P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Spending cut debates casts pall over Obama's second-term agenda"

(The Hill): "Obama blames Republicans for failing to stop sequester"

(The State): "State Department opens door to Keystone XL pipeline approval"

(Paul Krugman):"Self-destructive Europe"

(Reuters): "Egypt needs to fix economy, strike IMF deal: Kerry"

Listening to Now: Karine Polwart - "Rivers Run"

By Richard K. Barry

I attended the Folk Alliance International conference in Toronto last week. It was easy to get to as I live in Toronto and work across the street from the Delta Chelsea hotel, the site for the event.

It's always a very intense gathering, mostly intended for music professionals hawking their wares. Performers trying to get noticed by event bookers or record labels, or anyone else who might help their careers. I'd been around the scene in a serious way mostly in the '90s and not since but decided to check things out because it was too easy not to.

I stumbled on a showcase performance a week ago Wednesday, which featured Karine Polwart, a singer-songwriter from Scotland of whom I have not previously been aware. She was undoubtedly the find of the event for me.

 Ms. Polwart has been noticed and heralded on her side of the pond, though she seems less well known over here. I notice from her bio that she has a degree in politics and philosophy from the University of Dundee, which I suppose can't hurt from the perspective of songwriting. In fact, one of the first things one notices about her music is that it is very intelligent. Another thing is her lovely voice.

 You can find out more about her from her website here. I doubt I'd be the first to say she brings to mind Kate Rusby, which I assume anyone would take as high praise.

 Here's a beautiful song called "Rivers Run."



(Cross-posted at Hogtown Hipster.)

Bradley Manning and the war on whistleblowers

By Frank Moraes 

These really are the times that try men's souls. And I wonder whether the liberal apologists for this administration will continue to think cheery thoughts while basic levels accountability are abandoned. The sunshine patriot will shrink from holding his country accountable; only those who demand transparency, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Bradley Manning has admitted to releasing classified documents. But he is claiming innocence regarding the more serious charges like aiding and abetting the enemy. This all ends badly for a young man who is the very definition of a whistle blower. The problem is that the United States takes all of this stuff very seriously. And sadly, under Obama it has gotten even worse. What is it about people who become president that they go crazy over secrecy? Such behavior should cause them to be disqualified for the job.

Instead, the government manages to focus all of its power on relatively powerless men like Bradley Manning who just want to get the truth out. Reading parts of his 35 page testimony, it is clear that he is a typical whistle blower: a once true believer who was crushed to find out that the shining city on the hill was a mirage. He tried to get his superiors to act on various aspects of the disinformation campaign that the government seems to think is their primary function. When that failed, he tried to get regular news agencies to listen: Washington Post, the New York Timesand Politico. And like the corporate lackeys we know these outlets to be, he got nowhere.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Voice of America): "Obama signs order for $85 billion in spending cuts"

(The Hill): "Obama blames Republicans for failing to stop sequester"

(Politico): "State Dept. Keystone report plays down climate fears"

(Reuters): "Candidates for mayor of Los Angeles take aim at business tax"

(New York Times): "Outside box, federal judges offer addicts a free path"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "House Republicans cheer Boehner's refusal to negotiate cuts"

(Fox News): "Romney likens 2012 race to 'roller coaster' in exclusive 'Fox News Sunday' interview"

(Washington Post): "White House takes stance against gay-marriage ban"

(Bloomberg): "Consumer spending in U.S. climbs even as Texas hurt incomes"

(Reuters): "2012 jobless rate up in only two U.S. states - New York and New Jersey"

Tackling the culture of anti-gay bigotry in the NFL

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The NFL is facing tough questions about anti-gay bigotry with reports that prospects at the recently concluded combine in Indianapolis were asked by teams, if indirectly, about their sexual orientation, obviously an effort to weed out the gays. 

The NFL, which according to a spokesman "prohibit[s] discrimination against any player, including on the basis of sexual orientation," is supposedly looking into it. 

Now, we all know there's widespread homophobia and anti-gay bigotry all throughout the NFL. Like the rest of professional sports (in America, but certainly elsewhere as well), it's rather behind the times in addressing this blatant problem, a bastion of hyper-heterosexual masculinity and repression, even if has made efforts to tackle (sorry) other forms of bigotry and exclusion (e.g., reaching out to women, particularly with respect to breast cancer awareness, and creating the "Rooney Rule" to require teams to interview minority candidates for vacant coaching positions). 

It's too early to say that things are changing for good, but there are certainly signs of acceptance on the horizon, not least because the league itself is finally being forced to address discrimination and is saying the right things in response, for public relations if not out of principle (better than nothing).

Read more »

Getting the small things wrong

By Richard K. Barry

Well, this is interesting. 

Disgraced ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. embarrasses the Democratic party with his "ethical lapses," giving the GOP an opportunity to claim the moral high ground in the race to replace him in IL-2. But, no! They nominate someone who has been convicted of six felony counts and served nearly 20 years behind bars. Yes, that's some guy by the name of Paul McKinley, who was able to win the Republican nomination for the vacant House seat by a total of 23 votes.

All parties run into this problem in districts in which they are not competitive. Sometimes "marginal candidates" jump in and surprise everyone. It's the job of the party apparatus to make sure these embarrassments don't happen, but sometimes they just do.

No one will seriously consider this guy a spokesperson for the Republican Party, but Democrats will have some fun running against him. 

Or, as Fox News in Chicago reports:

There are dozens of districts where very few voters bother to participate in Republican primaries, setting the stage for ugly surprises. Remember entertainer "Spanky the Clown?" He won the GOP nomination to face Mayor Daley in 1995. That may have been good for a laugh. But those who dream of rebuilding the Republican Party in Chicago aren't laughing at the apparent nomination of convicted armed robber Paul McKinley.

No, but some of us are. Heh, heh. 

Obama Administration joins fight for marriage equality at Supreme Court

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not to be lost in Woodward-gate, Sequester-gate, and whatever other shiny objects are occupying the media's attention, this is pretty significant:

The Obama administration threw its support behind a broad claim for marriage equality on Thursday, and urged the Supreme Court to rule that voters in California were not entitled to ban same-sex marriage there.

In a forceful argument, the administration claimed that denying gay couples the right to marry violates the Constitution's equal protection clause. It said that Proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, should be subjected to "heightened scrutiny" — a tough test for any law — and stated flatly that "Proposition 8 fails heightened scrutiny."

Yes, it's the Obama Administration, but it's also the federal government declaring marriage equality to be a constitutional right.

And even if the federal government fell short of calling on the Supreme Court to rule all bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, focusing instead on the case at hand in California (perhaps to avoid coming across as pushy and heavy-handed), it still took a major step forward in the fight for marriage equality.

It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide if it stands on the side of justice, history, and public opinion or whether it's still stuck in the divisive bigotry of the past. 

Assault weapons

By Mustang Bobby

In case you missed it, Wednesday was an emotional day at the Senate hearing on assault weapons. Via TPM:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sparred with Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn over prosecuting people who fail firearms background checks, a common line of attack from the gun rights side of things. The back-and-forth grew heated, requiring Feinstein to gavel in asking for order.

But it was from the gun control side where the strongest emotions came. Among the Democratic witnesses was Neil Heslin, a father of a boy killed in the Newtown shooting. He spoke about his recent testimony at a Connecticut hearing where gun rights advocates in the audience shouted out to him after he posed a question during his testimony, leading the chair to accuse them of heckling. Once again, Heslin asked why guns like the AR-15 that was used to kill his son should be in civilian hands.

"What purpose those serve in civilians' hands or on the street?" he asked.

Chances that the assault weapons ban will actually pass the Senate are slim, and when you get the to the House, virtually nil. The NRA have bought and paid for enough members of Congress to ensure that nothing will get through without their blessing. And they'll have no problem attacking Mr. Heslin or any other victim of gun violence as an enemy of freedom, America, and Smith & Wesson's bottom line.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Is anyone really conservative enough?

By Richard K. Barry

Salon had a story yesterday about the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth going after moderate Republicans who they believe are "RINOs" or "Republicans in Name Only."   

They have launched an initiative via a website called "Primary My Congressman," which encourages conservative candidates to run against sitting GOP House members the Club for Growth deems not conservative enough:

The first batch of members targeted by Club For Growth are Reps. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., Rick Crawford, R-Ark., Frank Lucas, R-Okla., Steve Palazzo, R-Miss., Martha Roby, R-Ala., Larry Bucshon, R-Ind., Renee Elmers, R-N.C., and Aaron Schock, R-Ill.

According to Club for Growth President Chris Chocola: "Big government liberals inhabit the Democratic Party, but they are far too common within the Republican Party as well."

This is obviously the other side of Karl Rove's initiative to support "electable" Republicans running against crazy right-wingers who wouldn't succeed in a general election. 

This gets weirder before it gets better for the GOP. 

Majority of Republicans vote against Violence Against Women Act

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The talk yesterday was mostly about the Woodward kerfuffle yesterday, but some far more important things happened, including the House passing the Senate version (unadulterated by Republican efforts to weaken it) of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a hugely important piece of legislation with proven results.

But the Republican-controlled House passed it (286-138) in spite of majority Republican opposition to it (87 supporting it, 138 opposing it), the Republican leadership again agreeing to pass a bill even without majority Republican support, joining forces with the entire Democratic caucus in opposition to most of its own members.

That's remarkable, and it says a lot about the Republican Party, which is at its rawest and most honest in the House, where its fundamental right-wing extremism is on full display.

(Now, this doesn't mean that a majority of House Republicans are in favor of violence against women. It means that they're not fully committed to stopping it, and in fact wanted to weaken some of the bill's its essential provisions concerning violence against LGBT and Native-American women. Which pretty much amounts to not giving a shit and/or being too stupid to know any better.)

A.M. Headlines

The Guardian): "Sequester: GOP and White House set to let deadline expire without deal"

(Politico): "Press corps to Woodward: Really?"

(New York Times): "U.S. offers broad support for gay marriage rights"

(Reuters): "Los Angeles asks Supreme Court to overturn ban on Skid row seizures"

(Columbia Journalism Review): "A BusinessWeek cover crosses the line"

The shameless hackery of Bob Woodward

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With the release of those e-mails, along with his appearance on Hannity, on top of his ridiculous attack on President Obama, not to mention his long history of brutally inept analysis, Bob Woodward has exposed himself, to the extent that he wasn't exposed already, as a fucking idiot and shameless Beltway hack.

Once upon a time, he exposed the malfeasance of a president, and it was riveting, and made history, and cemented his legacy as a great reporter. But most of his career, cruising off Watergate, has been spent sticking his moist finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, writing hero-worshipping appraisals of "great men" like Alan Greenspan, and using his reputation to scare enough insiders to pass along inside information to publish book after book of supposedly great reporting.

But enough already. He's a joke. (Is it really any wonder he was a frequent Larry King guest?) I still love All the President's Men (one of my favorite movies), and it's still pretty amazing what happened with Bernstein and Bradlee and Deep Throat and Nixon, but his credibility, to the extent that he had much left anyway, is done.

P.M. Headlines

(The Guardian): "Catholics flock to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York to say farewell to pope"

(Reuters): "Bradley Manning pleads guilty to misusing classified data in WikiLeaks case"

(New York Times): "U.S. to urge justices to end California gay marriage ban"

(ABC News): "Has Ted Cruz hit the tipping point?"

(The National Journal): "Why Bob Woodward's fight with the White House matters to you"

(CNBC): "Slow going: GDP growth inches up; claims lower"

Boehner's paradox of power

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Chait came out yesterday morning and said what we all know in our hearts: John Boehner's position on the Sequester is a teeny-tiny jobs program. Or to put it more bluntly: he doesn't care about 700,000 jobs that will be lost if the Sequester stays the law; he only cares about one job: his own as Speaker of the House. I don't think this is the only thing that is going on, but there is much to it. After all, a bipartisan plan could make it through the House; it is just that Boehner won't allow the vote. And that just makes the national brand of the GOP that much worse.

This is another example of the paradox of power. Boehner has basically taken his career hostage. He now has quite a lot of power. He could cut deals with the White House that are great for the Republicans and then, with the help of House Democrats, he could get them enacted. But if he does that, he will surely lose his speakership. And thus the paradox: he has power only so long as he doesn't use it.

Something like this goes on with every politician in the country. They make concessions for power. But they never really use the power (in the way they had wanted to when they started, anyway) because they are trying to get more power.

Read more »

Hillary Watch 2016: First comes the book

By Richard K. Barry

Last month, Hillary Clinton announced that she planned to write another memoir. This would be a third book added to It Takes a Village (1996) and Living History (2003). Much of the speculation in the publishing world has been about the potential size of the advance -- the money the author gets before a book goes on the shelves.

Yes, that's very interesting. She's very popular. She'll make a lot of money, not that I have been concerned about the financial security of the Clintons. 

Oh, okay, if you must know, estimates range from $5 million to $14 million.

Read more »

John Roberts has long hated the Voting Rights Act

By Frank Moraes 

Something I really hate is how John Roberts is held up as some model of reasonable conservatism. I'm sure he will go down in history just like William Rehnquist: a man who was extremely conservative but is said to have been reasonable because the people who came after him were even more extreme. In the case of Roberts, Samuel Alito provides all the breathing room he could want.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the Voting Rights Act. All the conservatives justices (except Thomas who never says anything) were very aggressive in their questioning. In particular, Roberts asked, "Is it the government's submission that citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North?" This goes right along with what has become standard operating procedure for the conservatives on the court. This isn't a question; it is polemics in its purest sense. The question is not about citizens, although I suspect that yes, they are more racist. The bigger question is if there are systemic aspects of these systems that perpetuate racism in how voting is done. And after this last election where all kinds of clearly racist attempts were made to finesse the election, these questions shouldn't even need to be raised.

In fairness, the real question here is whether we should keep assuming that areas that were once overtly racist should be held to a higher standard. Should they have to get preapproval from the federal government before they change their voting laws. I wish we were going in the other direction: moving toward making all local governments get approval before changing the law. The way it now works, some place makes it harder for minorities to vote; they are slapped down about it later; but that doesn't change the skewed election results.

Read more »

Here's to hoping Karl Rove continues to "help" the GOP

By Richard K. Barry

Funny that Karl Rove has set up an entire operation to discourage wacky right-wingers from successfully competing for Republican Senate nominations, and it's apparently having the opposite effect.  

Rep. Tom Latham (IA-03) has announced that he will not seek the GOP nomination for the open seat being vacated by Tom Harkin in Iowa. In a statement reported by Daily Kos, Latham said that he doesn't want to "detract form his duties in the 3rd," which they note certainly sounds like he will be seeking re-election there instead.

The point is that Latham is just the kind of guy people like Karl Rove would like to see run for a Senate nomination for the GOP. He's an establishment guy, and, apparently, not crazy. 

That leaves Rep. Steve King (IA-04) a pretty clear path to the GOP Senate nomination if he still wants it, and given King's hard-right, foot-in-mouth ways, also gives IA-01 Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley (already in the race, and expected to clear the Dem field) a similarly clear path to the Senate.

Read more »

So what if the American people are with Obama on spending?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Fix:

For the past several years, congressional Republicans have focused relentlessly on a single message: Washington — led by President Obama — is spending too much money, and it needs to stop.

But according to new Washington Post-ABC News polling, that laser-like focus isn't helping Republicans win the argument over federal spending — with 67 percent of those tested disapproving of the "way Republicans in Congress are handling federal spending."

This is good news, of course, what with the sequester battle shortly coming to a head. But of course these polls do not take place within a vacuum.

The fact of the matter is, discretionary spending -- pretty much everything government does other than the military and entitlement programs -- is at an historic low thanks to the right-wing ideology that pervades both parties, if more the aggressively right-wing one than the other, along with the national media and most of the rest of the Beltway establishment.

Read more »

Waiting room

By Mustang Bobby

If you've been following the latest adventure in Beltway brinksmanship, you know that we are down to the wire with the sequestration. So far all we've heard is a lot of trash talk and tantrums from the Republicans because President Obama won't give into their demands that he does everything they tell him to. After all, who won the election last November.

Brian Buetler at TPM explains why the Democrats are content to let the GOP drive over the cliff:

The most important factor in this fight is probably the reality that Obama doesn't have to face voters again and thus is willing to veto sequestration replacement bills if they're composed of spending cuts alone. Congressional Democrats are fully aware of this, too, and that creates a powerful incentive for them to hold the line.

So sequestration will begin. Obama won't cave. And then the tension sequestration was intended to create — and in fact has created — between defense hawks and the rest of the GOP will intensify and actually splinter the party. If that doesn't happen quickly enough, then the sequestration fight will become tangled up in the need to renew funding for the federal government at the end of March. If Republicans don't cave before then, they'll precipitate a 1995-style government shutdown, public opinion will actually begin to control the outcome, and it'll be game over.

Read more »

Bob Woodward attacks Obama for "a kind of madness"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back when Bob Woodward mattered.

Honestly, it's hard to believe that anyone pays attention to this idiot anymore:

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward attacked President Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying the commander-in-chief's decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier because of budget cuts is "a kind of madness."

"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need' or even Bill Clinton saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters,' as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?" Woodward added. "Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. 'I can't do what I need to do to protect the country.' That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

Let's address this in order:

First, no, Reagan likely wouldn't have, but that's because he was an extreme militarist who didn't give a damn about the budget, in fact exploding the national debt with outrageous military spending. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, though, one could say that he was right to do so at the time because, you know, there was that whole Cold War going on and it was important to ramp up the military spending and spread the military's reach far and wide. I won't give him that benefit, but, regardless, it's silly to say that what was necessary then is necessary now.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Sequestration looms - but when will the hurt feel real?"

(New York Times): "Parties focus on the positive as budget cuts draw near"

(Associated Press): "US: $60 million in new aid to Syria opposition"

(Huffington Post): "Bob Woodward, Obama's aide spar, causing confusion over definition of 'regret'"

(Washington Post): "House to vote on Violence Against Women Act measures"

Justice Scalia calls key Voting Rights Act provision a "racial entitlement"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Justice Antonin Scalia said yesterday during oral arguments that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires preclearance for any effort to change "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" in any "covered jurisdiction," and hence which is key (if not the key) instrument the federal government has in terms of blocking lower orders of government from restricting voting rights, is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."

Which is to say, Scalia, like other conservatives (on the Court and otherwise), thinks that efforts to enforce equal voting rights are somehow discriminatory against the majority race (i.e., whites, or otherwise those who didn't need the Voting Rights Act to have their voting rights protected). As Think Progress notes, his remark "raises concerns that his suspicion of the Act is rooted much more in racial resentment than in a general distrust of unanimous votes," the latter being an argument he has made in the past (as if somehow unanimous votes are, in and of themselves, suspicious and indeed illegitimate, which is remarkably stupid).

I'll leave it to others to dissect this contemptible man's legal views. I'd just add that if you don't know the difference between a right and an entitlement, if you don't understand the purpose of the Voting Rights Act and why it might still be necessary to protect voting rights from those out to strip them away, and if your judicial mind and worldview generally is clouded by self-regarding bitterness, you should have no place on the highest court in the land.

P.M. Headlines

(Think Progress): "Scalia: Voting Rights Act is "perpetuation of racial entitlement"

(Chicago Tribune): "Sequestration cuts: White House, Republicans dig in ahead of budget talks"

(The Washington Post/The Fix): "Republicans are losing the spending argument"

(Reuters): "Senate approves Lew as new Treasury chief"

(New York Times): "Spending cuts are only one skirmish in 2013 budget wars"

A perfect place for bloodythirsty NRA members to move

By Carl 

South Africa:

To understand South Africa's gun culture, it's crucial to go back nearly two decades. In 1994, apartheid ended. The official system of racial segregation, in place since 1948, took rights away from black Africans and gave virtually all power in every aspect of life to whites.

For generations, violence born out of apartheid spawned a kind of arms race; blacks and whites fought against each other, and everyone else armed themselves, afraid to be caught in the cross fire.

Gun violence was at a record high as the country made its first effort to become what archbishop and peace crusader Desmond Tutu envisioned -- a rainbow nation.

Sort of sounds familiar, doesn't it? A waning white majority panicked over the rise of people of darker complexion purchases crates of guns to protect itself in an overheated paranoid delusion.

Not surprisingly, that forced South Africa to toughen its gun possession laws. Less surprisingly, the anti-apartheid and liberation movements also stockpiled weaponry in response to the perceived threat that white people would start shooting black people on sight.


Read more »

Republican winning

By Frank Moraes

I really like Greg Sargent; I read his The Plum Line blog throughout the day. In particular, his gang (him along with Jamelle Bouie and Jonathan Bernstein) see the world pretty similarly to I.[1] But in his coverage of the Sequester, I'm afraid that Sargent is allowing Republicans to win.

The dynamic is an old one that Republicans are really good at using. They stake out some extreme proto-fascist position and insist upon it. The Democrats move to the right to meet them. The Republicans continue to insist they won't compromise. The professional centrists, of course, lament that the two parties just can't agree. And the liberals defend the Democrats by noting that the Republicans are being unreasonable. Eventually, a deal is reached that is far to the right of what Democrats would normally want, but all the liberals rejoice because the Democrats "won."

The problem is that the Republicans won: they ended up with more than they could ever have reasonably expected. And this isn't just true of particular battles. Right now, we live with an extremely conservative government. With a Democratic White House, we get policy that Nixon and even Reagan couldn't have dreamed of. Look at Supreme Court nominees! The great "liberal" justice John Paul Stevens just retired. He was put on the court by Ford. So we won't be dancing in the streets anytime soon.

I bring this up because this morning, Sargent wrote, The false Equivalence Pundits Are Part of the Problem. Everything he writes in the column is correct. But it is arguing on the conservatives' ground. David Brooks isn't make his ridiculous "Obama is to blame!" arguments because he seriously thinks that Obama is to blame. He is making these arguments so that we liberals will fight with him while the Republicans manage to pull the country ever to the right.

I don't know what to do about this. I fall into this same trap. And let's fact it: it is hard to get people to pay attention to an argument toeliminate the sequester altogether when the Republicans use this tactic. Also: the Democrats are the real problem here—Barack "Let's negotiate with ourselves!" Obama especially. But there must be some way to counter the conservative offensive. The first step, perhaps, is to not accept David Brooks' claim that he is a moderate.

____________________________________________

[1] I know that "I" sounds awkward, but it is correct. If I used "me" it would indicate that they see the world the same way they see me.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Big whoop?

By Mustang Bobby

A lot of people on both sides of the marriage equality debate seemed impressed that some 75 Republicans, including prominent members of the Bush administration and two members of Congress, signed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of marriage equality.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

[...]

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.

Ms. Pryce said Monday: “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”

Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.

“The ground on this is obviously changing, but it is changing more rapidly than people think,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist and former House leadership aide who did not sign the brief. “I think that Republicans in the future are going to be a little bit more careful about focusing on these issues that tend to divide the party.”

Read more »

Will Gov. Christie be snubbed by CPAC?

By Richard K. Barry

Perhaps not surprising, though interesting, is the fact that so far NJ Republican Gov. Chris Christie has not been invited to the annual confab known as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a gathering of conservative activists. Considering that 40 featured speakers have been invited, this is an obvious slight.

It should be noted, however, that CPAC Communications Director Laura Keehner Rigas told ABC News that there are three weeks until the conference and "I encourage everyone to hold tight."

So maybe this means he will be invited but that some in the conservative leadership want to send a message that they have not been thrilled with his behaviour of late.

You will recall that Christie annoyed some conservatives by blasting House Republicans, notably Speaker Boehner, for adjourning before approving a $60 billion relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy.

And who could forget Christie palling around with President Obama, even praising the Kenyan socialist, just before the November election?

It does sound like he will eventually be invited, though the reception will be something to watch. 

Christie is very likely interested in the 2016 presidential race, and is extremely popular in New Jersey, an otherwise very blue state. If Republicans hope to win back the White House, they are going to have to find the modern equivalent of Reagan Democrats to swing things their way, and there is no one better positioned to do that than Gov. Christie. 

If they continue to insist on ridiculous purity tests, it's going to be a long four years for the GOP.

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Illinois special election 2013: Kelly wins special Ill. House race"

(Washington Post): "Republicans are losing the spending argument"

(BuzzFeed): "Rand Paul explains his surprise vote for Hagel"

(Reuters): "Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage"

(The Guardian): "Italy votes against austerity leaving EU in turmoil"

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Senate aproves Hagel as new secretary of defense"

(Fox News): "Republicans to Obama: Quit campaigning, spending cuts are going to happen"

(New York Times): "Fed Chairman defends stimulus efforts to Senate committee"

(New York Times): "Looming cuts spur mass release of illegal immigrants"

(Newark Star Ledger): "Gov. Christie to announce expansion of Medicaid in budget speech, sources say"

(Pew Research): "GOP seen as principled, out of touch and too extreme"

Bad medicine

By Carl

Run, do not walk, to the local newsstand and pick up a copy of this week's Time Magazine for the lengthy investigative reporting done by Steven Brill on the price-gouging and profiteering of the American medical system.

From doctors to hospitals to insurance companies (which actually almost come off as heroes in this tale), Brill follows the money, and does it in-depth and in such a thorough manner that you feel what the various victims of the scamming feel as you read it: anger, terror, overwhelming intimidation.

When Sean Recchi, a 42-year-old from Lancaster, Ohio, was told last March that he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, his wife Stephanie knew she had to get him to MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Stephanie’s father had been treated there 10 years earlier, and she and her family credited the doctors and nurses at MD Anderson with extending his life by at least eight years.

Because Stephanie and her husband had recently started their own small technology business, they were unable to buy comprehensive health insurance. For $469 a month, or about 20% of their income, they had been able to get only a policy that covered just $2,000 per day of any hospital costs. “We don’t take that kind of discount insurance,” said the woman at MD Anderson when Stephanie called to make an appointment for Sean.

Stephanie was then told by a billing clerk that the estimated cost of Sean’s visit — just to be examined for six days so a treatment plan could be devised — would be $48,900, due in advance. Stephanie got her mother to write her a check. “You do anything you can in a situation like that,” she says. The Recchis flew to Houston, leaving Stephanie’s mother to care for their two teenage children.

[...]

The total cost, in advance, for Sean to get his treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy was $83,900.

Why?

Read more »

Contents of character

By Frank Moraes

Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and said, "I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is a wonderful sentence, wise in content and poetic in style. I thought of it watching Democracy Now! this morning, during which they showed extended clips of the 1970 documentary King: a Filmed Record. It is really good and I recommend you check it out. The problem is that I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment.

In some ways, Chris Hayes was wrong in Twilight of the Elites; America is something of a meritocracy. People who have more than enough to eat do not steal bread. And that is what is going on with the vast majority of so called immorality: teen pregnancy, drug use, and even violent crime. These are problems that explode due to insecurity, want, and apathy.

I don't mean to put down Dr. King at all. He was talking at a different time. Not being judged by the color of your skin is necessary but not sufficient. And it isn't as though we have become a color blind society. People (especially conservatives) who wanted to say that Obama's election meant that we had moved into a post-racial era have shown themselves to be silly indeed. If anything, Obama's election showed just how much racism was festering below the surface throughout the country. Have you heard about the research showing that less than 4% of fashion models are nonwhite?


Read more »

Nixon and Bork

By Mustang Bobby

Via TPM:

Robert Bork says President Richard Nixon promised him the next Supreme Court vacancy after Bork complied with Nixon’s order to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973.

Bork’s recollection of his role in the Saturday Night Massacre that culminated in Cox’s firing is at the center of his slim memoir, “Saving Justice,” that is being published posthumously by Encounter Books.
Bork died in December at age 85.

Bork writes that he didn’t know if Nixon actually, though mistakenly, believed he still had the political clout to get someone confirmed to the Supreme Court or was just trying to secure Bork’s continued loyalty as his administration crumbled in the Watergate scandal.

President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the high court in 1987. The nomination failed in the Senate.

Wow.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Stuart Stevens' bizarre apologia

By Frank Moraes

Stuart Stevens was Romney's chief campaign strategist. And I have a certain fondness for him, which I've discussed before. But he just wrote a bizarre OpEd over at the Washington Post, The GOP Revival Must Go Beyond Joining Twitter. He does give some lip service to this question. But really: is this what anyone is saying? Republicans lost the last election because they didn't have good enough social networking? What is bizarre, however, is that he quickly drops discussion of this issue at all.

For the rest of the OpEd, he just rambles on about this and that. At the beginning, he seems to be defending himself against the argument that Romney lost because his campaign was bad. I will admit that there are some who are making that argument, but I'm not one of them. Romney's campaign was fine. And it wasn't the 47% remark either. So I'm open to a Stevens defense on this issue. But his defense was just pathetic.

Stevens claims that young people voted for Obama because he was offering them the gift of free contraception. And old people voted for Romney because they "are more concerned with the economy than with same-sex marriage." Yeah, those retired people on fixed incomes are really concerned about the job market, unlike those free wheeling young people! This is quite clearly the same line of argument that Romney usedwhen he said that Obama gave "extraordinary financial gifts" to Latinos and others.


Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Republicans sign legal brief in support of gay marriage"

(Reuters): "Chicago votes in House race dominated by gun control issue"

(First Read): "CPAC to feature potential presidential candidates, GOP internal battle, and no Christie"

(Washington Post): "Iran, world powers see little chance of breakthrough in new nuclear talks"

(Columbus Dispatch): "Great Plains hit again; 2 dead"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Democrats and Republicans miscalculate on automatic cuts"

(CBS News): "Obama to governors: Help me get Congress to act on sequester"

(ABC News): "Will Ashley Judd challenge Mitch McConnell for Senate? Kentucky Democrats think so"

(Washington Post): "Afghan officials say NATO ignored complaints of abuses by U.S. Special Operations forces"

(CNN): "Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop dies at age 96"

Petulance

By Carl

The Obama administration and Democrats are sitting awfully pretty this week. This is the week that Republicans will explode, no matter what happens. Pass the popcorn:

The danger for Republicans is that the budget cuts will severely weaken public support for the austerity theme that the party has been promoting since 2010. The cuts will make "deficit reduction" something very real to average American citizens and business and something that is often quite painful rather than an abstract debate over numbers.

While Americans have historically been hostile to government, they tend to support specific government services when asked by pollsters. So Washington's overall spending might not be popular as a concept, but Social Security and Medicare are.

The spending cuts will shift the debate toward the specifics. Americans will watch as government services are retrenched. The last time this happened, things didn't go well for the GOP.

Read more »

Obama's evil secrecy

By Frank Moraes 

Glenn Greenwald is one of the most important liberal journalists we have. And of course that means he works for a British newspaper. On Friday, he wrote, "Obama Officials Refuse to Say if Assassination Power Extends to US Soil." This is the kind of stuff that liberals would be all over if the president were a Republican. But a lot of liberals claim that they "trust" Obama to use these powers wisely. Even apart from the absurdity of the claim that anyone with Obama's power can be trusted, isn't it clear that Obama will not always be president? Isn't it clear that these precedents will be used by very bad men in the future? Isn't it obvious that a few generations down the line the president will use the exact same justifications to assassinate troublesome journalists on the streets of New York? It's obvious to me, anyway.

Both CIA head nominee John Brennan and President Obama himself have been asked the same question, "Could the administration carry out drone strikes inside the United States?" In both cases, the answer is, "We aren't doing that and we don't plan to." This is a problem. This implicitly opens the door to a future statement that, "We changed our minds!" It almost screams, "Yes, we can!"

The administration has secret legal documents that justify targeted assassinations of American citizens outside the country. Most of these documents the administration won't even show to the Senate. If this all sounds kind of familiar, it is because this is just like the Bush administration.

Read more »