Except, it's apparently not obvious to all.

Senate Democrats do not have the votes to lower the 60-vote threshold to cut off filibusters.

The lack of support among a handful of Senate Democratic incumbents is a major blow to the effort to change the upper chamber's rules. [...]

Five Senate Democrats have said they will not support a lowering of the 60-vote bar necessary to pass legislation. Another four lawmakers say they are wary about such a change and would be hesitant to support it.

A 10th Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said he would support changing the rule on filibusters of motions to begin debate on legislation, but not necessarily the 60-vote threshold needed to bring up a final vote on bills.

Most of the support in the Senate for reforming the broken status quo comes from newer members of the chamber, but it's the Dems who've been around for a while -- those who remember being in the minority -- who are most inclined to keep things as they are, regardless of the consequences to the institution or the country.

It's a reminder that no one wants to give up a weapon they might want to use themselves someday. Republicans are abusing procedural rules now to undermine a progressive agenda, and some Dems are no doubt thinking they'll be able to abuse those same rules down the road.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) told The Hill, "I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.... I think it has been working."

I don't know what Senate Akaka has been watching, but it doesn't sound like this one.

With the Senate Democratic majority due to shrink, and Republicans becoming more hysterically conservative, these anti-reform Dems are inviting a disaster -- a government incapable of passing legislation.

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

DEBATING DISCLOSURE.... I suppose what rankles most about Senate Republicans killing the DISCLOSE Act yesterday is just how modest the legislation really was.

For about a century, the country has prohibited corporations from sponsoring campaign ads. The Supreme Court concluded that such restrictions infringe on the First Amendment, so a majority of Congress decided, in lieu of a ban, to pursue disclosure. Corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations would have to tell voters that they're sponsoring their ads, and in some cases, divulge their donors. It's hardly unreasonable -- corporations can run their ads, but for the sake of the democratic process, everything should be out in the open for the public.

Every single Republican in the Senate disagreed, largely without explanation. Indeed, yesterday's GOP filibuster wasn't on the bill, it was on the motion to proceed -- every Senate Republican not only took a bold stand against basic campaign disclosure, they blocked the Senate from even having a debate. They're against disclosure and against talking about disclosure.

With that in mind, a quote collection was making the rounds on the Hill yesterday. The highlights included:

* Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) "believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows who is contributing to a candidate's campaign, as well as who is funding communications in support of or in opposition to a political candidate or issue."

* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): "I think the system needs more transparency, so people can more easily reach their own conclusions."

* Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.): "I don't like it when a large source of money is out there funding ads and is unaccountable... To the extent we can, I tend to favor disclosure."

All of them filibustered a measure to start a debate over a modest disclosure bill.

Jamelle Bouie added:

Between Citizen's United and the DISCLOSE Act, we've witnessed something genuinely incredible: in the interest of furthering the interests of powerful corporations, a narrow majority of Supreme Court conservative justices overturned decades of campaign finance precedent, and a small minority of conservative senators blocked congressional efforts at reform. At the risk of sounding really exasperated, this is absolutely insane.

If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

CONGRESS OVERCOMES OPPOSITION, APPROVES WAR FUNDING.... The House approved a spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but included $23 billion in additional domestic funding -- including $10 billion in aid to states, intended to save thousands of teachers' jobs. The Senate rejected that version, passed a stripped-down $59 billion package that funded the wars and nothing else, and offered the House a take-it-or-leave-it message

Late yesterday, the House took it, but it wasn't easy. In particular, many liberal Dems had plenty of reasons to balk -- opposition to the wars, dissatisfaction over the scrubbed domestic spending, and revelations surrounding the WikiLeaks materials -- and opposed the spending measure in fairly large numbers.

The House of Representatives agreed on Tuesday to provide $59 billion to continue financing America's two wars, but the vote showed deepening divisions and anxiety among Democrats over the course of the nearly nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan.

The 308-to-114 vote, with strong Republican support, came after the leak of an archive of classified battlefield reports from Afghanistan that fueled new debate over the course of the war and whether President Obama's counterinsurgency strategy could work.

Here's the roll call. A majority of Dems and a majority of Republicans supported the funding, but 102 Democrats joined 12 Republicans in opposition. The number of House Dems voting against the midyear war spending nearly tripled from a year ago, which underscores the growing opposition.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the $59 billion for the wars isn't paid for, and will be added to the deficit as emergency spending. There was some talk among Republicans in May about trying to pay for the funding -- a step they never even considered between 2002 and 2008 -- but that was never seriously pursued.

With that in mind, reader M.R. raised a good point via email:

Here's something to ponder as the debate over the Bush tax cuts: although there is no action required to cause tax rates to reset to earlier values, I wonder if the Dems could get some political benefit by tying their inaction on renewing the top cuts to the two wars. That is, we need to let the tax rates return to earlier values to pay for our two wars.

That strikes me as a very sound approach. Wars are expensive, and throughout American history, taxes have gone up to pay for conflicts. Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War. McKinley raised taxes to finance the Spanish-American War. Wilson raised the top income tax rate to 77% to afford WWI. Taxes were raised, multiple times, to help the nation pay for WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Even the first President Bush raised taxes after the first war with Iraq.

This year, taxes are scheduled to return to earlier levels anyway. If Dems let that happen, they can help pay for the war spending Republicans support.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

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

* Changes at BP: "Three months after its giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a chastened BP outlined a new strategy on Tuesday to revamp operations and practices around the world and turn it into a leaner operator under a new leader. But even as BP increased the money set aside for spill-related costs to $32.2 billion, executives reiterated that the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion was not a result of gross negligence by the company."

* On a related note, BP's Tony Hayward is leaving with a severance package that congressional Democrats aren't at all happy about.

* If only a couple of Senate Republicans cared: "Worldwide, 2010 is on track to become the warmest year on record. Scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported recently that the average global temperature was higher over the past 12 months than during any other 12-month period in history."

* What happened to the billions of dollars in the Iraq reconstruction fund between 2003 and 2007? No one seems to know.

* It's obscure, at least for now, but we should care about Basel III.

* Will Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) cut a deal with the ethics committee? It's looking a lot less likely.

* Volt gets a price tag: "The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in car capable of driving about 40 miles at a time on battery power without using any gasoline, will have a sticker price of $41,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, General Motors said Tuesday. G.M. will also lease the Volt for $350 a month in the hopes of attracting consumers who want lower monthly payments or would hesitate to buy the vehicle until they are more comfortable with its technology."

* FEC raises eyebrows: "The starter's gun went off last week in the squalid new race for unlimited campaign cash. The Federal Election Commission approved the creation of two 'independent' campaign committees, one each from the left and right, expressly designed to take advantage of the new world of no rules."

* Good piece on the aims and standards of conservative media.

* On a related note, conservatives won't want to hear this, but Journolist really was a terrific resource.

* When public colleges get less funding, but spend more on sports anyway, it seems problematic.

* And Dave Weigel lands on his feet, joining the staff at Slate. All's well that ends well?

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

OBAMA TALKS SMALL BUSINESSES, ENERGY, WIKILEAKS, JUDGES.... President Obama met this afternoon with the congressional leadership from both parties and both chambers today, and spoke afterwards about the agenda.

He began by endorsing the small-business-incentives bill that, according to the leadership, will be the next bill considered by the Senate, and may be voted on this week. The president transitioned to energy:

"We also talked about the need to move forward on energy reform. The Senate is now poised to act before the August recess, advancing legislation to respond to the BP oil spill and create new clean energy jobs.

"That legislation is an important step in the right direction. But I want to emphasize it's only the first step. And I intend to keep pushing for broader reform, including climate legislation, because if we've learned anything from the tragedy in the Gulf, it's that our current energy policy is unsustainable.

"And we can't afford to stand by as our dependence on foreign oil deepens, as we keep on pumping out the deadly pollutants that threaten our air and our water and the lives and livelihoods of our people. And we can't stand by as we let China race ahead to create the clean energy jobs and industries of the future. We should be developing those renewable energy sources, and creating those high-wage, high-skill jobs right here in the United States of America.

"That's what comprehensive energy and climate reform would do. And that's why I intend to keep pushing this issue forward."

I know a comprehensive bill probably won't see the light of day for several years, but it's nevertheless nice to hear a reminder that "our current energy policy is unsustainable," as the BP spill helps demonstrate. (The president has, by the way, been saying this for quite a while. It just hasn't gotten much attention.)

As for the Wikileaks story:

"I also urged the House leaders to pass the necessary funding to support our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know much has been written about this in recent days as a result of the substantial leak of documents from Afghanistan covering a period from 2004 to 2009.

"While I'm concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan; indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.

"So let me underscore what I've said many times: For seven years, we failed to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge in this region, the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned.

"That's why we've substantially increased our commitment there, insisted upon greater accountability from our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developed a new strategy that can work, and put in place a team, including one of our finest generals, to execute that plan. Now we have to see that strategy through."

And one of my personal favorites, the federal judiciary:

"Finally, during our meeting today, I urged Senator McConnell and others in the Senate to work with us to fill the vacancies that continue to plague our judiciary. Right now, we've got nominees who've been waiting up to eight months to be confirmed as judges. Most of these folks were voted out of committee unanimously, or nearly unanimously, by both Democrats and Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that they were qualified to serve. Nevertheless, some in the minority have used parliamentary procedures time and again to deny them a vote in the full Senate.

"If we want our judicial system to work -- if we want to deliver justice in our courts -- then we need judges on our benches. And I hope that in the coming months, we'll be able to work together to ensure a timelier process in the Senate."

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

SENATE GOP BLOCKS VOTE, KILLS DISCLOSE ACT.... We learned earlier today that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would be away from Capitol Hill this afternoon, attending a funeral. At that point, it was all but certain that the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) would fail today to overcome the latest in an endless line of Republican filibusters.

With every member of the Democratic caucus in the chamber, the bill would need one GOP vote. With Lieberman out for the day, it would need two. And when it comes to promoting campaign disclosure from corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations, we saw unanimous Republican opposition to even allowing the Senate to vote.

The final roll call this afternoon was 57 to 41. In a sane world, legislation with 57 supporters and 41 opponents would win. In the U.S. Senate, thanks to scandalous Republican abuses, it loses.

There's just no logic to the GOP refusing to allow a vote on this. It already passed the House -- with a Republican co-sponsor, no less -- and it's really not that controversial.

The DISCLOSE Act would require corporations and interest groups to identify themselves when they sponsor political ads and, in the case of smaller organizations, to reveal their donors.

President Obama and Democratic leaders hoped the bill would, among other things, help undo the damage of the recent Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court threw out limits on corporate political spending. And since the bill merely called to publicize who was putting money into politics, rather than limit that money, Obama and the Democrats hoped they could peel off enough Republican votes to break a filibuster. They were wrong. Not one Republican voted to proceed with debate -- not even after the Democrats modified the bill, in order to address GOP arguments that it would treat unions differently from other groups.

Remember when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was a champion of campaign-finance reform? He refused to even let the Senate vote on a simple disclosure bill. Remember when Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) seemed like the kind of "moderates" who would support an effort like this? All three not only opposed the bill, but supported a filibuster to block a vote.

Democrats intend to use today's vote in the future as an example of ridiculous Republican values. In expectation of the vote, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said this morning, "Today's vote has the potential to be a defining one for the Republican party. This [is] a choice between the public and big corporations and the Republicans seem poised to vote en masse for the corporations."

Update: Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), shortly before the vote: "This is a sad day for our democracy. Not only does the Supreme Court give those special interests a huge advantage, but this body says they should do it all in secret without any disclosure. That, my colleagues, transcends this election, transcends Democrat or Republican. It eats at the very fabric of our democracy. It makes our people feel powerless and angry."

—Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

NO ONE NOTICES THE CONTRAST OF WHITE ON WHITE.... Fox News viewers have been treated with an overabundance of coverage of "news" about the New Black Panther Party and Shirley Sherrod, who at least initially, the network accused of discriminating against whites.

Isn't Fox News concerned about driving away its African-American viewers with such racially-charged coverage? Probably not -- the network just doesn't have many African-American viewers to drive away.

Fox News may be the undisputed ratings champion in cable news, but not among black viewers.

The New York Times' Brian Stelter tweeted that, according to Nielsen Media Research, Fox News has averaged just 29,000 black viewers in primetime so far this television season (9/09-7/10).

For comparison purposes, note that 20.7% of CNN's viewers are black. For MSNBC, the number is 19.3%.

For Fox News, it's just 1.38%.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this isn't likely to change anytime soon.

The National Association of Black Journalists has faulted Fox for years for inaccurately portraying blacks. And Mr. Beck called Mr. Obama a racist last August, prompting an advertiser boycott that continues.

In the last month, Fox doggedly pursued an accusation of voter intimidation by a fringe hate group called the New Black Panthers on the day of the last presidential election. One news anchor, Megyn Kelly, devoted dozens of segments to the incident. (Ms. Kelly was even upbraided on the air by a Fox News contributor, Kirsten Powers, who accused her of doing the "scary black man thing."

Last fall, Fox's news programs gave heavy play to heavily edited tapes that appeared to show counselors at the liberal community organizing group Acorn giving advice to an ostensible pimp and his prostitute about evading taxes and setting up a brothel. [...]

Over the weekend, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, Howard Dean, accused Fox of pushing "a theme of black racism."

—Steve Benen 3:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

SHOWING THE SCOUTS SOME LOVE.... The right gets angry about the strangest things.

Seizing on a report from CNS News' Penny Star, several conservative blogs are attacking President Obama for not speaking in person at the Boy Scouts' upcoming 100th anniversary jamboree because he will be in New Jersey to speak about the economy before heading to New York City to film an upcoming appearance on ABC's The View.

On his radio show, Glenn Beck also went after the president over the Boy Scouts' event, which suggests we may be hearing more about this from the usual suspects.

There's an obvious response here -- this isn't a snub. The president will address the Boy Scouts' jamboree via a taped message, and he already showed his appreciation for the group by hosting an Oval Office gathering just two weeks ago.

But if we're going to talk about politics and scouts, it's worth remembering that Beck and his cohorts are barking up the wrong ideological tree here. Did you ever notice the right's hostility towards the Girl Scouts?

A few years ago, James Dobson's Focus on the Family encouraged Christian fundamentalists to steer clear of the Girl Scouts because it made use of the word "God" in its oath optional. Another religious right group complained about the Girl Scouts' emphasis on "empowerment," which Robert Knight argued would "steer" girls "into collective action for liberal causes, such as environmentalism."

There was also the hatchet job Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote for National Review, which claimed, among other things, that that the Girl Scouts are under the sway of radical feminists and lesbians. "There are currently 2.7 million Girl Scouts in the U.S.," Lopez said. "That's a lot of liberal feminists to look forward to."

And the right wants to complain about Obama sending a pre-recorded message to the Boy Scouts? This is evidence of some kind of scout animosity? Please.

—Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

QUIT WHILE YOU'RE BEHIND.... Yesterday, the American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord decided to go after Shirley Sherrod, this time accusing her of lying because she said Bobby Hall was "lynched" in 1943. Hall was beaten to death by a white sheriff and his two white deputies, but as far as Lord was concerned, rope wasn't involved. Ergo, Sherrod's credibility is in question.

As Adam Serwer responded yesterday, "A lynching is an extrajudicial mob killing. No one who worked to document the practice of lynching in the South limited the definition of the term to solely include those lynchings that occurred using a rope.... Now does three guys beating someone to death sound like an extrajudicial mob killing to you?"

Today, Lord answered that question and defended his offensive argument.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines lynching as: "to put to death, esp. hanging by mob action and without legal authority."

I have read the Court's decision. Three people are not a "mob." A mob is defined as a "large crowd." So there was no "mob action" because there was no mob.

Look, this is ridiculous. Lord wisely gave up on the whole rope line of argument, but now wants to parse the meaning of the word "mob." Three white cops beat a black man to death. They arrested him on weak evidence, beat him mercilessly for a half-hour, and dragged the man's unconscious body, feet first, through the courthouse square before his death.

If there were four white cops would Lord be comfortable with the word "lynching"? How about five? Emmett Till was killed by two men. Was he not lynched either?

But wait, there's more. Lord went on to suggest that people need to "understand the connection between what they are seeing in the headlines everyday -- and history."

There is, I'm sorry to say, a direct connection between Southern racists of yore and, say, the Obama Administration policy in Arizona. The Black Panther case. And what Ms. Sherrod was doing in her speech when she ever so casually linked criticism of health care to racism, which is to say not supporting a (her words) "black President."

This is all of a piece.... [W]hen Ms. Sherrod uses the highly inflammatory word "lynching" -- when it is quite specifically not so because of the above reasons -- what is she doing? Why is she doing it? She was factually wrong. She was legally wrong. She did it anyway.

Keep in mind, this is not satire intended to make conservatives look like deranged racists. Lord seems to be entirely sincere.

And the whole point of the exercise is to do what Breitbart tried and failed to do last week -- go after Shirley Sherrod. It's quite twisted, really.

Postscript: More than a few historians believe Jeffrey Lord has no idea what he's talking about, but I suspect that won't change his mind. We're well past the point at which reason and evidence have meaning with this guy.

—Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

WHEN AN ENDORSEMENT BACKFIRES.... The conventional wisdom suggests Republican candidates, especially those in Republican primaries, are anxious to get an endorsement from former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

There are, however, exceptions.

A new Public Policy Polling survey in New Hampshire finds Kelly Ayotte's (R) appeal to moderate voters crumbled in the wake of her endorsement by Sarah Palin and her lead over Paul Hodes (D) in the U.S. Senate race has shrunk to its lowest level yet, 45% to 42%.

Key finding: "Most of the movement both in feelings about Ayotte and in the horse race has come with moderate voters. Moderates make up the largest bloc of the New Hampshire electorate at 47%, and Hodes' lead with them has expanded from just 8 points at 47% to 39% in April to now 21 points at 51% to 30%. Ayotte's favorability with them has gone from +5 at 32% to 27% to -19 at 27% to 46%."

To be sure, it's just one poll, so I don't want to overstate matters. But this nevertheless offers some evidence to bolster other recent polls that show a great deal of hostility for the right-wing Alaskan from everyone who isn't part of the far-right Republican base.

In the case of the PPP survey, it's pretty dramatic -- Ayotte was faring well among moderate voters, and now she's not. The only thing that's changed of late is the endorsement, which New Hampshire Democrats were anxious to tout among in-state reporters.

Indeed, there's a great irony here. For quite a while, Granite State Dems were anxious to tie Ayotte to Palin, noting the similarities between them (most notably, the fact that both quit their jobs, mid-term, to pursue grander ambitions). The charges didn't really connect in New Hampshire -- until Ayotte went ahead and accepted an endorsement from the conspicuously unintelligent Fox News personality.

Overall, Ayotte's lead over Rep. Paul Hodes has dropped from seven points to three fairly quickly. This is currently a Republican seat -- held by the retiring Judd Gregg -- and Democrats have long hoped to turn it into a pick-up opportunity.

Thanks to Palin, that opportunity is suddenly looking more achievable.

—Steve Benen 1:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

AN OVERLOOKED HOUSE VOTE ON TRIBAL JUSTICE.... I mentioned briefly yesterday afternoon that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) voted last week against a measure to make it easier "for Native American tribal courts to prosecute non-natives who commit rape and other crimes on tribal lands." King wasn't alone -- while the bill passed the House easily with bipartisan support, more Republicans opposed it than supported it. It was approved, 326 to 92.

What was up with those 92, all of whom were Republicans? I talked to a Hill staffer about this overnight, who explained what transpired. The staffer emailed me this, and I'm republishing the account with permission:

One real small correction in the bit you quoted -- tribal courts have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians (they have criminal jurisdiction over tribe members and, for reasons I'll leave to your imagination, over Indians belonging to other tribes, but not over non-Indians). And the tribal justice bill most definitely does not provide or create any new criminal jurisdiction over non Indians. In fact, in response to concern from Republican members on this exact issue, a specific provision was added during Senate process making totally explicit that the bill does not expand tribal jurisdiction to reach non-Indians and the Chairman of the House Natural Resources committee engaged in a colloquy on this very issue with Dan Lungren during floor debate. (Mr. Lungren ultimately supported the bill.)

The basis for the Mr. King's rejection of the bill (along with many other House Republicans) is hard to determine. It's a law-and-order bill, the centerpiece of which is to increase the authority of tribal courts to impose longer sentences on tribal offenders (current law limits Indian tribes to one year sentences per offense; the bill increases to 3 years per offense and 9 years max). The fact that there is a cap may itself be jarring, since tribes are separate sovereigns; on the other hand, tribal governments are not subject to the Bill of Rights and tribes -- unlike the states or the federal government -- can incarcerate people without providing them a lawyer, so it is a complex balance. The bill also enhances procedural protections for defendants in tribal courts -- requiring tribes to provide counsel for indigent defendants who face more than one year incarceration and requiring the proceedings be recorded/transcribed and that court rules and tribal criminal codes be publically available. But 92 House Republicans voting AGAINST longer criminal sentences is certainly an unusual thing.

The bill also enhances drug interdiction efforts, re-authorizes a range of programs to address root causes of crime (including drug and alcohol treatment, summer youth and juvenile delinquency programs, and others), ensures that tribal courts can get medical testimony needed from IHS for sex assault cases, facilitates tribal access to federal criminal information databases, eases the way for increased hiring and better training of BIA officers and tribal police, and creates a very significant tribal law and order commission that will conduct a two year study of public safety and criminal justice issues in Indian Country and report back to Congress.

The bill was unanimously passed out of the Senate, but faced more significant challenges in the House (an unusual state of affairs right there). House Republicans made essentially no substantive objections but simply complained about the process used to move quickly through the House (it was taken up directly on the floor after returning from the Senate, which ensured that the bill did not have to go through the senate two times). There was lots of chatter that the opposition was simply designed to obstruct the effort -- and deny House democrats of the political benefits of achieving this accomplishment for tribal constituencies -- but it's of course hard to know what lies in people's hearts.

It went largely overlooked last week, but it seems like an important measure. I'm glad President Obama will sign it into law, and I can only hope those 92 opponents are prepared to explain to tribal communities what possessed them to vote the way they did.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

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.

* Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) made it official yesterday afternoon, announcing that he's running for governor in Colorado as a member of the extremist American Constitution Party. He has not, however, filed the paperwork with the Colorado secretary of state, nor has he registered as a member of his new party.

* Speaking of Colorado, it looks like Andrew Romanoff won't be ending his primary challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet (D) anytime soon -- the former state House Speaker sold his house so he could loan his campaign $325,000.

* In Wisconsin, right-wing businessman Ron Johnson (R), taking on Sen. Russ Feingold (D), recently disclosed that he owns as much as $315,000 in BP stock. On July 9, Johnson's campaign said he would move the investments into a blind trust. Yesterday, the far-right candidate started backing away from his pledge.

* In Florida's Senate Democratic primary, Rep. Kendrick Meek launched his first television ad of the year, going after billionaire Jeff Greene pretty aggressively.

* In Tennessee, the latest Mason-Dixon poll shows Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam leading the Republican gubernatorial primary with 36% support. Rep. Zach Wamp, who recently raised the specter of seceding from the United States, is second in the poll with 25%. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, who doesn't believe Islam is a religion, is third with 20%. The winner will likely face businessman Mike McWherter (D) in November.

* In Maryland's gubernatorial rematch, a Gonzales Research poll shows Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) narrowly leading former Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R), 45% to 42%.

* It's primary day in Oklahoma, where both parties are holding gubernatorial primaries. Rep. Mary Fallin (R) and state Attorney General Drew Edmondson (D) are expected to win their respective races.

* And let this be a lesson to party activists: if you're going to remove your opponent's campaign signs on public property, look for cameras that might catch you in the act.

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

DISGRACED FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER PRETENDS TO HAVE CREDIBILITY.... Oh good, Newt is still talking. (thanks to reader D.F. for the tip)

Newt Gingrich will deliver a major national security address at the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Thursday in which he will reprimand the Obama administration's "willful blindness" to the threat of extremist Islam.

The speech -- a direct challenge to the president's foreign policy judgment at a venue that's become an important stopover for Republican luminaries -- is the latest sign that Gingrich is serious about a potential White House bid in 2012. [...]

Never one to shy away from his somewhat professorial reputation, Gingrich plans to draw on "the lessons of Camus and Orwell" to explain "the dangers of a wartime government that uses language and misleading labels to obscure reality."

Of course, Gingrich, a pseudo-intellectual crackpot, only has a "somewhat professorial reputation" among those who neglect to listen to what he has to say. This is, after all, the same Gingrich who insisted on national television recently that it was acceptable to Mirandize shoe-bomber Richard Reid because he was "an American citizen." (In our reality, Reid is a British citizen of Jamaican descent.)

In light of the speech, Greg Sargent noted, "Newt Gingrich is set to duke it out with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney for the title of leading GOP voice on national security."

I think that's right, but I also think it's an indictment of sorts. As potential GOP presidential candidates eye 2012, the leading Republican voices on national security are Gingrich, Palin, and Romney? Isn't that rather humiliating for a party that used to lead on these issues?

Gingrich has exactly zero experience on foreign policy, military affairs, and national security. Romney recently tried to pretend to understand these issues, and was utterly humiliated. Palin has said publicly she thinks she understands foreign policy because Vladimir Putin flew over her house.

The Republican Party likes to maintain the pretense that these issues "belong" to them -- all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding -- but the fact that their most noteworthy national luminaries on the subject are utterly clueless, and bring all the sophistication of a child to the debate, is pretty striking.

This isn't to say the entire Republican Party is devoid of credible voices on national security and foreign policy; that would be an overstatement. Current and former officials like Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Colin Powell, former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Reagan Chief of Staff Howard Baker, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.) all approach these issues with at least some seriousness and stature.

Of course, since this same group also happens to agree with President Obama on national security and foreign policy, that's probably not much help when it comes to GOP politics.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

'WHY DID YOU GET ME SO DRUNK?'.... There was a Republican majority in the House for 12 years, ending in 2006, thanks in part to public opposition to the war in Iraq and the increasing unpopularity of the Bush/Cheney administration.

But it didn't help that GOP lawmakers had become pretty comfortable with their excesses. Far-right lawmakers started sleeping around with increasing frequency; abuses of power became common; GOP members started getting arrested more frequently; and Republicans generally grew to tolerate an arrogant, permissive culture on the Hill.

After losing control, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had no intention of moving his party ideologically -- if anything, the Republicans have grown considerably more extreme since becoming the minority party -- but he did set out to clean up his smaller caucus's act.

How's that working out? Well, the GOP is still in the minority, but it nevertheless may have held onto some of its bad habits.

Washington is abuzz with rumors of late-night partying and of House Republicans inappropriately hanging out with female lobbyists.

But not everyone was taken by surprise. Minority Leader John Boehner has been working behind the scenes to address the issue for at least the past year and a half.

The Ohio Republican has had private conversations with several lawmakers asking them to curb their inappropriate behavior. Boehner told the lawmakers that it was a "distraction" from the party's goal of taking back the House, according to several sources familiar with the one-on-one talks.

Despite Boehner's effort to head off a scandal, the issue came to the forefront last week when a conversation that Rep. Lee Terry [R-Neb.] had with a woman at a GOP watering hole became public.

The conversation in question happened at the Capitol Hill Club during President Obama's speech in June about the BP oil spill. Terry was reportedly overheard asking the women next to him, "Why did you get me so drunk?"

Terry denies having made the comment, but a longtime Capitol Hill Club member who overheard the exchange told Roll Call, "On the Hill, there's a lot of older men that just go home when they're done with votes. Then you have a smaller group that likes to knock back a few and have a good time."

The incident came on the heels of former Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) being forced to resign in disgrace, after the lawmaker noted for touting abstinence-only programs was found to have carried on an extramarital affair with a member of his staff.

And now we're seeing reports about Boehner intervening with other members of his caucus -- some who've crossed misconduct lines, and some who've come close.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

BRINGING INSTITUTIONAL REFORM TO THE SENATE.... When reviewing who and what are to blame for the death of the energy/climate bill, David Roberts labeled "the broken Senate" as the single most responsible factor. The "default supermajority requirement that's been imposed" was the "main" impediment, Roberts argued, adding, "[T]he supermajority requirement has perverse, deleterious consequences that extend much farther than most progressives seem to understand."

I'm comfortable describing this Congress as having been a historic success, but it's painful to consider what would have been possible if the Senate operated under majority rule -- the way it was designed to function, and the way it used to function. Accomplishments would have been even better; the economy would be stronger; and efforts that died would have survived -- if only the Senate could vote on bills and nominations.

There was a flurry of chatter in February about reforming the way the Senate operates, led in part by Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Ind.) public expressions of frustration, but in time the talk faded away.

Ryan Grim and Sam Stein reported yesterday that the desire to reform the Senate hasn't disappeared entirely, and may be poised for a comeback.

Momentum is building to reform Senate rules that allow silent filibusters and force a 60-vote requirement for virtually any action, interviews with Democratic candidates and sitting senators indicate.

Democratic candidates said that they hear regularly from voters about abuse of the parliamentary tactic, which is likely to come up as the first vote new senators face in 2011. The supermajority requirement in the Senate has become such an obstacle to reform that it infiltrates policy discussions at every step. Last week at the Netroots Nation political conference, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) gathered environmental writers to discuss energy legislation; the first few questions were related to energy, the rest of the conversation was dominated by the filibuster.

"The use of the filibuster and the way it's led to backroom deals has created the impression in the heartland that the Senate is dysfunctional," said Jack Conway, a Democratic candidate facing Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky. "They don't understand why Washington can't address the issues people care about. People in Kentucky wanted people focused on jobs -- 14 months [of the health care debate] laid bare how broken the system was."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Netroots Nation conference about his support for reform, but it's not just the leadership. Some of the Senate's newer members -- Al Franken (D-Minn.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) -- endorsed reform, as did some current candidates who hope to join the institution -- Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), Elaine Marshall (D-N.C.) and Roxanne Conlin (D-Iowa). When I talked to Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) a couple of weeks ago, he seemed quite serious about this as well.

Of course, there's the small matter of how reform might work, and how it might get accomplished. That's still coming together, but a strategy is taking shape.

If Vice President Joe Biden -- who has spoken out against abuse of the filibuster and has been studying ways to reform it -- were to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules, Republicans would immediately move to object. Democrats would then move to table the objection, setting up the key vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which would be approved by a simple majority.

Stay tuned.

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

TWENTY YEARS LATER.... Yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disability Act, and Democrats honored the occasion with some worthwhile gestures. In Congress, for example, Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin (D) presided over the House of Representatives, which wouldn't be especially noteworthy except for the fact that Langevin is a quadriplegic, and was the first person in a wheelchair to ever wield the gavel.

On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama hosted an event on the South Lawn, celebrating the ADA as "one of the most comprehensive civil rights bills in the history of this country."

"Today, as we commemorate what the ADA accomplished, we celebrate who the ADA was all about. It was about the young girl in Washington State who just wanted to see a movie at her hometown theater, but was turned away because she had cerebral palsy; or the young man in Indiana who showed up at a worksite, able to do the work, excited for the opportunity, but was turned away and called a cripple because of a minor disability he had already trained himself to work with; or the student in California who was eager and able to attend the college of his dreams, and refused to let the iron grip of polio keep him from the classroom -- each of whom became integral to this cause.

"And it was about all of you. You understand these stories because you or someone you loved lived them. And that sparked a movement. It began when Americans no longer saw their own disabilities as a barrier to their success, and set out to tear down the physical and social barriers that were. It grew when you realized you weren't alone. It became a massive wave of bottom-up change that swept across the country as you refused to accept the world as it was. And when you were told, no, don't try, you can't -- you responded with that age-old American creed: Yes, we can."

Around the same time, in Kentucky, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul, who opposes the Americans with Disability Act, decided to skip a local event commemorating the landmark legislation, choosing instead to go to a fundraiser with Jeb Bush.

Paul's ADA opposition reminded Michael Tomasky to ask a good question: would the ADA pass today?

In 1990, it passed the Senate 76-8 and passed the House by unanimous voice vote. I think we can say with great confidence that those particular outcomes would never have happened today, and we'd have seen far more caterwauling about the impositions placed on business and so on.

I will grant that the ADA has cost businesses some money, and that there surely have been some nuisance lawsuits. But it's made the US a better place. In 1990, the GOP saw this. Today's GOP would never accept such regulatory "impositions" on the private sector. You might get eight or 10 of them to vote for such a bill, because they would make the decision as a party that overall they didn't want to be seen as picking on people in wheelchairs, but the distance from only a handful of Republicans opposing that bill to Rand Paul's comments in May is one marker of how extreme the GOP has become.

I'm not inclined to consider this a close call: the ADA would struggle to overcome a Republican filibuster if it were brought to the floor today. Twenty years ago, the legislation was championed by Democratic leaders like Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), but it also enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of Republicans like Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Lowell Weicker (R-Conn.). President George H.W. Bush was proud to sign that bill into law, and considered it one of the great achievements of his term.

But in 2010, the Republican base would very likely demand to know where in the Constitution it says Congress can pass a law protecting Americans with disabilities, and GOP lawmakers would no doubt ask that its provisions be voluntary, so as to not "destroy jobs."

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (10)

CLIMATE PEACOCKS SHOW THEIR FEATHERS.... In early June, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) worked with oil company lobbyists to craft a misguided scheme. Realizing that the Environmental Protection Agency has the still-unused authority to regulate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act, the plan was to strip the EPA of its authority to act.

It needed 51 votes to pass, but came up with 47. (The result, at the time, made clear that a meaningful climate bill would probably be impossible in this Congress.)

Murkowski's scheme failed, but the idea behind the effort hasn't gone away.

Coal-state Democrats, led by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.), Reps. Rick Boucher (Va.) and Nick Rahall (W. Va), are trying to limit the federal government's ability to control greenhouse gases from power plants.

The coal-state proposals, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency's authority for two years, would undercut what is widely seen as Obama's alternative climate policy, now that Congress has punted on cap-and-trade legislation for the year.... Rockefeller's bill is expected to reach the Senate floor at some point this year.

In a press release on Friday, Rockefeller said he was "continuing to push hard" for his legislation to suspend the EPA regulations "so that Congress, not federal regulators, can set national energy policy."

For the senators most hostile to combating global warming, this is one of the more common arguments. The EPA shouldn't intervene to regulate carbon emissions, the pitch goes, because it should be lawmakers' job.

And while that argument might appear sensible, it's hard to overstate how shallow it is. "Congress, not federal regulators, should set national energy policy"? Well, sure. But what happens when Congress won't, or can't, act? Rockefeller, in particular, has fought any effort to limit carbon emissions, helping bring the legislative process on the Hill to a halt. Now he wants the EPA to wait for Congress to do its job? Rockefeller is the one who doesn't want Congress to do its job.

This isn't complicated -- the easiest way to block the EPA from acting is for Congress to pass a real energy/climate bill. But those most opposed to the EPA route also happen to be the ones most opposed to congressional action. It makes plain the motivations at play -- this isn't about where regulatory power should lie; it's about killing any and all efforts to deal with the climate crisis.

Of course, it's not just Rockefeller. Indeed, most of the Republicans in the Senate have made the exact same argument, for the exact same reasons. The group has come to be known as "Climate Peacocks" -- they strut around, claiming to be serious about finding a solution, but like the "Deficit Peacocks," it's little more than an insincere charade.

If Rockefeller's measure, which may come up for a vote before year's end, should somehow pass, President Obama has already made clear his intention to veto it. If Republicans take the congressional majority, the effort is certain to be a major fight next year.

—Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

A DEEP, MISGUIDED SENSE OF VICTIMHOOD.... Last week, Rep. Jan Schakowksy (D-Ill.) made a reasonable suggestion: now would be a good time for her opponent, Joel Pollak (R), to stop writing for Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website. As Schakowksy sees it, congressional candidates shouldn't be associated with a partisan news outlet known for publishing misleading propaganda.

Pollak was not only offended by the suggestion, he thought it appropriate to compare himself to a celebrated South African freedom-fighter killed by an apartheid government. Pollak's headline read, "Like Steve Biko, I Write What I Like."

My family immigrated to America in the same year that South African police murdered Black Consciousness leader Steve Biko. The racist regime that destroyed him viewed him as a threat because of his simple credo: "I write what I like." Biko understood that freedom of thought and expression were the greatest weapons against tyranny.

Last week, my opponent, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), called on me to denounce Andrew Breitbart and to end any further association with his website, BigGovernment.com.

Her attack was typical of a corrupt Washington elite that believes it is entitled to tell people what to say and where to say it.... The First Amendment is not a perk for members of Congress and their spouses.

As far as I can tell, Pollak wasn't kidding. He really is feeling so sorry for himself that he's lost all sense of reason.

Schakowksy suggested he shouldn't write for a website that misleads its readers. In response, Pollak not only suggested his free speech rights are under assault, he compared himself to a heroic activist who was killed by racist regime.

I really have to wonder -- where does the Republican Party find these guys? And what makes the GOP think they should be in Congress?

As Josh Marshall concluded, "It does get a little hard with these folks to pick apart the willful provocation from the simply pathological."

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

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

* Tony Hayward is out as BP's chief executive: "On Monday, BP's board is expected to announce that Hayward, 53, will step down on Oct. 1. The departure, say people close to the company, will be his decision as much as the board's. Hayward, a geologist who has spent his entire career working for BP, is said to recognize that he has become a liability as the company tries to move forward."

* The materials on the war in Afghanistan published through Wikileaks are important, but they're probably not the Pentagon Papers.

* Despite an assumption that Senate Republicans will refuse to allow the chamber to vote on the legislation, the DISCLOSE Act will likely come to the floor for consideration this week, probably tomorrow. President Obama is pushing the GOP to let the Senate vote.

* Housing surprise: "New-home buying surged in June after a May plunge caused by the end of a government tax credit, according to a better-than-expected report on the ailing housing sector."

* If you're looking for the Senate Dems' scaled-back energy bill, its release has been pushed until tomorrow.

* On a related note, thanks to unexpected support from Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kas.), there's hope for a renewable energy standard in the bill.

* Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) thinks the war in Iraq is over. That guy is so deeply confused, it's painful to think reporters still consider him an expert on military matters.

* Are the ethics charges against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) serious? Yes, they are.

* This year's deficit: $1.47 trillion. That's actually a little lower than previously estimated.

* It's sometimes fun to laugh at Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) extremism, but some of his positions aren't funny: "[King] last week voted against a bill making it easier for Native American tribal courts to prosecute non-natives who commit rape and other crimes on tribal lands." (thanks to B.D. for the tip) [Update: Here's some additional background information on the legislation.]

* I have low expectations, but I'm glad Senate reform continues to percolate.

* Thought-provoking piece from Van Jones on culture and technology in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod story. (thanks to T.D. for the reminder)

* Not all for-profit colleges are the same.

* If context is irrelevant, and misleading editing is acceptable, Breitbart appears to love al Qaeda.

* On a related note, many in the media would have us believe "both sides" do what Breitbart does. That's not even close to being true.

* Greg Sargent on the right's bizarre fascination with Journolist: "The real story here is that right wing media are engaged in a coordinated, conspiratorial effort to pretend that J-List represented a Vast Left-wing Media Conspiracy, when the evidence conclusively shows otherwise."

* And on the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act, Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin (D) will preside over the House of Representatives this afternoon. Langevin, who is a quadriplegic, will be the first person in a wheelchair to wield the gavel.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

LEARNING THE WRONG LESSON.... Ezra had a fairly brief item today that summarizes a problem that comes up nearly every day.

Last year's stimulus worked exactly as it was intended to work -- in some ways, it even exceeded expectations -- but it was too small. There was a hole in the economy, which turned out to be even bigger and more serious we realized at the time, and policymakers only filled part of it. Ezra noted that part of the problem may have been an assumption that Congress and the White House would get another bite at the apple.

If all we needed was the $700 billion package, then great. But if unemployment remained high and the recovery had trouble taking hold, surely there would be the votes for further stimulus and relief spending. No one in the political system could possibly look at 10 percent unemployment and walk away from it, right?

Wrong. Ten percent unemployment and a terrible recession ended up discrediting the people trying to do more for the economy, as their previous intervention was deemed a failure. That, in turn, empowered the people attempting to do less for the economy. So rather than a modestly sized stimulus offering room leaving the door open for more stimulus if needed, its modest size was used to discredit the idea of more stimulus when it became needed.

This may seem like madness, because it is, but this is a fine summary of the status quo. Democrats wanted a bigger stimulus, but couldn't overcome Republican opposition. The recovery effort, then, was less successful, leading to a bizarre dynamic -- political rewards for those who were wrong, political punishment for those who were right. Those who screwed up the most before, during, and after the crisis are the same folks strutting around, proud as can be, unaware and unconcerned about how foolish reality makes them look -- because they're winning.

My favorite metaphor continues to ring true. Imagine there's a massive, dangerous fire. Those responsible for the blaze insist that some lighter fluid should take care of the problem, while the fire department recommends water. Forced to compromise, the fire department uses less water than is needed, and the blaze is only partially contained.

Those with the lighter fluid, who set the fire in the first place, see this and respond, "Told you so."

Now, ideally voters would find this insane, and ignore the lighter-fluid crowd's nonsense. But the public isn't engaged at that level -- they know what they see, and in this case, they still see the flames, and don't understand why the fire department didn't get the job done.

Ezra may be very well be right about the assumptions. To strain my metaphor a bit, maybe the fire department assumed they could always just send more trucks as needed. They couldn't.

Look, this is pretty simple. Early last year, the economy stood at the brink of an extraordinary collapse. There were effectively four options:

1. Pass a massive, ambitious economic stimulus.

2. Pass a trimmed down economic stimulus that could overcome a Republican filibuster.

3. Do nothing.

4. Pass a five-year spending freeze proposed by confused congressional Republicans at the time.

Left with limited options, Democrats went with #2, and disaster was averted. We would have nevertheless been better off with #1, but we can all be very thankful #3 and #4 were rejected.

But the economy still needs more, and it won't get it, in part because Republicans learned the wrong lessons, and in part because they hope to keep the economy down on purpose to improve the GOP's electoral chances.

—Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

COMING SOON, TO A TERRORIST RECRUITING VIDEO NEAR YOU.... There's already a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, but as Islamic population grows in the area, there are plans to build a Muslim community center, which would include a pool and gym.

Local officials have already approved the plan to build the facility, but right-wing bigots in Murfreesboro are organizing in larger numbers to speak out against the community center.

With this in mind, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, a Republican gubernatorial candidate popular with Tea Party zealots, was asked at a recent event, "We've got a threat that's invading our country from the Muslims. What's your stand on that?" He replied by suggesting Islam might not be a religion that qualifies for protection under the First Amendment.

...Ramsey proclaimed his support for the Constitution and the whole "Congress shall make no law" thing when it comes to religion. But he also said that Islam, arguably, is less a faith than it is a "cult."

"Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it," Ramsey said. "Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face."

The gubernatorial candidate went to suggest that the law-abiding Muslims in Murfreesboro might be "bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee."

Now, it's tempting to approach this rationally. One might want to explain to Ramsey what the First Amendment is, and why Islam deserves as much protection as every other faith tradition. One might also be tempted to explain that the local Muslim community has expressed no interest in "bringing Sharia Law" to Murfreesboro. One might even be tempted to describe Ramsey as blisteringly stupid.

But let's put all of that aside, and consider a separate angle: is Ramsey doing al Qaeda a huge favor?

Terrorists are desperate to convince Muslim populations that the United States is at war with Islam. Ramsey's moronic remarks, then, are practically custom made for a recruiting video -- here's an American official, running to be the chief executive of a state, arguing publicly that every religion deserves freedom under U.S. law except Islam, which he suggests might be a "cult." This message appeals to the American voters in the room, who make no effort to hide their hatred and mistrust of their fellow neighbors who happen to be Muslim.

I seriously doubt Ramsey is sophisticated enough to understand this, but his bigotry is the kind of approach that promotes and encourages the radicalism that undermines our security.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

HOUSE, SENATE REPUBLICANS LATCH ONTO NBPP GARBAGE.... Several congressional Republicans have said they would use their power, in the event of a new GOP majority on the Hill, to go after the Obama administration relentlessly. Threats of endless subpoenas and hearings aren't just bluster; they're what we could expect from a right-wing congressional majority.

But what would Republicans actually look into? Take a wild guess.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have requested a hearing to investigate alleged racial bias within the Department of Justice, according to a letter sent Friday to committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

The request came in relation to a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party that was first prosecuted as a civil action in January 2009, then dismissed for two of the three defendants the following May. An injunction was issued for the last defendant.

House Judiciary Republicans also moved for further investigation on Thursday, urging President Obama in a letter to direct Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor for the case.

This is hopelessly insane. There's just no way around this simple fact. The NBPP "controversy" is complete and utter garbage, a detail even many conservatives are willing to concede.

Judiciary Committee Republicans, I'm willing to bet, know this. They know the Bush Justice Department dismissed the issue as pointless; they know no one was prevented from voting or felt intimidated at that Philly precinct; they know that the New Black Panther Party didn't even support Obama.

But these congressional Republicans pursue transparent garbage like this for one reason: to stoke the fires of racial resentment. That's why Fox News has been obsessed with this story; it's why Senate Republicans want hearings; and it's why House Republicans want a special prosecutor. The desire to make white voters afraid is as obvious as it is shameless as it is ugly.

Republicans have worked to undermine the country in a wide variety of ways over the last 18 months, but deliberately trying to scare whites into fearing blacks with a trumped up story is arguably the most loathsome move yet.

Commenting on conservative media's interest in the NBPP story recently, Jon Chait noted, "What you're starting to see from Fox News now, though, is the most widespread and mainstream right-wing effort to exploit racial fears against Obama.... There has been a great deal of right-wing insanity unleashed over the last year and a half, but this is the first time that the fear has an explicitly racial cast. You now have the largest organ of movement conservatism promoting Limbaugh's idee fixe that the Obama administration represents black America's historical revenge against whites."

And now notice the next step. From Limbaugh ... to Fox News ... to the Republican base ... to House Republicans ... to Senate Republicans. This is the pattern that will dominate American politics in 2011 and 2012 if there's a GOP majority on the Hill.

(Note, these same Republican lawmakers saw no need for a single hearing when it came to 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, and Karl Rove's campaign "briefings" to federal offices in violation of the Hatch Act. But the NBPP story? That's worth investigating.)

I should be past the point of getting surprised, but this is disgusting -- and Republicans know it. I know RNC Chairman Michael Steele recently conceded his party relied on a racially-divisive "Southern Strategy" for at least four decades, but the sooner the public realizes that these same tactics haven't gone away, the better.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

THE RIGHT ISN'T QUITE DONE WITH SHIRLEY SHERROD.... Perhaps the only person who came out of the Shirley Sherrod controversy looking better was the one who was forced to resign from her job. The right went after Sherrod, but the result of the dispute was her looking like something of a hero, and her attackers losing all credibility.

But conservatives aren't quite done with Shirley Sherrod just yet. They've started with the conclusion -- Sherrod must be wrong about something -- and are working backwards to rationalize the preconceived narrative. To that end, the American Spectator has a piece today accusing Sherrod of lying about sheriff Claude Screws lynching Bobby Hall, a Sherrod relative.

If you're unfamiliar with the case, it originated in Baker County, in rural southwest Georgia, where Sherrod is from. In 1943, Screws, the white sheriff, arrested a black man, Hall, who was accused of theft and taken to the local courthouse in handcuffs. Upon their arrival, Screws and his two white deputies mercilessly beat Hall, by some accounts for as long as 30 minutes. Screws then dragged Hall's unconscious body, feet first, through the courthouse square. Hall died soon after.

Screws was convicted on federal charges, but the Supreme Court ultimately overturned the conviction over inaccurate jury instructions.

In her speech, Sherrod explained, "Claude Screws lynched a black man." The American Spectator wants readers to believe she was lying -- because Screws didn't use a rope. Hall was beaten to death, but to writer Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan political aide, that apparently doesn't count.

As Paul Campos noted, "It's hard to understand how this kind of thing gets published in a world that includes editors, higher cognitive function, and/or common decency."

I'll just let Adam Serwer take it from here:

A lynching is an extrajudicial mob killing. No one who worked to document the practice of lynching in the South limited the definition of the term to solely include those lynchings that occurred using a rope. [...]

Now does three guys beating someone to death sound like an extrajudicial mob killing to you? Well Lord thinks it's merely "brutal fisticuffs" because under the definition of lynching he just made up, you need a rope to make it official -- I mean they didn't even set the guy on fire for crying out loud! It's almost as if instead of being a Southerner tortured by the knowledge of past racial injustice, he's someone who didn't know very much about lynching or segregation before he decided to call Shirley Sherrod a liar without bothering to use Google first.

The right's misconduct last week was nauseating, but the American Spectator's piece is beneath contempt.

—Steve Benen 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

WAMP WALKS BACK SECESSION TALK.... Late last week, Rep. Zach Wamp, a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee, raised a few eyebrows with remarks about secession. "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," Wamp told National Journal. Wamp went on to praise Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) for also raising concerns about the U.S. government's "oppressive hand."

Over the weekend, Wamp walked these remarks back, at least a little.

Republican Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee wants to make one thing clear: If elected governor, the Volunteer State will remain part of the United States.

"Of course we will not secede from the union," Wamp told reporters at a campaign stop in Franklin, Tennessee over the weekend, according to the Associated Press. "But we will also not have a governor who will cave in to Barack Obama."

Wamp went on to say, "We're going to be a proud partner as a member of the United States of America. But there needs to be a conflict between the states and the federal government."

A few things jump out here. First, I tend to be uncomfortable with any sentence that starts, "Of course we will not secede from the union, but..." It's the 21st century, for crying out loud.

Second, if Wamp is certain that secession is off the table -- how big of him -- why is it, exactly, that he said on Friday that state may be "forced to consider separation from this government"? Where does a sentiment like that come from?

And third, while federal-state tensions are inevitable in our system, to assume that there "needs to be a conflict" between the two is misguided.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

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.

* In case recent developments involving Colorado Republicans weren't quite nutty enough, U.S. Senate hopeful Ken Buck -- the Tea Party favorite -- has been caught lashing out at his Birther supporters. Buck was filmed telling a voter, "Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" He walked back the language yesterday.

* If you're inclined to believe Rasmussen, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) has the early lead in West Virginia's Senate special election, leading John Raese (R) by 16, 51% to 35%.

* In related news, the race in West Virginia keeps getting more crowded. Including Manchin, the frontrunner in November, there are now 15 candidates, including 11 Republicans. The parties' primaries are scheduled for Aug. 28.

* Missouri is home to one of the more competitive Senate contests this year, a contest Democrats consider a pick-up opportunity. At this point, however, the GOP has the edge -- a Mason-Dixon poll shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) leading Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), 48% to 42%.

* In case there were any doubts about how nervous Sen. John McCain (R) has been about his GOP primary against J.D. Hayworth, consider his FEC filings -- McCain spent more than $10.2 million in the second quarter alone.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) told the Christian Broadcasting Network that GOP extremist Sharron Angle is "not mainstream for Nevada or probably most any other place in America."

* And in 2012 news, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ruled out a presidential campaign, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) will likely launch his national campaign next year, regardless of what other potential candidates decide.

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

GOVERNOR TANCREDO?.... Late last week in Colorado, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) delivered a bizarre ultimatum to the Republican Party's two gubernatorial candidates: if they're trailing the Democratic nominee in the polls in mid-August, they should agree to drop out and let him jump in.

And what if the leading GOP gubernatorial candidates -- Scott McInnis and Dan Maes -- refuse to go along with Tancredo's scheme? The right-wing former House member said he'd run as a third-party candidate in the fall, seeking the nomination of hyper-conservative American Constitution Party.

As of today, the threat is apparently no longer operative -- Tancredo isn't waiting to see what the Republican candidates will do or what their chances will be in the fall.

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo is in the race for Colorado governor, he said this morning.

"I will officially announce at noon that I will seek the nomination of the constitution party," Tancredo told The Denver Post.

The Littleton Republican must file some papers with the Colorado Secretary of State and register as a member of the American Constitution Party, but then "he's ready to go," raising money, disclosing his platform and launching a website that is already put together.

It's not entirely clear at this point what prompted Tancredo to jump the gun, but it probably didn't help that he got into a screaming match this morning on a talk-radio show with state GOP chair Dick Wadhams, with both calling each other "liars."

It's already a bizarre race -- McInnis is the frontrunner, despite his humiliating plagiarism scandal -- but Tancredo will likely make this an even uglier circus. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) has been competitive in recent polls, but his odds will likely improve if Tancredo and the eventual GOP nominee split the right.

For his part, Tancredo, who sort ran for president in 2008, will no doubt love the added attention, though it's unclear if he will be able to shape a gubernatorial platform. His recent efforts have included a push to impeach President Obama and a desire to convince voters that the president is more dangerous than al Qaeda.

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

STILL A REPUBLICAN IN GOOD STANDING?.... One of the key takeaways of last week's Shirley Sherrod controversy was getting a better sense of who Andrew Breitbart is, and what his right-wing operation is all about. As Joshua Green noted last week, "[T]he moral ugliness of what's just happened is glaring, and it's hard for me to see how the media can justify continuing to treat Breitbart as simply a roguish provocateur. He's something much darker."

But as scandalous as Breitbart's misconduct was, it's apparently not quite scandalous enough to bother the Republican National Committee.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has a party fundraising event coming up in August that is scheduled to feature a very special guest: Conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart, according to a copy of the invitation exclusively obtained by TPM.

The fundraising event, billed as an "Election Countdown," will take place from August 12-14 in Beverly Hills, California, and will also feature other politicians such as California Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and Nevada Republican gubernatorial nominee Brian Sandoval. Steele and Breitbart are scheduled to co-headline a welcome reception on the first evening, August 12.

When TPM got in touch with RNC spokesman Doug Heye he confirmed the existence of the event, but wouldn't comment on Breitbart's scheduled participation.

Now, it's possible that the RNC invited Breitbart to be part of the campaign/fundraising event before he promoted a misleading video that smeared an innocent Department of Agriculture official.

But last week was a permanent credibility-killer for the conservative media activist, and for Michael Steele to pal around with him for some Beverly Hills cash is ridiculous. The RNC is shameless, but is it this shameless?

If the RNC invited Breitbart to be a special guest before his recent hatchet-job, the party can simply change course, and announce that he will no longer be participating. But to go ahead with the Breitbart/Steele headlining now would be crazy, even for the RNC.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

EVEN THE WEAK ENERGY BILL ISN'T A SURE-THING.... Late last week, we received genuinely awful news out of the Senate -- Democratic leaders, unable to put together an energy package that could overcome Republican obstructionism, were throwing in the towel. Instead of a meaningful, ambitious bill, the Senate would take up a scaled-back, watered-down, weakened package that wouldn't even try to address global warming and carbon emissions.

It was cold comfort, but at least the bill would have a few worthwhile provisions, including new oil company regulations and Home Star (the program formally known as Cash for Caulkers). The legislation would be a shell of its former self, but the Senate has to pass something, no matter how narrow, and if this is the best we can do in our broken legislative system, it's the best we can do.

But it's worth remembering that the bill likely to be unveiled today -- the one that's been stripped of its most important elements, just to ensure its passage -- might fail, too.

A Senate Democratic oil spill response and energy plan -- scaled back to help ensure passage -- may still hit rough waters on the floor this week.

The evolving package of new offshore rig safety rules and other updates to shore up federal oversight and corporate responsibility in preventing and responding to major oil spills may include provisions Republicans and pro-drilling Democrats argue could hurt small- and mid-sized independent companies that drill offshore.

If this sounds familiar, it's because we saw this debate start to unfold in May with the "Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act." Under existing law, there's a $75 million liability cap for oil spills. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) proposed increasing it to $10 billion, but Republicans refused. The liability issue never really went away, though, and is drawing fire all over again.

The leadership, at least for now, still sounds optimistic.

Reid has confidently predicted that the package would get 60 votes, noting that each of the four sections has bipartisan support.

The package also includes an oil-spill response bill approved with bipartisan support in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee late last month. It will also have bills either approved last week by the Senate Commerce Committee or which its members will take up likely Tuesday or Wednesday in a less formal gathering off the Senate floor.

This includes the so-called SHORE Act requiring the Interior Secretary to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before taking action related to offshore oil and gas development and giving NOAA unprecedented authority in the permitting process.

A second bill would expand the remedies and damages available for parties in maritime personal injury and wrongful death claims.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

'THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEWS AND PROPAGANDA'.... E.J. Dionne Jr. considers the smearing of Shirley Sherrod as a possible "turning point in American politics," but not for the reason that generated so much discussion last week.

For the Washington Post, the reason this is a "time for action" is the right has embraced "racial backlash politics" in the hopes of destroying President Obama, and news organizations -- treating extremist rants as "one side of the story" -- are accepting right-wing propaganda as legitimate.

Dionne laments the Obama administration's initial handling of the Sherrod matter, but noted that "the Obama team was reacting to a reality: the bludgeoning of mainstream journalism into looking timorously over its right shoulder and believing that 'balance' demands taking seriously whatever sludge the far right is pumping into the political waters."

This isn't a new phenomenon -- see 2000, presidential election of -- but it's getting worse.

There were no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills. But this false charge got so much coverage that an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll last August found that 45 percent of Americans thought the reform proposals would likely allow "the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly." That was the summer when support for reform was dropping precipitously. A straight-out lie influenced the course of one of our most important debates.

The traditional media are so petrified of being called "liberal" that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.

Thus did Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander ask this month why the paper had been slow to report on "the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party." Never mind that this is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting. It was aimed at doing what the doctored video Breitbart posted set out to do: convince Americans that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.

Dionne concludes that, in addition to the administration learning a lesson about overreacting to an inane media climate, "the mainstream media should stop being afraid of insisting on the difference between news and propaganda."

That's exceptionally good advice, which will almost certainly be ignored.

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

THE FIGHT OVER TAX CUTS THAT DIDN'T WORK.... By any sensible measure, the Bush tax cuts failed as an economic policy. When approved by Republicans, we were assured they would create robust economic growth -- which never materialized. We were supposed to see millions of new jobs -- which were never created. When passed nearly a decade ago, we were told the tax breaks would keep the budget in balance -- which actually turned into massive deficits.

But one of the bigger debates in Washington in the coming months will be over whether to keep the tax policies in place, despite their obvious failure.

When Republicans passed the tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy, they set the cuts to expire at the end of 2010. The point was to obscure the cuts' cost, play a dangerous budget game, and make it so that the GOP wouldn't have to pay for their own experiment.

While some Dems are wavering in the face of Republican demands, the Obama administration's line is the right one.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner pressed the case on Sunday for letting Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire later this year.

In appearances on two television programs, Mr. Geithner said that letting tax cuts expire for those who make $250,000 a year or more would affect 2 percent to 3 percent of all Americans. He dismissed concerns that the move could push a teetering economy back into recession and argued that it would demonstrate America's commitment to addressing its trillion-dollar budget deficit.

On "This Week" on ABC, he said, "We think that's the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world" that America is "willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long-term deficits."

In other words, the line Obama took during the presidential campaign is the same line the administration supports now. If we want to talk about mandates, this is the tax policy the public endorsed.

The NYT noted over the weekend that the issue will "move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets under way in earnest."

Negotiations are expected to start in the Senate, where it is hardest for Democrats to advance legislation because of Republican filibusters. But some Democrats say a fallback plan would be to have their larger majority in the House approve a continuation of the lower rates just for the middle class right before the election, almost daring Republicans to oppose them.

In that case, Democrats say, Republicans who opposed the bill would be blocking a tax cut for more than 95 percent of Americans to defend tax cuts for a relatively few wealthy households.

Every time Republicans complain, the same answer should come to mind -- it was their idea for the cuts to expire. Maybe if the GOP hadn't left a $1.3 trillion deficit for Democrats to clean up, it'd be easier to talk about keeping more of the tax breaks Republicans love so much.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

WIKILEAKS AND AFGHANISTAN -- WHAT WE'VE LEARNED.... We knew the blockbuster story would come eventually; we just didn't know when or what revelations it might include. But this morning, the New York Times and the UK's Guardian report on tens of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, revealed through Wikileaks.

There's no shortage of angles here, but I found Michael Crowley's take pretty compelling.

The Obama White House is furious this morning about the massive leak of military documents chronicling the unvarnished truth about the Afghanistan war. At the same time, though, there must be a certain sense of relief around the West Wing. When they first learned that the whistleblower website WikiLeaks had given the New York Times, among others, an astonishing 92,0000 documents, senior Obama officials must have been in a panic about what terrible secrets might emerge. But it turns out that most of the terrible aspects of the Afghanistan war -- at least those detailed by this trove of insider accounts -- are already pretty well known.

It's never been a secret, for instance, that the Taliban have proven more resilient than anyone expected; that U.S. special forces hunt and eliminate Taliban leaders without the courtesy of a fair trial; that elements within our putative ally Pakistan play a sinister double game with radical Islamists; that our troops kill innocent Afghans on a regular basis. It's not even a secret, as anyone familiar with the Pat Tillman saga knows, that the military sometimes manipulates facts about the war.

The trove of leaked documents affirms all these facts. And in their texture and detail--which it will take some time for other new outlets to sift in full--certainly offer a new appreciation for how difficult the war effort is. But based on their presentation by the news organizations given time by Wikileaks to study them before their release, the documents don't seem to reveal fundamental new truths.

That sounds about right. With 92,000 pages of materials documents being made public, I wouldn't be surprised if some additional revelations came to light, beyond what's been published in the media this morning, but for now, most of what we're learning seems to confirm what's already been reported, or is a little out-dated. Indeed, the documents cover January 2004 to December 2009, pre-dating the overhaul of U.S. policy announced by the White House late last year.

In the case of Pakistan's military spy service lending support to the Afghan insurgency, for example, that's important -- it's the lede of the NYT piece today -- but it's something we already knew. In fact, the president has already talked about it publicly, and more importantly, it's a dynamic that's improved of late, with Pakistani officials having moved away from the Taliban earlier this year.

This isn't to say it's a non-story, and there are some revelations that seem new. U.S. drone missions have apparently crashed far more than we'd been led to believe, for example, and the Taliban has heat-seeking missiles that we hadn't heard about. And while details like these clearly matter, they're not necessarily the kind of disclosures that are likely to fundamentally change the debate.

But for the administration, it may not be the specific details that matter most. Rather, this may be more of a sum-greater-than-parts situation -- the larger revelations may not reframe the entire conflict, but taken together, they still paint a portrait of a conflict that's gone very poorly for the last several years. If the administration's goal is to bolster public confidence in the mission, today certainly won't help.

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

A 'SLAP IN THE FACE' -- IN 1981.... Charles Krauthammer had a surprisingly interesting column a couple of weeks ago, some of which I even found vaguely persuasive (an odd feeling given its author). But one paragraph in particular got me thinking.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: "For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over" -- and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo -- the list is long.

Just six months after Reagan's inauguration, was the "honeymoon" really perceived as over between him and the "new right"? A friend of mine dug up the article Krauthammer referenced, and it's almost amusing to read nearly three decades later.

It ran on July 21, 1981 (obviously, no link available), and it came in response to conservative outrage over the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For some of the most vocal leaders of the New Right movement, the nomination was the latest in a series of slights and insults they have suffered from Reagan advisers which raise questions in their minds about whether the president is really their kind of conservative.

"The White House slapped us in the face," says Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail expert. "The White House is saying you don't have a constituency we're concerned about. We don't care about you."

The "New Right" was defined, at the time, as breaking with the Goldwater old-guard and expanding the GOP with outreach to the fledgling religious right and use of "sophisticated campaign techniques," such as direct mail.

And six months in, the leaders of this faction weren't happy. The O'Connor nomination made them livid, and conservatives grew all the more frustrated when, despite an aggressive campaign involving "letters and telegrams," the right couldn't even find Republican senators willing to come out publicly against the nominee. (O'Connor was confirmed 99 to 0.)

But the anger and frustration was more expansive than one high court nomination. "In terms of having any real influence with the Reagan administration, we just haven't had any," Howard Phillips, at the time the head of the Conservative Caucus, said. "All they've done is throw us a few bones to keep the dogs from biting their heels."

The right was angry when George H.W. Bush, perceived as a moderate, was added to the 1980 ticket. Conservatives were angrier still when James Baker became Reagan's chief of staff -- a man activists on the right considered overly pragmatic and insufficiently conservative.

And by this time 29 years ago, conservatives could hardly contain their disappointment. Leaders on the right began complaining regularly that they "won the election, but lost the White House." Paul Weyrich questioned whether the relationship between his conservative allies and the Reagan administration was "salvageable."

And all of this came before Reagan raised taxes, extended "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants, expanded the size of the federal bureaucracy, tripled the deficit, negotiated with our most hated enemy without preconditions -- and became the single most revered figure in Republican circles of the 20th century, up to and including the RNC describing him, in all seriousness, as Ronaldus Magnus.

I guess the moral of the story is that perceptions can change over time.

—Steve Benen 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

HARRY REID AND DAN CHOI AT NN 2010.... If you missed it, this was one of the more important and memorable moments from this year's Netroots Nation conference.

I don't doubt Harry Reid's sincerity on this for a second, and if he can get this done, I believe he will.

But time's running out, and if DADT repeal doesn't get finished this year, it may not happen for a very long time.

—Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (3)

ANGLE VS. ANGLE.... It appears that Sharron Angle, the extremist Senate candidate in Nevada, is beginning to realize that her own views are too radical to get elected. So, she apparently feels compelled to start covering them up, hoping voters don't notice.

Speaking at a right-wing gathering in Las Vegas yesterday, the Republican Senate hopeful shared some thoughts on Social Security policy, saying she wants to see the government pay back the $2.5 trillion that's been "raided and pillaged out of the Social Security fund." More importantly, Angle insisted, "I've never said I want to eliminate, I always said I want to save Social Security by paying back."

I'm including this video to help highlight just how false her claim really is. Now that she's in the general election, Angle wants voters to believe she never intended to "eliminate" Social Security. But during the primary, Angle wasn't vague about her position: "We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized.... It can't be fixed."

Does she assume that these tapes no longer exist?

It's a reminder, though, that Angle is following Rand Paul's path -- honest radicalism is an electoral loser. If an extremist wants to get elected, he/she is going to have to pretend to have mainstream beliefs. If that means lying, and hoping voters are foolish enough to fall for it, so be it.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

A CORPORATE CULTURE AND LOSING 'A SENSE OF SHAME'.... If you read one piece today, make it Dana Milbank's Washington Post item on the push and pull between corporate demands and government safeguards. It's an important column -- and it doesn't even include the usually-obligatory "both sides are bad" caveat.

What set Milbank off, for good reason, was Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship's appearance at the National Press Club this week. Blankenship is well known as one of the nation's most aggressive anti-union conservative voices, who rejects both the need for safety regulations and the science behind global warming. Blankenship's national notoriety grew in April when an explosion at one of his mines killed 29 miners, a tragedy that helped expose Massey's thousands of safety violations and reckless business practices.

This week, Blankenship told reporters that what the industry needs is not more oversight, but less. "We need to let businesses function as businesses," he said, with the government "leaving it alone." Legal safeguards, Blankenship added, are "impeding" businesses' "ability to pursue their careers, or their happiness." Milbank had seen enough.

Poor CEO Blankenship. That mean federal government is not allowing him to pursue his happiness, just because his employees are dead. It brings to mind the sad plight of the BP CEO, Tony Hayward, who visited the Gulf Coast that his company has wrecked and complained that "I'd like my life back." Happily, Hayward got his wish and returned to yachting.

It's easy to paint Blankenship as a villain, with his moustache, double chin and rough edges (he twice lamented the "abstract poverty" in the world). But his theme -- and his complete absence of corporate responsibility -- is very much the message corporate America has adopted in this mid-term campaign year: If you've got a problem, blame the government.

Consider the efforts this month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, once a center of moderate Republicanism that worked with both parties but now a sort of radicalized corporate Tea Party, spending $75 million this fall mostly to defeat Democrats. The chairman of the group's board -- on which Blankenship served until recently -- accused the Obama administration and congressional Democrats of a "general attack on our free enterprise system." Specifically, the chamber accused the Democrats of "an ill-advised course of government expansion, major tax increases, massive deficits, and job-destroying regulations."

Taxes? The nonpartisan Tax Foundation in May described Americans' tax burden in 2009 as the lowest since 1959. Job-destroying regulations? The lack of regulation on Wall Street led to a financial collapse that killed millions of jobs. Massive deficits? One of the biggest causes of the gap is the $800 billion stimulus package supported by -- wait for it -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And the chamber wants the government to spend even more: It demands that Congress "quickly pass a multiyear federal surface transportation bill." That would costs hundreds of billions more. And let's not forget the chamber's desire to "get the money from the government" to help pay for the BP oil cleanup.

Milbank didn't emphasize the partisan/electoral considerations here, but there's no mystery -- Republicans are proud to stand on the wrong side of the fight. Indeed, they brag about it. Blankenship wants the government not to bother unsafe coal mine operators, and the GOP agrees. BP was responsible for the worst oil spill in American history, and the GOP took its side. Wall Street's irresponsibility nearly collapsed the global financial system, and when Democrats demanded new accountability, the GOP took their orders from industry lobbyists.

The column concludes that the "corporate culture" has "lost its sense of shame." By any reasonable measure, this will get considerably worse if that shameless "corporate culture" is empowered by a new Republican majority next year that intends to give Blankenship and his ilk everything they could ask for.

—Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

'WE WILL REGRET IT'.... One of the more dramatic disappointments of the year is the apparent failure of comprehensive energy/climate reform*, which seemed to fail with a whimper this week. The Senate Democratic leadership felt like it had no choice but to scrap the effort, at least for now, in the face of an unyielding Republican filibuster.

Thomas Friedman spreads the blame around today, before concluding, "We will regret it." But instead of a traditional column, Friedman publishes a variety of items -- round-up style -- a couple of which stood out for me.

For example, our global competitors are thinking ahead while we're not:

Just as the U.S. Senate was abandoning plans for a U.S. cap-and-trade system, this article ran in The China Daily: "BEIJING — The country is set to begin domestic carbon trading programs during its 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015) to help it meet its 2020 carbon intensity target. The decision was made at a closed-door meeting chaired by Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission ... Putting a price on carbon is a crucial step for the country to employ the market to reduce its carbon emissions and genuinely shift to a low-carbon economy, industry analysts said."

Domestic industries are ready to expand, but they can't because our Senate is broken:

A day before the climate bill went down, Lew Hay, the C.E.O. of NextEra Energy, which owns Florida Power & Light, one of the nation's biggest utilities, e-mailed to say that if the Senate would set a price on carbon and requirements for renewal energy, utilities like his would have the price certainty they need to make the big next-generation investments, including nuclear. "If we invest an additional $3 billion a year or so on clean energy, that's roughly 50,000 jobs over the next five years," said Hay. (Say goodbye to that.)

And hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham wrote some wise words in a letter to investors:

"Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible 'conspiracy theory': the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: "Have they no grandchildren?"

* fixed

—Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

OBAMA BORROWS FROM MADDOW IN NETROOTS APPEAL.... In a bit of a surprise yesterday afternoon, attendees at this year's Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas heard a pre-recorded message from President Obama. It was a reminder that as the midterms draw closer -- 100 days until Election Day -- Democratic leaders will be making a more concerted effort to appeal to progressives.

As for the president's message, it seemed implicit that the White House understands liberal frustration with the pace of progress, but Obama wants to remind the left "to consider all that we've accomplished so far."

At that point, the video stopped showing the president, and started showing a segment from "The Rachel Maddow Show," aired about a month ago. It showed the host pointing to some of the breakthrough accomplishments of the last 18 months: Wall Street reform, the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, S-CHIP expansion, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, nuclear arms deal with Russia, a new global nonproliferation initiative, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, dismantled the MMS, and student loan reform.

The list didn't include, by the way, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, expanded stem-cell research, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years. These were probably left out of the litany to save time, which in and of itself seems significant -- the accomplishments are so plentiful, there's just not enough time in a four-minute presentation to mention them all.

The fact that the White House made use of the Maddow clip was also an interesting move. The president could have just as easily read the same list of successes himself, but the video instead relied on an outside voice to lend the accomplishments more objective credibility. That Rachel is probably more popular with many NN attendees right now than the president didn't hurt, either.

It's also worth noting that the clip wasn't just about Obama taking a victory lap. The president emphasized that "we're not done," and vowed to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Which led to the midterm pitch: "We're moving America forward. When we've come this far, we can't afford to slide back. And that's the choice America faces this November. Between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, and moving forward with policies that are leading us out. I don't need to tell you that. What I'm asking you is to keep making your voices heard. To keep holding me accountable. To keep up the fight. Change is hard, but if we've learned anything these past 18 months, it's that change is possible. It's possible when folks like you remember the fundamental truth of our democracy: that change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up. It comes from the Netroots, the grassroots, every American who loves their country and believes they can make a difference. We've done it before. We can do it again. Let's finish what we've started."

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

OBAMA SHINES A BRIGHT LIGHT ON BOEHNER'S 'IDEAS' ON JOBS.... It was largely overlooked during a busy media week, but House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's been reluctant to talk about his party's policy agenda in detail, was willing to outline three measures he'd pursue as Speaker to create American jobs. The list made it painfully clear -- to anyone who takes substance even a little seriously -- that Boehner has no idea what he's talking about.

In fact, the remarks were so patently ridiculous, President Obama devoted much of his weekly address to shining a bright light on Boehner's understanding of job creation.

After talking in some detail about his own approach to economic growth, Obama warned against going back "to the same ideas that created this mess in the first place," adding, "Unfortunately, those are the ideas we keep hearing from our friends in the other party."

"This week, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives offered his plan to create jobs," the president explained. "It's a plan that's surprisingly short, and sadly familiar. First, he would repeal health insurance reform, which would take away tax credits from millions of small business owners, and take us back to the days when insurance companies had free rein to drop coverage and jack up premiums. Second, he would say no to new investments in clean energy, after his party already voted against the clean energy tax credits and loans that are creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of new businesses. And third, even though his party voted against tax cuts for middle-class families, he would permanently keep in place the tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans - the same tax cuts that have added hundreds of billions to our debt.

"These are not new ideas. They are the same policies that led us into this recession. They will not create jobs; they will kill them. They will not reduce our deficit; they will add $1 trillion to our deficit. They will take us backward at a time when we need to keep America moving forward."

If you listen really carefully at the 3:44 mark, you'll notice that the president actually chuckles, just a little, when describing just how ridiculous Boehner's approach to job creation really is.

That's what it has come to in 2010 -- the Republican agenda is so truly awful, it's hard to describe it without finding it literally comical.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

THE RETURN OF THE GOP'S SECESSION TALK.... The Republican Party's flirtation with political radicalism has been one of the more disturbing developments of the last 18 months. Rhetoric and arguments that were once considered extreme -- if not entirely beyond the norms of American mainstream discourse -- have become almost routine, not just with the Republican base, but with Republican lawmakers and officials.

But perhaps nothing -- not even frequent Republican efforts to compare the president to Hitler -- reflects GOP radicalism more than talk of secession.

This first popped up in earnest in April 2009, when Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) complained that the United States government has "become oppressive in ... its interference with the affairs of our state." He added, "We think it's time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas." Soon after, Perry said he wasn't advocating secession, "but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

A year later, we're hearing similar talk in Tennessee.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-03) suggested TN and other states may have to consider seceding from the union if the federal government does not change its ways regarding mandates.

"I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," said Wamp during an interview with Hotline OnCall. [...]

"Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp, who is competing with Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam (R) and LG Ron Ramsey (R) for the GOP nod in the race to replace TN Gov. Phil Bredesen (D).

Wamp isn't just some crazy person on talk radio -- he's an eight-term member of Congress who hopes to be the chief executive of a state next year.

To be sure, the right-wing congressman has a history of saying bizarre things. A month ago, Wamp suggested publicly that improvements to Chattanooga's economy were a divine reward from God for the city's lack of abortion clinics. The man has even said he sleeps with a gun, just in case.

But dabbling in Civil War talk is irresponsible, and frankly, dangerous. Those who love the United States should not go around carelessly threatening to secede from it. Even by modern GOP standards, this is just crazy.

If our modern politics were more grounded, we'd hear widespread denunciations of Wamp's talk, and he'd be forced to apologize for such extremism. In 2010, however, Wamp will face no punishment at all, and his gubernatorial campaign will probably not be affected, since he's appealing to the extremist elements of his party base anyway.

Be afraid.

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

COMPARING THE TEA PARTIERS TO JESUS (SERIOUSLY).... Prominent right-wing activist David Barton recently equated anti-government zealots in the so-called Tea Party "movement" to the Founding Fathers. Yesterday, Barton went a little further, comparing the far-right activists to Jesus Christ. Seriously.

Kyle, the irreplaceable blogger at Right Wing Watch, posted the audio clip and transcribed Barton's comments on a right-wing radio program. Barton told listeners:

"[T]he media has decided to take on the Tea Party and whack 'em because really, the Tea Party, if they have their way, the liberal left is going to be on the outside in this thing.

"So the best you can do is try to villainize these guys. You know, when Jesus got a really big following, they started saying 'oh, he's a wine-bibber, he's a glutton,' they started all the name-calling and finger-pointing; you know, he's trying to install himself as king and he's going to kick out Caesar, trying to get the Romans stirred up.

"So they used all these ridiculous charges and so this is nothing new."

Got that? Tea Party extremism has become controversial ... just like Jesus was controversial. For Christians, Jesus was sent by God to bring salvation to humanity. Tea Partiers, meanwhile, are enraged about taxes and the president's birth certificate. How is it that I never noticed the similarities until now?

And who's David Barton? If the name isn't familiar to you, he's worth reading up on. Barton became a celebrity in the religious right in the '90s, serving as a pseudo-historian trying to convince fellow activists to reject the separation of church and state. Objective analysis of Barton's materials found glaring factual errors -- which often happens when someone pretends to be a historian.

More recently, Barton helped write the absurd Texas curriculum standards, despite his lack of credentials; became a faculty member at Glenn Beck's "university"; became a close political ally of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R); and was the subject of a fairly devastating Keith Olbermann segment.

And now he's publicly equating Tea Partiers with Jesus. The hilarity never ends.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a disturbing trend in religious bigotry in the U.S. While the right-wing backlash against a Muslim community center in Manhattan has generated considerable attention, Evan McMorris-Santoro reported this week that similar ugly disputes are breaking out in a wide variety of communities.

Earlier this week, we delved into the growing anti-Muslim sentiment from conservatives -- often taking the form of outraged opposition to the construction of new mosques and Islamic cultural centers around the country. We offered three examples -- the vitriol aimed cultural centers set to be built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Riverside County, California, and, of course, New York City -- to show that the real problem conservatives have with new buildings for Muslims to worship in isn't their proximity Ground Zero, but the very idea of new mosques themselves.

In the following days, reader emails poured in offering more examples of anti-mosque protests in all corners of the country. What's particularly interesting is it's not just new mosque construction that angers the right -- even the idea of Muslims reusing existing, non-mosque-looking buildings seems to be a step too far for many Americans.

The bigotry on display is blatant enough to be disgusting. A Muslim group on Staten Island, for example, is planning to convert an old convent into a mosque, prompting one local resident to tell a reporter, "We just want to leave our neighborhood the way it is -- Christian, Catholic."

The convent ultimately recanted its agreement to sell the facility to the Muslim group.

It is the 21st century, by the way. I just thought I'd mention that.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed a law earlier this month allowing locals to carry loaded firearms to services in houses of worship, as part of a congregation's "security force." This week, the executive director of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops said guns will not be welcome in their churches. This will not run afoul of the new state law, which allows houses of worship to impose their own restrictions.

* Did Rupert Murdoch kill Beliefnet, one of the web's most popular and useful faith-based sites? Apparently so.

* The generation that created the religious right movement now has grown children -- who don't necessarily agree with their parents' rigid theocratic worldview. (thanks to D.J. for the tip)

—Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

RANGEL'S IN TROUBLE, BUT ENSIGN'S IN EVEN WORSE SHAPE.... The Washington Post has run a couple of items over the last day noting the ethics allegations surrounding Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). Today's article noted that Rangel's intention to fight the charges "could wind up tarnishing the whole party just weeks before the midterm elections."

There's no doubt that the Rangel ethics matter is serious. It may even be time for the 20-term lawmaker to gracefully step aside before the probe permanently tarnishes his legacy.

But while the ethics investigation into a House Democrat has generated considerable attention, you may not have heard that a conservative Republican senator conceded yesterday that he's cooperating with a federal criminal investigation of another conservative Republican senator.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has turned over e-mails to federal authorities investigating Sen. John Ensign's extramarital affair with a campaign aide, the latest sign that the criminal probe into the embattled Nevada Republican is picking up steam.

Coburn told POLITICO that he is cooperating with the Justice Department in the investigation of Ensign, and says he's willing to submit himself to an interview with the FBI or Senate Select Committee on Ethics, which is conducting a parallel investigation into whether Ensign broke Senate rules.

"We've given them everything they wanted," Coburn said, referring to the Justice Department.

That's the right move for Coburn. A year ago, the right-wing Oklahoman suggested he might not cooperate, arguig that he, as a medical professional, considered Ensign his patient. (Given that Coburn is an OB-GYN, the argument defied any reasonable understanding of logic and anatomy.)

Coburn wisely decided not to pursue this. Rather than fighting, the Oklahoma Republican reportedly turned over more than 1,200 pages of documents to the Justice Department.

Coburn's revelations -- made late on a Friday afternoon -- come on the heels of news that Ensign's aides have told investigators that the senator knew he was violating ethics rules on lobbying restrictions, but did it anyway.

I continue to marvel at this scandal. Here we have John Ensign, a "family values" conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend's wife, while condemning others' moral failings. Ensign's 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.

And yet, there's no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media's fascinated with Charlie Rangel.

Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI.

Why would Rangel "tarnish his whole party" in an election year, while Ensign's sex-ethics-corruption scandal be deemed irrelevant to the Republican Party?

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

NOTHING 'REMARKABLE OR PARTICULARLY INTERESTING' ABOUT BUSINESS COMPLAINTS.... For about a decade, corporate America shaped the business landscape -- deregulation, tax breaks, easy money -- to its liking. The promised prosperity never materialized, and for most of the country, it was a lost decade.

The Obama administration is trying a new approach, and as Daniel Gross noted the other day, corporate America has begun whining incessantly, exhibiting "an unseemly combination of myopia and ingratitude."

After an eight-year slumber, the Environmental Protection Agency is again issuing regulations. Two years after an appalling financial debacle, Congress has finally moved to regulate Wall Street. But to hear our nation's corporate chieftains tell it, it's enough to plunge us back into recession. "We have to become an industrial powerhouse again, but you don't do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in sync," lamented GE CEO Jeff Immelt in a recent speech.

On July 12, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Business held a "Jobs for America" summit. While President Obama met with CEOs at the White House, the summiteers called for -- wait for it! -- cutting taxes for companies, extending tax cuts for the wealthy, and opening up federal areas for resource exploration.

I was pleased to see Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner take a dismissive attitude of the complaints this week.

"Businesses always want their taxes lower and always want to live with low regulation," Geithner said. "There is nothing remarkable, or particularly interesting frankly, that we're in the midst of another debate, which you hear in almost any administration, with people looking for ways to help affect the outcome on the basic path of regulation and taxes."

"Every business in America today is in a much better position than they were, not just 18 months ago, but than I think many of them expected to be at this point," Geithner said at a breakfast with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

Geithner acknowledged that there is some uncertainty in the private sector for business, but said it is caused mainly by "deep scars" still left over from the financial crisis of late 2008.

Asked about the Business Roundtable's 54-page memo, asking for a return to a regulatory environment more in line with the Bush era, the Treasury Secretary described it as "a long, diffuse list of familiar concerns, again reflecting nothing remarkable … in the fact that business would like to operate with fewer restrictions."

Geithner's received some warranted criticism of late, but on this, I like his attitude.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

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

* In the Gulf: "Ships relaying the sights and sounds from BP's broken oil well stood fast Friday as the leftovers of Tropical Storm Bonnie blew straight for the spill site, threatening to force a full evacuation that would leave engineers clueless about whether a makeshift cap on the gusher was holding."

* Oh my: "Long before an eruption of gas turned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig into a fireball, an alarm system designed to alert the crew and prevent combustible gases from reaching potential sources of ignition had been deliberately disabled, the former chief electronics technician on the rig testified Friday."

* European banks fared better than expected in their "stress tests."

* As the U.S. prepares for joint military drills with South Korea, North Korea is threatening a "physical response."

* Why congressional Republicans continue to cozy up to Wall Street is a mystery: "The government's pay czar announced Friday that 17 companies benefiting from federal bailout money handed out $1.6 billion in excess executive pay at the height of the financial crisis. The firms include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America."

* As Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai considers outreach his fellow Pashtuns in the insurgency, he's losing one-time allies.

* With Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on board, there are now three Senate Republicans prepared to support Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination.

* President Obama takes a brief victory lap after some legislative breakthroughs this week.

* If you want to talk about austerity, let's talk about the Pentagon.

* Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), facing serious ethics allegations, doesn't know how to say "no comment."

* Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) sounds cautiously optimistic about New START ratification.

* We certainly should do better than sixth: "[T]he U.S. now ranks sixth in the world in terms of the percent of the population with college credentials."

* R.I.P., Daniel Schorr.

* The lunatics from the Westboro Baptist "Church" descended on Comic Con in San Diego this week. I greatly enjoyed the counter-protest; those are my kind of folks (the geeks, not the bigots).

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

NO PULITZERS FOR YOU.... It occurs to me that this has not been a stellar week for the American political media. The Shirley Sherrod story was, of course, a humiliating fiasco for a lot of people and institutions, but it was especially humiliating for Fox News, and should serve as a permanent credibility killer for right-wing activist Andrew Breitbart.

But there were other serious missteps. Consider some of the developments of the last few days:

* Just days after Breitbart published misleading garbage, and he admitted to not having done any due diligence or used any professional standards, Politico named the activist one of the nation's "50 Politicos to Watch." Breitbart is one of those special few, Politico said, who "set this city's agenda." The accompanying profile -- in the "scenemakers" category -- included quotes about his "mystique" and "wit."

* Politico Executive Editor Jim VandeiHei equated Breitbart with the Huffington Post, only one of which feature actual reporters, editors, and professional standards. He went on to equate MSNBC and Fox News, which is as common as it is misguided.

* Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Strong, and The Daily Caller became obsessed with a listserv made up of center-left writers, reporters, academics, and wonks. In the process, they ran pieces that "have misstated fact, misled readers, and omitted evidence that would contradict" the agreed-upon conservative thesis. [Disclosure: I was a member of said listserv.]

* Politico made a candid concession about its interest in traffic. Greg Sargent summarized, "This is actually an important concession: Frivolous items about Sarah Palin do degrade our discourse, but we need to do them, because the simple fact is that people click on them in droves."

When we consider complaints about the "cravenness of the legitimate press," it's weeks like this one that stand out as especially egregious. Indeed, there's no real sense that major outlets realize they've erred, that those with no credibility deserve to be treated accordingly, etc.

When the Obama administration evaluated its handling of the Sherrod matter, and realized it had made a mistake, it did what many news outlets didn't -- it apologized and tried to set things right. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday:

"Just as the Department of Agriculture and this Administration will review its actions, I also hope this starts a conversation in the media about how it operates."

I'm not optimistic.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

INHOFE STILL SEES 'GLOBAL COOLING'.... It happens every year. Winter comes, snow falls, and right-wing nuts start insisting that cold weather necessarily disproves global warming.

And perhaps no nut is as aggressive in his denialism than Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who continues to believe winters constitute evidence against climate change. But if the confused conservative senator considers January reason enough to reject the science behind global warming, what does he think of late July? ABC's Jonathan Karl asked him.

...Washington is sweating under record heat. Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that, globally, 2010 is the hottest year on record since record-keeping began in 1880.

Inhofe was still not deterred when ABC's Jon Karl invited the Oklahoma Republican to talk about the issue outside the Capitol building, in 95-degree, humid July heat.

"I say the same thing we said back in January and February when we had the coldest winter in a long time," said Inhofe, from a shady spot in front of the Capitol Building. ... "We're in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into a cooling period," he said.

And Inhofe would be entirely right, if by "all the scientists," he meant "all the lobbyists representing the oil and coal industries."

Karl talked to the chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, who was unequivocal. "What I don't understand is when you see evidence, that looks at all those indicators in one place, on one figure, decrease in glaciers, I don't see how any reasonable person can look at that and not agree that the globe is warming," Thomas Peterson said. "The indicators are irrefutable."

As for Inhofe's bizarre belief in global cooling, take a moment to consider this David Leonhardt piece from the other day.

All the while, the risks and costs of climate change grow. Sea levels are rising faster than scientists predicted just a few years ago. Himalayan glaciers are melting. In the American West, pine beetles (which struggle to survive the cold) are multiplying and killing trees.

According to NASA, 2010 is on course to be the planet's hottest year since records started in 1880. The current top 10, in descending order, are: 2005, 2007, 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2004, 2001 and 2008.

The only thing more dangerous than Jim Inhofe's allergy to reason is a Senate that mandates supermajorities to approve all public policy. If the chamber operated the way it was designed and intended to operate -- the way every legislative body on the planet functions -- it could approve legislation to deal with the climate crisis. Instead, with a Senate featuring 59 Democrats, Inhofe's stupidity rules the day.

The consequences will be severe. History will not be kind.

—Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

THERE'S THAT 'I' WORD AGAIN.... The far-right Washington Times published two op-eds, on the same page, on the same day, demanding the impeachment of President Obama. One was from the perpetually deranged Jeffrey Kuhner, who insisted, "Obama has betrayed the American people. Impeachment is the only answer. This usurper must fall."

The other was from Tom Tancredo, the former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, and apparent Colorado gubernatorial candidate.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents. [...]

Mr. Obama's refusal to live up to his own oath of office -- which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion - requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.

Keep in mind, Fox News found this insanity worth promoting.

All of this, of course, brings me back to a point that I continue to ponder -- how seriously are Republicans prepared to take this whole impeachment idea?

Obviously, President Obama hasn't committed any crimes, and there are no sane reasons for anyone to try to impeach him. But House Republicans have been known to take some stupendously crazy steps, so it's hardly unreasonable to ask now -- before the election.

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

So, are Republicans prepared to also take impeachment off the table in advance of these midterm elections? Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) has raised the specter of impeachment. So has Michele Bachmann, who recently said, "Everywhere I go, people ask me, 'Michele, can we impeach the president?'" Not surprisingly, Fox News is on board, too. Now, the Washington Times is running multiple op-eds on the subject.

Is it on the table for 2011 or not? Voters should know what to expect from the next Congress. At this point, there's no reason for the GOP to avoid the question -- they're the ones who brought it up, and apparently keep bringing it up. So, what's it going to be?

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (67)

THE GOP'S BACK-DOOR REPEAL SCHEME.... Congressional Republicans still like to talk up the idea of "repealing" the Affordable Care Act, but no one takes this especially seriously. Even if the GOP claimed a House majority next year, Republicans could huff and puff, but they couldn't blow the law down. They'd need 60 votes in the Senate and a Republican president. At least in 2011, they'll have neither.

But notice that GOP rhetoric of late has emphasized a related-but-separate point. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) this week continued to blather on about "repeal and replace," but he also told attendees to a town-hall meeting that he has a back-up plan. If repeal fails, Boehner said, "They're not going to get one dime from us to hire these new federal employees to run this."

This might sound like hollow bravado, but it's important. I alluded to this last weekend, and today Brian Beutler fills in the gaps with an important report.

"The most serious, yet realistic, possibility is precisely the one that you're suggesting: what the Republicans can do through appropriations bills," says Paul van de Water, a health care expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In short, implementing the health care law costs money. "Some money was provided in the health reform bill itself, but not by any means all the administrative funding that will be needed," van de Water said. "If HHS and Treasury don't get appropriations they need to run the law well, that could be a real problem. It's not sexy but it's serious."

Norm Ornstein told Brian, "In theory [they] could cut the funding 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent. The problem is, you could do a lot of damage in a lot of different places." That could include Republicans deciding to "refuse to fund the entire Labor-HHS appropriations bill, or .. .pass an appropriation for Labor-HHS that does not include any funds for implementation of the health care plan."

Why haven't we heard about this before? In part because it has no modern precedent. After passage of milestone legislation like Social Security and Medicare, Republicans probably would have loved to try to defund the programs, but a) there were still GOP moderates at the time; and b) voters didn't reward Republicans by giving them control after these bedrock programs became law.

We'll see how all of this shakes out -- there's still a chance Republicans won't get a majority in either chamber -- but I wouldn't be too surprised if this pushed a Democratic White House and a GOP House to an impasse that could, as we talked about on Sunday, produce a government shutdown, a la 1995.

—Steve Benen 1:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

KARL ROVE AND A FEW BILLIONAIRES WALK INTO A BAR.... About a month ago, a right-wing outfit called American Crossroads, created by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to destroy Democratic campaigns, reported on its recent fundraising. After raising over $1 million in start-up funds, the GOP campaign operation had collected only $200.

While the figure prompted some guffaws, the delight on the left was short-lived -- because that initial fundraising report proved to be misleading. Rove's operation has actually collected $4.7 million since its launch, and a spinoff entity called American Crossroads GPS pulled in $5.1 million in June. All of these resources will go towards smearing key Democratic candidates over the next 100 days.

American Crossroads GPS can legally hide its donors, while the regular ol' American Crossroads is required to report on its contributions and expenditures. So, while secrecy rules the day for the spinoff operation, Justin Elliott reports on who's filling the coffers of Rove's original campaign operation.

Virtually all of the $4.7 million raised by Karl Rove's new conservative outfit was contributed by just four billionaires, three of whom are based in Dallas, Texas, and two of whom made their fortune in the oil and gas industry. [...]

Salon's review of its IRS filings show that four billionaires have contributed 97 percent of the $4.7 million it has raised to date. There are no limits on how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to 527 groups.

When Rove's attack entity was launched, it was billed as a "grassroots" effort. If you count for conservative, billionaire oil men as "grassroots," then American Crossroads is living up to its billing.

Also note, the original idea was for the outfit to raise $50 million for anti-Democratic attack ads. Kenneth Vogel reported this week, the goal was likely be easily surpassed: "A spokesman on Tuesday said American Crossroads GPS, combined with its parent group, intended to raise a combined total of 'approximately $50 million' to attack Democrats and boost Republicans headed into the 2010 midterm elections. But that seems to be a downgrading of ambitions, given that when American Crossroads publicly launched it boasted that it would raise between $50 million and $60 million, while the spin-off has set a budget of $43 million, according to the 'concept paper.'"

Democrats can take some comfort in the RNC's humiliating problems, but Rove and his cohorts are in a position to make up the difference. They won't legally be able to coordinate with the parties, but they'll be smearing Democrats relentlessly over the next couple of months, thanks to unchecked and unlimited contributions from billionaires to a shadowy GOP operation.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

MADDOW 1, O'REILLY 0.... On Wednesday night's episode, Rachel Maddow talked about Fox News' role in the Shirley Sherrod matter. "This is what Fox News does," she explained. "This is how they are different from other news organizations. Just like the ACORN controversy, Fox knows they have a role in this dance. That's not new; that's not actually even interesting about this scandal. Fox does what Fox does."

Bill O'Reilly responded on his Fox News program, "Which is kick your network's butt every single night, madam. And you have to be kidding me with this 'fake ACORN scandal' stuff? Unbelievable. Do you live in this country?"

Rachel responded on the air last night. If you haven't seen it, you should.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the kicker: "Because when you got all 'kicked your network's butt' and 'madam' on me, you really weren't trying to tout your network's ratings. You were trying to take the attention off me saying that your network, Fox News, continually crusades on flagrantly bogus stories designed to make white Americans fear black Americans -- which Fox News most certainly does for a political purpose, even if it upends the lives of individuals like Shirley Sherrod, even as it frays the fabric of the nation, and even as it makes the American dream more of a dream and less of a promise.

"You can insult us all you want about television ratings, Mr. O'Reilly, and you'll be right that yours are bigger -- for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one watches us at all except for my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the TV after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters, and that would be the facts, your highness."

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (87)

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.

* In an entertaining twist in Colorado, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R) has delivered an ultimatum to the GOP's two gubernatorial candidates: if they're trailing in the polls in mid-August, they should agree to drop out and let him jump in. If they're inclined to ignore him, Tancredo has said he'll run as a third-party candidate in the fall.

* The DCCC reserves television time in 40 House districts: "The Democrats' strategy to preserve their House majority became clearer Thursday as the party made a $28 million investment in television advertising for the final weeks of the fall campaign, a plan that is designed to build a firewall to protect freshmen and longtime incumbents."

* In Florida's crazy primaries, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rick Scott leading Bill McCollum in the Republican gubernatorial primary, 43% to 29%.

* Speaking of Florida, it's a Rasmussen poll so take the results with a grain of salt, but the pollster shows Marco Rubio (R) narrowly leading Charlie Crist (I) if Kendrick Meek is the Democratic nominee, but Crist narrowly leading Rubio if Jeff Greene is the Democratic nominee.

* There's a crowded field of Republicans running for the Senate in West Virginia -- as of late yesterday, the field had 10 candidates -- but none are expected to be able to defeat Gov. Joe Manchin (D) in November.

* In Kentucky, a Braun Research poll shows Rand Paul (R) with a narrow lead over Jack Conway (D) in the U.S. Senate race, 41% to 38%.

* In Arizona's Republican Senate primary, J.D. Hayworth has a new attack ad, going after Sen. John McCain's previous support for a bipartisan immigration package, having worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on a comprehensive bill. The ad has the advantage of being true.

* And in Kansas, The Hutchinson News endorsed Tracey Mann's (R) congressional campaign in advance of his primary, but that was before the paper's editorial board realized he "questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people." The paper has since decided to "withdraw that endorsement."

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

STEVE KING'S 'DEFAULT MECHANISM'.... Rep. Steve King (R) has repeatedly accused President Obama of harboring some kind of anti-white animus. As the right-wing Iowan sees it, the president has a "default mechanism" that "breaks down on the side of favoring the minority." This week, on a talk-radio show, King continued to push this line -- and the rhetorical envelope.

"Looks to me like the USDA was out recruiting people that might have [racial bias] built into them when they arrived at the job... I call it a default mechanism that's built within the Obama administration, breaks down on the side of favoring the minority, uh, because they've been rewarded politically for doing that."

So, if I'm hearing King right, he's arguing that the USDA hired Shirley Sherrod because the agency perceived her as a racist.

He wasn't kidding.

On a related note, King was also on Fox News yesterday, talking about immigration policy. He'd been part of a committee hearing where faith-based groups made a religiously-based argument in support of a comprehensive immigration plan. King was unimpressed. (thanks to D.B. for the heads-up)

"You know, God gave us rights. Our Founding Fathers recognized that. It's in our Declaration. It's the foundational document of America. And God made all nations on Earth and decided when and where each nation would be. And that's out of the book of acts; it's in other places.

"So, we can't be a nation if don't have a border, and if we grant amnesty, we can't define it as a border any longer, or ourselves as a nation any longer."

King seems to be arguing here that we can't pass comprehensive immigration reform -- because it's unbiblical. Or something.

I can't help but wonder how much power and influence this nut will have if there's a House Republican majority next year.