Grand celebration

By Mustang Bobby

Grand Central Terminal turns 100.

I’ve never arrived in New York by train, so I’ve never used it as a traveler. But I’ve been through Grand Central Terminal to catch a subway and just to look at this icon of American architecture from a time when places of industry were monuments.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

If I were Hagel

By Frank Moraes

I wouldn't be able to do what he's doing. It is clear that he is extremely well qualified for the job of Secretary of Defense. But all of the Republican senatorial carping at him was too much. The big moment in the hearing was when John McCain wanted a "yes or no" answer to whether Hagel was wrong to predict that the surge in Iraq would be the biggest foreign policy mistake since the Vietnam War. Hagel wouldn't answer because he said it was more complicated than that.

Fair enough, but my answer would have been different. "What does my prediction about one part of the Iraq War have to do with anything? I may have been wrong about the surge, but I wasn't nearly so wrong as when I originally supported the war. The problem with you is that you refuse to admit that the Iraq War was wrong, that tens of thousands of people died for no good reason. So I suppose the surge not being a total fiasco is the one thing you are hanging onto; you were wrong about everything else. You know, I was the co-chair of your 2000 campaign and you treat me like this? You have no honor, senator. None at all." Of course, what I would have said would have been more "colorful," if you know what I mean.

Read more »

Scott Brown passes on another Senate run

By Richard K. Barry

In an announcement initially made via a text message to the Boston Globe, former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown said that he would not seek the open seat left by the departure of John Kerry. It seems that major news announcements can now be made with words like: "U R the first to know. Not running."

His stated reason for not jumping in seems to have more to do with the fact that he so recently ran full-out campaigns in 2010 and 2012, and, if successful in the June special election, would have to gear up for a fourth campaign in 2014 to win a full term. 

This is an aspect of electoral political sometimes lost on the general public: campaigns are a significant commitment by the candidates and can take a superhuman effort to survive. The thought of four major campaigns in four years would be incredible for anyone, even a relatively young and robust young man like Brown.

In his own words, as reported by the Boston Globe:

“I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time,” Brown said in a statement. “And I know it’s not the only way for me to advance the ideals and causes that matter most to me.” 

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Fox News): "Biden says US prepared to hold direct talks with Iran"

(Reuters): "Despite weak senate performance, Hagel may yet win Pentagon post"

(Boston Globe): "Scott Brown's finances may influence ex-senator's next move"

(Politico): "Hillary Clinton: I am more optimistic today"

(New York Times): "Diocese papers in Los Angeles detail decades of abuse"

This day in music - February 1, 1967: Pink Floyd signs with EMI

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pink Floyd turned professional today in 1967, signing with EMI. How will you celebrate this 46th anniversary?
— Pink Floyd (@pinkfloyd) February 1, 2013

And the rest, as they say, is history. A long, wonderful, glorious history. (If only the remaining three -- David, Roger, and Nick -- would get back together, if only briefly. Alas. But at least we had Live8.)

Here they are on that day -- Roger, Nick, Syd, and Richard in the pre-David days -- jumping for joy, 46 years ago today:

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Contraception compromise"

(Washington Post): "Republican Scott Brown won't try again for a Senate seat in Massachusetts"

(Chicago Tribune): "Despite weak Senate performance, Hagel may yet win Pentagon post"

(Voice of America): "Clinton out, Kerry in at US State Department"

(AP): "Police: Suicide bombing at US embassy, 2 dead"

UpChuck

By Mustang Bobby

Charles P. Pierce summarizes the Hagel hearings yesterday.

The whole hearing was nothing more than a show, and we all know that the easiest shows to sell are revivals. The Republican opposition decided to re-litigate the failures of the Bush administration in the context of the world view of Dean Acheson. It was a weird performance. It was like watching Rent performed on the set of Show Boat. And very little of it had anything to do with Hagel’s qualifications to be Secretary Of Defense. Most of the questioning would seem to have been more suited to the hearings earlier this week, when John Kerry sailed through the confirmation process to become Secretary Of State. Hagel’s not running to be a diplomat and, frankly, given our experience with that steaming hunk of neocon man-meat, Don Rumsfeld, I’d just as soon not have the Defense Secretary involved in the formulation of foreign policy as much as he is in making sure the grunts who have to carry it out have sufficient body armor. That, by all accounts, is what Hagel sees the job as being about. What some mullah may have mumbled about him may echo loudly among the stalagmites in Jim Inhofe’s brain, but it has absolutely no relevance to the rest of us as far as Hagel’s ability to run a Defense department. There is some criticism rising that Hagel was not properly prepared for his testimony. I’m not sure anybody could have been. How could anyone be properly prepared for Jim Inhofe and Ted Cruz in the same day? Those kind of mushrooms are still illegal.

I watched clips of John McCain and Ted Cruz grilling Mr. Hagel. It’s very clear that Sen. McCain is a bitter, angry crank, and Sen. Cruz is a modern-day Joe McCarthy without the charm. And it’s pretty clear that the reason they did it was because Mr. Hagel didn’t go along with the Republican orthodoxy of perpetual war somewhere — Iraq, Iran, Mordor — and he was nominated by That Man in the White House.

I have no strong feelings for Chuck Hagel either way. He didn’t handle the hearing well, although it’s hard to imagine being prepped for treatment like that and come out of it looking good. But after yesterday’s show of the bitter, bizarre, and just plain stupid vindictiveness, I hope he gets confirmed just so he can tell the Republicans to get bent.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Republican economic incoherence

By Frank Moraes

This morning, Greg Sargent writes, We all agree that spending cuts hurt the economy. Right? Right. Right now, the Republicans are claiming that spending cuts will help the economy. Of course, six months ago, they were saying the opposite. But this is nothing new. The truth is that Republicans are incoherent on economic issues.

They will always claim that tax cuts help the economy. This is true. As long as those cuts are not offset with spending cuts. But that's getting too complex for Republican thinking. Why do they think that tax cuts spur the economy? Because they give people more money that they can spend and this feeds back in the economy. The obvious question is then: doesn't government spending do exactly the same thing?

That's when we move into Republican incoherence: spending is bad because we can't afford it, blah, blah, blah. But a dollar of spending costs exactly the same as a dollar of tax cuts. So I don't even know how we are supposed to deal the Republicans on economic matters. They are either incoherent or they are disingenuous.

Actually: I think they are both. I think they don't understand the economics at the same time that they will use any argument to justify what they want to do. Right now what they want to do is hurt the economy. But if they controlled the White House they would favor policies that helped the economy: Keynesian policies.

It isn't just politicians who act this way. Harvard University economistGreg Mankiw, widely respected in his field, was against the 2009 stimulus package. But when he worked for Bush Jr, he was all for stimulus. If that isn't an indictment of the economics profession, I don't know what is. I don't think we see this on the left, but on the right the first step in determining what to do to help the economy is to find out which party is in the White House.

We may be past the time when the Republicans will explicitly hold the US economy hostage over things like the Debt Ceiling. But they are still doing it implicitly by countering any good policies whenever they aren't in power. This is a new level of cynicism. And there is no choice but to do what John Boehner claims Obama wants to do to the Republican Party: annihilate it.

Who's with me?!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Nobody asked me, but...

By Carl

Ed Koch, the quintessential NYC political hack, has died after suffering a decades-long illness whose beginnings afflicted the entire city with his third term.

Edward I. Koch, the master showman of City Hall, who parlayed shrewd political instincts and plenty of chutzpah into three tumultuous terms as mayor of New York with all the tenacity, zest and combativeness that personified his city of golden dreams, died Friday morning at age 88.

Mr. Koch’s spokesman, George Arzt, said the former mayor died at 2 a.m. from congestive heart failure. He was being treated at New York-Presbyterian Columbia Hospital.

Mr. Koch had experienced coronary and other medical problems since leaving office in 1989. But he had been in relatively good health despite — or perhaps because of — his whirlwind life as a television judge, radio talk-show host, author, law partner, newspaper columnist, movie reviewer, professor, commercial pitchman and political gadfly.

Congressman Koch, as I prefer to remember him, was a feisty liberal in an era and district where liberalism was heralded as the new best way to govern. It's hard to think of him as a man who championed the little guy and the underdog, who fought for racial equality and human rights both here and abroad.

Read more »

Ducking the issue

By Mustang Bobby

The NRA keeps carrying on about the end of America if the government restricts the use of guns and ammo. But if you’re a hunter, they already do and have for a very long time.

Rep. Mike Thompson, the California Democrat charged with crafting gun safety policies in the House of Representatives, keeps talking about ducks.
More specifically, duck hunting. 

“Federal law prohibits me from having more than three shells in my shotgun when I’m duck hunting. So federal law provides more protection for the ducks than it does for citizens,” Thompson said earlier this month during a panel discussion on gun violence at the liberal Center for American Progress. 

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, also on the panel, was delighted by the line. “That’s a very powerful point,” Emanuel said. “My instinct is we’re gonna hear more of this line going forward.” 

As it turns out, federal law places strict regulations on the types of firearms that can be used when hunting migratory birds, rules hunters have abided since the 1930s. Duck hunters are only allowed to use a shotgun, 10 gauge or smaller, that carries no more than three shells. If the shotgun carries more than three shells, the hunter is required to “plug” the gun so that only three shots can be fired before reloading.

Simple solution: we just designate everybody as a migratory game bird. Problem solved.

HT to Erik Loomis at LGM.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(San Francisco Chronicle): "Sen. Kerry tours Mass. ahead of resigning office"

(The Hill): "Hagel delivers shaky performance"

(ABC News): "McCain pushes Hagel: 'You were on the wrong side of history'"

(Ballot Box): "Geraldo contemplating run for Senate"

(New York Times): "Edward I. Koch, 1924-2013: Ex-mayor of New York dies"

Wayne's World - excellent!

By tmcbpartriot

“Wayne’s World!!
Wayne’s Word!!
Party Time!!
Excellent!!”

I swear it is getting nearly impossible to continue writing about gun control. The conversation, since Newtown, has just been off the charts ridiculous. Today, Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, “will tell members of Congress…that law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent of deranged criminals…and the government should not “dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.”

There are two things totally insane about these two statements. The first is the part about law-abiding gun owners not accepting blame for the acts of violent of deranged criminals. Now, correct me please, but haven’t all of the mass murderers of late been law abiding? That is to say, weren’t all of their guns purchased legally? Does this not make them law abiding?

James Holmes – Aurora Shooter (No Wayne, not that Aurora) - “All the weapons that he possessed, he possessed legally…and all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally. And all the ammunition that he possessed, he possessed legally.” 

Jared Loughner – “The handgun used in a shooting that killed a federal judge and wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was purchased legally. 

Adam Lanza – “The weapons used in [the] shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. were legally purchased and registered to Nancy Lanza, the mother of the gunman.”

Read more »

A headline a politician just wouldn't want to see

By Richard K. Barry

There is a famous story about Lyndon Johnson's successful campaign for Congress in 1948. You've probably heard it.  As it goes, LBJ was running well behind his opponent and probably likely on his way to losing. He got the idea of having his campaign manager call a press conference to accuse his opponent, who happened to be a pig farmer, of being a little too familiar with the live stock. LBJ's wife, his children, his manager were all shocked at the tactic. His manager finally said, "We can't say that, Lyndon. It's just not true." To which LBJ is supposed to have replied. "Of course it's not. But let's make the bastard deny it." 

I was reminded of this story when reading about allegations against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez that a major campaign donor provided prostitutes and plane flights to the Dominican Republic. I doubt the plane flights would have made much of a story, but the other thing certainly did. Even though the headline in the Star Ledger takes a run at being fair, to wit: "Menendez denies prostitution allegations, says charges are 'politically motivated," the damage is still done.

I have no idea if the guy was partying hard on a donor's dime. I don't really care. Sorry. Whatever the case, his political enemies made him deny it. I've never paid a lot of attention to this particular senator, but when I do from now on, I can tell you what my first thought will be. 

The little town that could

By Mustang Bobby

If you need your cockles warmed on a winter day, read this story about Vicco, Kentucky, a tiny place with a big heart; not much money but a sense of fair play and equality that a lot of other places could use as an example.

In a former pool hall that is now the municipal building for a coal smudge of a place in eastern Kentucky called Vicco, population 335, the January meeting of the City Commission came to order. Commissioners and guests settled into patio chairs, bought at a discount and arranged around a long conference table. Those who smoked did. 

The Commission approved the minutes from its December meeting, hired a local construction company to repair the run-down sewer plant and tinkered with the wording for the local curfew. Oh, and it voted to ban discrimination against anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity — making Vicco the smallest municipality in Kentucky, and possibly the country, to enact such an ordinance. 

After that, the Commission approved a couple of invoices. Then, according to a clerk’s notes, “Jimmy made a motion to adjourn and Claude seconded the motion. All voted yes.”

It’s stories like this one that remind us that every now and then, we redeem ourselves.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

It's a 12-year low for Fox News ratings

By Richard K. Barry

Sometimes you write a blog post not so much because it's big news or it matters that much, but because it's so much fun to see the words appear on your computer screen. The words in this case are that Fox News' ratings have hit a 12-year low. 

Politico reports that:

Fox News had its worst ratings since 2001 in January, according to the latest figures. 

The network had a 12-year low in the coveted 25-54 demographic in primetime and fell to its lowest total day ratings since 2008, a press release from rival cable channel MSNBC stated on Tuesday. 

And January marked the worst month ever for Fox’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” among the 25-54 demo, as well as the channel’s lowest total viewership in the 10 p.m. hour since July 2008.

Maybe many of their usual viewers are simply too depressed to turn their televisions on now that the dreaded Kenyan socialist has won reelection. Or, is it possible the younger demographic is becoming that much less conservative? Who knows?

On the other end of the political spectrum, at least in US politics, MSNBC is doing better.

At note at MSNBC, the cable network saw its ratings go up 11 percent in the 25-54 demo compared to January 2012. And “The Rachel Maddow Show” topped CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” this month, and also ranked number one among the 18-34 demo.

Alas, everything is relative, and a plummeting of Fox News ratings does not mean that they are anything other than still in the lead:

Fox News, meanwhile, had nine of the 10 top programs in January — Maddow’s show was the only non-Fox News program to enter the top 10, in the last slot.

Still, they are moving in the wrong direction, and that's something.  

Government austerity hurting economy

By Frank Moraes

There is a blogging problem that I've only really noticed the last few months. There is a constant feeling that you've written about "this" (whatever it is) before. Because you have. Because the same old bullshit comes up time and time again. Case in point: the size of the economy shrunk last quarter. Now, this hasn't happened since I started writing about politics. But I seem to write every day about the story behind this fact.

Our GDP decreased by 0.1% this last quarter. But if it weren't for the shrinking of government purchases, our GDP would have increased by 1.2%. That's right: the government is hurting our economy by not spending enough. And this has always been true for the last couple of years. It isn't just conservatives who are blithely unaware that the federal budget deficit has come down each of the last three years.[1]That in itself would not be so bad, given that it hasn't come down that fast. The problem is that at the same time, state and local budgets have plummeted.

Ezra Klein presents the following graph which shows the share of public and private spending as it relates to GDP. And what it shows is that despite the claims of conservatives—Government spending is out of control!—government is spending less and less, quarter after quarter.

So there we have it again: the government needs to spend more, not less. Government austerity is hurting our economy. It isn't a lack of "confidence" or a balanced budget. There is not enough demand and it ripples all through the economy. The government needs to spend more, not less.
_______________________________________________

[1] In looking for a reference, I was again reminded of just how deceptive conservatives are when they present the budget deficit. They invariably present the fiscal year 2009 budget as Obama's, even though it was Bush's budget. The more intellectually honest writers note this but then pass it off as though Obama could just step into office and change Bush's budget. Of course, I'm not blaming Bush for the budget deficit. It came about because of the financial crisis and the bursting of the housing bubble. It isn't particularly Bush's "fault," but it most definitely isn't Obama's.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(Los Angeles Times): "Immigration reform bill could pass in six months, Obama says"

(Los Angeles Times): "Hagel to stress opposition to a nuclear Iran in Senate testimony"

(The Hill): "Obama administration takes steps to implement individual mandate"

(Reuters): "Decision on Detroit takeover within weeks: Michigan governor"

(Reuters): "Girl who performed at inauguration killed in Chicago shooting"

P.M. Headlines

(BBC News): "Shot US congresswomen Giffords calls for tighter gun laws"

(The Plum Line): "Gabrielle Giffords' husband smacks down Wayne LaPierre"

(Kansas City Star): "Finally, progress on immigration reform"

(Bussinessweek): "Growth stall obscures US consumer, business gains"

(Politico): "GOP electoral vote changes going nowhere"

Listening to Now: Colin James - "Satellite" and "Surely"

By Richard K. Barry

Colin James is a Canadian blues legend. Not much doubt about that. He won "Entertainer of the Year" honors at last week's Maple Blues Awards in Toronto, which I was pleased to attend. Great show. The configuration in the clip is something called Colin James and the Little Big Band. Love it.


(Cross-posted at Hogtown Hipster.)

Good Scouts

By Mustang Bobby 

(Ed. note: For more on this, see Carl's post from yesterday, "Scout's honor." -- MJWS)

Via NBC:

The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation's largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization's board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial — one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization's rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

Good for them to finally realize something that has been true as long as there has been boys and scouts: some of them are gay.

Read more »

Wacky argument against same-sex marriage

By Frank Moraes

Jonathan Chait reported something yesterday that was so unbelievable that I had to look into it. Conservatives were at the Supreme Court the week before last trying both to get California's Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage) upheld and to force the White House to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. As Chait rightly points out, its fine for a conservative to just be against gay marriage because he is, "But if you're a lawyer defending a gay-marriage ban in court, you need an actual legal reason for your position." And boy oh boy did the conservatives come up with an actual legal reason!

The conservatives are arguing that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they don't have accidental pregnancies. Chait says, "Gay couples don't get drunk and wake up pregnant." Therefore: no marriage for you!

I had a hard time believing this. Was it April first? No. Was there some giveaway in the text -- a nod and a wink? No. So I clicked over to the L.A. Times, "Gay Marriage Opponents Take Unusual Tack With Supreme Court." Chait was telling the truth. The article reports that the lawyers are arguing, "Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."

Read more »

CNN pulls away from rock bottom; or, All hail Jeff Zucker!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Some notable changes at Jeff Zucker's CNN:

-- The odious Mary Matalin, formerly of Cheney's inner circle? Gone.

-- The annoying James Carville, her Democratic husband? Gone. (He's not all bad, but enough with the hyper-partisan hackery. How about some serious progressive commentators?)

-- The despicable Bill Bennett, pompous right-wing windbag? Gone.

-- The obnoxious Erick Erickson, bullying right-wing blowhard? Gone.

It almost makes me want to watch CNN again. Almost.

Maybe if they got rid of the supremely awful Gloria Borger as well.

Immigration reform fracturing

By Frank Moraes 

As we wrote yesterday, "Don't Get Excited About Immigration Reform." Well, as Greg Sargent reported, "Confusion Envelops Senate Immigration Plan." Basically, the eight senators can't quite agree about what exactly they mean by the Southwestern border commission. The Democrats claim that this will just be an advisory commission and that it won't have veto power about whether the federal government can move forward with the rest of the plan.

But Marco Rubio says he wouldn't support a plan that doesn't require the approval of the border commission. Rubio is in a difficult position. He wants to appeal to Latinos but he doesn't want to offend the Tea Party angry-crazy coalition that just loves him. You might think he is just another senator, but right now, he is the Republican Party's best chance at the White House in 2016. The other Republicans will not go along if he doesn't.

The whole "secure the boarder" clause in the Senate "framework" is a typical delay tactic. We see this tactic used a lot in gun law reform. Senator X would love to support a ban on high capacity magazines, but there is $100 in the bill for gun safety awareness and Senator X really can't accept more than $50. (If the bill is changed to have only $50 for gun safety awareness, Senator X will find something else in the bill that "unfortunately" stops him from supporting it.) In this particular case, the Republican senators have come up with a brilliant idea: they pass immigration reform without doing any actual immigration reform.

It will be interesting to watch this go forward. Regardless, I remain unconvinced that anything real will happen. This is yet more of the Republicans pretending to reach out to (in this case) Latinos while signaling to the angry-crazy coalition that they have nothing to fear.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Lou Barletta

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm not sure, though. Is this just craziness in the sense of being out of one's mind, or it is just another example of the sort of bigotry and ideological extremism one finds all over the Republican Party these days, particularly within the party's right-wing base?

Maybe both, but more the latter than the former, I would say.

In response to the bipartisan immigration reform plan currently being worked out on Capitol Hill, with the president prepared to present his own package, Pennsylvania Rep. Lou Barletta didn't hold back in explaining just what he thinks of these undesirables:

"It's amnesty that America can't afford," Barletta said Monday. "We have to stop people from coming in illegally. This will be a green light for anyone who wants to come to America illegally and then be granted citizenship one day." [...]

"I hope politics is not at the root of why we're rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they're going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken," Barletta said. "The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they'll depend on."

And there you have it, a glimpse into the ugliness of the Republican mind: These Latinos shouldn't be granted a path to citizenship (even a tough one, which is what a deal would likely include) because they're lazy, stupid bloodsuckers who will vote Democrat because, of course, the Democratic Party is the party of lazy, stupid bloodsuckers also known as the 47%.

Read more »

Polishing a turd

By Mustang Bobby

(Ed. note: For more on the Republican "fix" for itself, see Frank's post from yesterday, "Occasionally principled thoughtless assholes." See also our post on immigration and how moving to the left slightly is part of the fix, "Don't get excited about immigration reform." -- MJWS)

The GOP doesn't see anything wrong with their party that a quick buff and shine won't fix:

"It's not the platform of the party that's the issue," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said Friday after being easily reelected to a second, two-year term. "In many cases, it's how we communicate about it. It is a couple dumb things that people have said."

A slide presented during a closed-press strategy session said that Mitt Romney might be president if he had won fewer than 400,000 more votes in key swing states.

"We don't need a new pair of shoes; we just need to shine our shoes," said West Virginia national committeewoman Melody Potter.

So as far as they're concerned, it's not what you say but how you say it. So they can still be anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro-pollution, pro-mythology and anti-science; they just need to market it better.

Yeah, that's the ticket. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Art for art's sake

(image courtesy)

By Carl

I mean that title literally.

There's an interesting thread over at WhiskeyFire dealing with a rightwing pundit, Michael Moynihan, who posits that political correctness is destroying art of all stripes.

In other words, because art should not be politicized, and if it's controversial, should be viewed through an artistic lens rather than a political one, we get crappy art.

Bullshit. As Thers points out at WF, long legal and political battles have been fought over "art for art's sake," from the Bovary trial, all the way down to our own Serrano and Mapplethorpe controversies.

For me, art is an exaggerated reality that provides the artist's perspective on what he sees (or imagines).

Take that Hopper .jpg at the top of this post. It's a fairly mundane scene: a couple, a single man, all sitting at a coffee shop counter while the counter guy tries to engage anyone in conversation. For me, there's a sense of tension and mystery in the picture. For instance, the man with his back facing us: what's he up to? He seems lost in thought. It's late. The place is empty. What happened to him? The couple. Lovers? Is she a hooker? She's dressed kind of trampy and looks bored. Married?

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Who are the Gang of 8 in Senate immigration debate?"

(New York Times): "Republicans pull back on immigration, but not guns"

(Washington Post): "Kerry gets overwhelming Senate backing to lead State Department"

(Washington Post): "Hillary Clinton 'not inclined' to run for president in 2016"

(Reuters): "Exclusive: CIA nominee had detailed knowledge of 'enhanced interrogation techniques'"

America, your new secretary of state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not sure if this is better than winning the Cup, but it's close.

Congratulations, Senator (soon to be Secretary) Kerry:

The Senate Tuesday confirmed President Obama's nomination of Senator John F. Kerry to be secretary of state, handing the Massachusetts Democrat a redemptive career victory that ensconces him in an elite echelon of national leadership nine years after his failed bid for the presidency.

The 94 to 3 vote was the final hurdle for Kerry, whose nomination soared through the Senate...

Kerry met virtually no resistance, as his colleagues on both sides of the aisle lauded his 28 years of service in the Senate and his deep experience in international affairs, most recently as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is expected to give a farewell speech in the Senate on Wednesday and will be sworn in as Hillary Clinton's replacement in a Department of State ceremony later this week.

It was a sure thing. (The three loser Republicans are Inhofe, Cornyn, and Cruz, by the way.)

It's still shameful what happened to Susan Rice, a well-qualified candidate who was viciously assaulted by McCain and his vindictive pals, but I've long admired Kerry, and he's a fantastic choice to guide U.S. foreign policy.

P.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Senate confirms Senator John Kerry as secretary of state"

(Los Angeles Times): "Rubio, McCain push back against critics of immigration overhaul"

(Atlanta Black Star): "Hillary Clinton super PAC files for 2016"

(BuzzFeed): "Here's how Obama's immigration position differs from the Senate's"

(Politico): "James Carville, Mary Matalin leaving CNN"

Progressive Music Classics: "Everything That Rises Must Converge" by Shriekback

By Marc McDonald

(Ed. note: Here's another installment of Marc's ongoing series. For the full series, check out his site. Our last one was back on October, "Major Malfunction" by Keith LeBlanc. -- MJWS)


The late, great Bill Hicks once lamented the decline of intellectualism in the U.S. This dumbing-down of America, he noted, started around the time Ronald Reagan was first elected. Hicks also savaged the pop music of the Reagan era and the increasing tendency of music stars to sell out to the highest corporate bidder (i.e., Madonna shilling for Pepsi, George Michael shilling for Coke). 

"What kind of Reagan wet dream do we live in today?" Hicks once asked, in slamming the gutless, money-grubbing pop stars who sold out in the 1980s.

One wonders what Hicks would have thought about today's pop performers. After all, the situation is now far worse than it ever was back in the 1980s. Not only do today's pop stars have no problems whatsoever whoring themselves out to corporate America -- but "selling out" rarely even generates much negative publicity these days. At least the likes of Madonna and George Michaels had Hicks around to condemn them back in the 1980s. Today, nobody seems to care.

And if all this wasn't bad enough, today's pop scene is as banal as it has ever been, thanks to the corrosive effect of the likes of Simon Cowell and the whole American Idol conveyor belt of soulless mediocrity that clogs up today's airwaves.

Read more »

Iowa stubborn: Will Republicans pick extremist Steve King in 2014?

By Mustang Bobby

The news this weekend that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) would not run for re-election in 2014 set off giddy hopes in Republican circles that they would pick up another easy Senate seat. But so far, at least one of the folks who have tossed their hat into the ring is the kind of candidate who sounds like they'd take the Iowa seat down the rabbit hole of Tea Party hardcore wingers, giving the Democrats hope that they can hold on:

Among them is six-term Rep. Steve King, 63, a conservative from western Iowa who has represented about half of the state's 99 counties. He's never ruled out a Senate bid even if it meant challenging Harkin. Moran believes the prospect of an open seat race would be appealing to his former boss.

For King, one GOP strategist said, the primary would be easier than the general election. A top party official speculated some Republicans would have reservations about running King in a statewide ticket.

Despite those misgivings about the outspoken King running on a statewide ticket, Moran thinks the party – both on a state and national level – might find it "refreshing to have Steve King at top of ticket to drive the message and definition of the party."

There are a lot of words I can think of to describe Rep. King, but "refreshing" isn't one of them.

Read more »

Occasionally principled thoughtless assholes

By Frank Moraes 

This past weekend Republicans had yet another get together where they planned to figure out how to stop being a minority party without, you know, actually changing the party in any meaningful way. And I think it is important to remember that some of their great ideas are really not going to work. Recently, I've been hearing this one, "Never discuss rape." A better idea would be, "Pretend that you are for abortion exceptions." As I've noted, this is the real hateful position. But it continues to be the one that comes off the least repellent. It just is the case that being an abortion absolutist is going to get the Republicans into trouble.

And this brings me to my general advice for Republicans, "It's the policies, stupid." Last week, Bobby Jindal said that the Republicans had to stop being the stupid party. But any party that takes advice about how not to be stupid from a creationist who has done exorcisms is in deep trouble. And it isn't just that the Republicans are the party of stupid. They are also the party of hateful. Everywhere they seem committed to have no principle to being anything but thoughtless assholes. Except on abortion where their principled stands makes them thoughtless assholes.

Read more »

Hillary Watch 2016: The Secretary of State and "the question"

By Richard K. Barry

Politico conducted a fun little exercise that takes comments Hillary Clinton has made over time that mostly state clearly she would not run for the presidency. And then -- surprise, surprise -- as she is about to exit her role as secretary of state, they show how she is beginning to equivocate. 

In the January 27 interview on 60 Minutes, she said this about a potential run:

I think that, you know, look, obviously the president and I care deeply about what's going to happen for our country in the future. And I don't think, you know, either he or I can make predictions about what's going to happen tomorrow or the next year.

I don't know what universe other people inhabit, but in mine you don't publicly talk about wanting your boss's job while he or she is still your boss. So Hillary's tenure is over, and she feels more comfortable not categorically denying her interest in the top job. 

I've said before that I don't think she knows what she wants to do yet. I suspect she'll take some time to see how private life feels and how much she misses the game. But there was no way while doing the job she was doing the past four years she was ever going to signal her interest in the presidency. 

And, yes, it is interesting to see her finally not deny the obvious, that she doesn't know what the future will bring. Who does?

Who's against Chuck?

By Mustang Bobby 

The New York Times looked into the groups that are mounting ad campaigns against the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense: 

A brand new conservative group calling itself Americans for a Strong Defense and financed by anonymous donors is running advertisements urging Democratic senators in five states to vote against Chuck Hagel, President Obama's nominee to be secretary of defense, saying he would make the United States "a weaker country."

The blitz against Mr. Hagel is of a sort that has generally been reserved for elections and some Supreme Court nominations.

Another freshly minted and anonymously backed organization, Use Your Mandate, which presents itself as a liberal gay rights group but purchases its television time through a prominent Republican firm, is attacking Mr. Hagel as "anti-Gay," "anti-woman" and "anti-Israel" in ads and mailers.

Those groups are joining at least five others that are organizing to stop Mr. Hagel's confirmation, a goal even they acknowledge appears to be increasingly challenging. But the effort comes with a built-in consolation prize should it fail: depleting some of Mr. Obama's political capital as he embarks on a new term with fresh momentum.

I get the first group; they sound like the kind that would crop up when a RINO runs for any kind of office, and they're probably financed by the Koch brothers, who have nothing better to do.

Read more »

Don't get excited about immigration reform

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Frank Moraes

MJWS:

Like Frank, I'm interested to see how this will go. And, obviously, there's still a long way to go to get anything meaningful done. But there's a political calculation at work for Republicans here that may very well lead to meaningful bipartisan reform.

As Jon Chait notes, the Republican strategy coming out of the election is to move left on immigration and right on everything else -- or to solidify their extremist right-wing positions. (It's a faulty strategy based on a faulty reading of the election -- that the problem was the Hispanic vote, and all Republicans need to do now is agree to moderate immigration reform and change some of their rhetoric generally, with no changes whatsoever to their positions on other issues (e.g., remain anti-tax absolutists) -- but it's got broad support across the party establishment, including 2016 frontrunners Ryan and Rubio.

And so both House and Senate Republicans are working on bipartisan reform. Chait again: "It's pretty amazing how fast this has happened. Republican leaders recognized an electoral weakness, figured it was on an issue they didn't want to fight on anyway, and are cauterizing the wound as fast as they can."

Again, it's still very early. There's a framework but nothing else, and we'll have to see if Republicans hold together on this one and if they're actually willing to make concessions to get a deal done that, in the end, would be seen as a major victory for the president. But it's promising that we're at this point, and it's all because Republicans, however delusional still, have been scared shitless by the demographic changes that, over time, will continue to isolate them out of power.

It's a fortuitous combination of political opportunism and the urgent need for reform, and Democrats should do everything they can to take advantage of the situation.

Read more »