P.M. Headlines

(UPI): "Officials reach deal on migrant workers as part of immigration bill"

(Press Herald): "Collins supports plan to expand background checks"

(New York Times): "Bomb North Korea, before it's too late"

(Time): "GOP fears Clinton in 2016"

(Reuters): "Brown must reduce prison population, judges rule"

Listening to Now: Albert King - "Born Under A Bad Sign"

By Richard K. Barry

I was out at a club last night. Some of the local blues talent put on a show called the "Three Kings," in which they featured the music of blues greats B.B. King, Freddie King, and Albert King. Nice night. Any tribute to Albert King has to contain a version of "Born Under A Bad Sign," and it did. 

Here's Albert with the original.

Bedside story

By Mustang Bobby

In this day and age, this is just sad.

A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.

“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.

It’s also a violation of the law. In 2010, President Obama signed an order that required any facility that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights to same-sex partners of patients. In this case it sounds like the hospital got caught in the middle of a family feud.

There is a happy ending: according to JMG, Mr. Gorley has been allowed to return to the hospital to visit his husband.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Gov. O'Malley considers 2016 presidential bid

By Richard K. Barry

Democratic Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley says that he is will give some thought to running for president in 2016. He'll leave office under term limits in 2015, and he has every right to think about what comes next.

"I need to be spending a lot more energy and time giving serious consideration and preparation to what — if anything — I might have to offer should I decide to run for president in 2016," O'Malley said during a wide-ranging interview with editors of The Baltimore Sun.

While it is true that a Hillary Clinton run, or even a Joe Biden candidacy, would make it hard for anyone else to secure the Democratic nomination, things happen in politics. It's never a bad idea to be ready to take advantage of the unexpected.

Gov. O'Malley's name certainly comes up in conservation and, besides, coronations are unseemly things in a democracy.

Politicians and head gear

By Richard K. Barry

Players from the U.S. Naval Academy's football team presented President Obama with a custom helmet. He was asked to put it on, which some people might consider a reasonable request. But the President didn't get to be president by being a fool. He politely declined.

"Here's a general rule," the president joked. "You don't put stuff on your head if you're president. That's politics 101. You never look good wearing something on your head."

The truth is that if you are a politician of any kind, or hope to be one, you should note this very important rule. Isn't that right, Mike Dukakis? 

Why Obama's budget is a mistake

By Frank Moraes

Jonathan Chait wrote an interesting article today about how conservative pundits are now attacking Obama from the left, Conservatives Decide Obama Is Too Conservative. It had a particularly good catch from Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon who now says that Obama shouldn't be trying to cut the deficit, but rather be pushing his jobs program. As Chait pointed out, this is a total reversal from what he said when Obama first proposed his jobs program. At that point, Continetti was pushing the same old conservative canard that the government can't create jobs. It's fun to read.

But Chait also pointed out something that is important about the mistake which Obama's budget is: in his column today, Charles Krauthammer wrote that Obama should offer that the tax increases in his budget go half to reducing the deficit and half to reducing marginal tax rates. Jonathan Chait rightly notes that this is (yet another) conservative attack from the left. But here's the thing: he and the others are only able to make this attack from the left because Obama has moved so far to the right. Just like I (and oh so many others) predicted!

I understand. There is not going to be a budget deal. This isn't just because the Republicans refuse to do anything. The truth is that the Sequester is just starting to affect the economy. It will keep economic growth slow for the next two years. A Grand Bargain, as much as I am against it, would be good for the economy in the short term. The Republicans do not want that. They are hoping for a replay of 2010 in 2014. And they have a good chance of getting it.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "US, China agree on North Korea denuclearization push"

(First Read): "NBC/WSJ poll: 53 percent support gay marriage"

(Washington Post): "Gun debate in Senate likely to feature amendments to weaken or strengthen laws"

(Politico): "RNC's celeb plan falls flat in Hollywood"

(NewYork Times): "Mubarak appears briefly at trial in Egypt"

Thoughts on The McConnell Tapes (cont'd)

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Mustang Bobby 

MJWS:

For MB's previous post on this matter, see here.

I would just like to say, in agreement with him, that the real story here, the real scandal, isn't what Progress Kentucky did (which wasn't some elaborate bugging operation) but what McConnell was plotting to do, what he and his staff were preparing to do to destroy Ms. Judd's character, for the sake of his own re-election efforts. Yes, we expect politicians to dig up dirt on their opponents and go negative, but this was far beyond what we generally accept as normal, appropriate (if still sordid) behavior.

As MB wrote: "[T]his crowd seems especially energized about being bullies, and they relish finding things about her that will appeal to the paranoia and the prejudices of the 'low-information' voter." In other words, how characteristically Republican of them.

**********

MB:

A group called Progress Kentucky says they're the ones who made the recordings of Mitch McConnell's re-election team strategizing about how to campaign against Ashley Judd.

A secret recording of a campaign strategy session between U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and his advisors was taped by leaders of the Progress Kentucky super PAC, says a longtime local Democratic operative.

Mother Jones Magazine released the tape this week. The meeting itself took place on Feb. 2.

Jacob Conway, who is on the executive committee of the Jefferson County Democratic Party, says that day, Shawn Reilly and Curtis Morrison, who founded and volunteered for Progress Kentucky, respectively, bragged to him about how they recorded the meeting.

Apparently the strategy session was held in a room where people walking by could hear what was being said without being in the room itself, so whether or not that qualifies as "eavesdropping" under Kentucky law isn't really clear.

Read more »

Why today's "stealth" bigots are worse than old-school racists

By Marc McDonald 

In a perfect society, there would be no bigots and no racism. Of course, America will never be mistaken for a perfect society. And despite our national delusion that we've become a "color-blind" society that has moved beyond racism, the truth is more complex.

In some ways, it's actually harder to fight racism these days in America than it was, say, 30 years ago. For one thing, a lot of people (particularly Republicans) deny that racism even exists today. In fact, most of these people insist that white people are the "victims" of racism.

In the old days, foes of racism had clear-cut targets and goals. Fighting for African-Americans to be able to vote in the Deep South of the 1960s was no picnic---but at least it was a concrete, clear-cut goal to work toward.

But these days, the fight against racism is more complex. It's more difficult to fight racism when vast numbers of white Americans deny that it even exists these days. 

The fact that shockingly high numbers of African-Americans are locked up in prison? Nope, there's no racism in today's America. 

The fact that African-Americans still are much more likely to live in poverty than white Americans? Nope, there's no racism in today's America. 

The firestorm of (idiotic) controversy about President Obama's birth certificate? Nope, there's no racism in today's America.

Back in the old days, bigots were at least upfront and honest about their racism. I recall during my younger years growing up in the small towns of Texas, I knew many "old school" bigots. These people had no problem with openly using the "N" word. They openly expressed their contempt for "niggers."

Read more »

Inside Obama's budget

By Frank Moraes 

In his "Happy Hour Roundup" at The Plum Line the other night, Jonathan Bernstein provided links to three articles that argue in different ways that there is much to like in Obama's new budget. I've never argued otherwise, but I have been too focused on the entitlement cuts. Let's be clear though: Obama's offer of these cuts is very bad. Even if nothing happens in the next four years, Republicans will go on to accuse Democrats of intransigence: "Even that socialist Obama thought we needed to cut entitlements!"

Annie Lowrey over at the Economix blog argues that Obama's entire focus, not just his budgets, have been about reducing income inequality. She rightly notes that the ACA (Obamacare) will help the issue. Just on the face, giving people healthcare who didn't have it before makes them richer; it doesn't matter that you aren't giving them cash. But perhaps as important, it will make medical bankruptcies far less common. (Remember the big push by the feds to make bankruptcy harder because all of these spendthrifts were abusing the poor bankers? It was mostly bankruptcies because of our broken health-care system.)

She goes on to mention a number of good things that are in the new budget. It includes a rise in the minimum wage, universal preschool, and of course, slightly higher taxes for rich people. One thing that is in there really surprised me: the earned income tax credit (EITC). The budget would make it permanent. I thought it already was, especially since traditionally, that is one form of welfare conservatives agree with. Well, it is only in effect until 2017. That's a big deal. The idea that President Paul Ryan would end the program is very troubling.

In the great Wonkblog fashion, Brad Plumer presents the "Winners and Losers in the White House Budget." The winners (at least in terms of programs) are primarily the poor. As Lowrey points out, there is the EITC and the minimum wage. But in addition, although Medicare is cut, Medicaid is not. To some extent, this defines Obama's economic policies. I can see that he truly does care about the poor. It is when you move up the income ladder to the middle class, that he thinks things are fine. But they aren't fine. And helping the middle class thrive is really important to all of the classes.

Read more »

New Rep. Robin Kelly: Sucking and blowing on guns

By Richard K. Barry

One thing that you have to do in politics is win the races you're supposed to win. I'm sure there's a Vince Lombardi quote to this effect, I just can't think of it at the moment.

It may not get a lot of attention when things go as everyone expects they will, but it sure provides a lot of unwanted attention in politics when, as they say, man bites dog. 

So, with nary a headline outside of Chicago, Robin Kelly kept ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s House seat for the Democrats in the IL-02 on the South Side of Chicago and its southern suburbs. She defeated Paul McKinley on April 11 by a margin of 71 to 22 percent in a race that was expected to be won by precisely this sort of big margin. 

As Daily Kos reports:

Her bigger victory came in February's primary, where, despite starting off the race in third place, she made gun violence a central issue and rode a wave of anti-NRA sentiment to the Democratic nomination. Kelly has remained an outspoken advocate of gun safety regulations, a message she's pledged to carry with her to Washington.

She was sworn in yesterday and immediately got to work:

Saying children should be protected from gun-wielding criminals but 2nd Amendment rights should be preserved, newly installed U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly made her first remarks today on the floor of her new workplace, the House of Representatives.

"We can do both," she said of the twin aims in the gun debate.

Yes, well, I don't actually think Americans can do both, but that's the power of the mythology of gun ownership in the USA. Even Democrats have to say stupid shit like that. 

Craziest Republican of the Day: Jeff Duncan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republicans never fail to prop up their ideological extremism with the most ridiculous, uh, arguments:

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) warned in a Facebook post on Thursday that a national gun registry would be similar to a database used by the ruling Hutu tribe in Rwanda in the 1990s to locate and slaughter members of an opposing tribe in a genocide that killed up to 1 million people.

*****

"The 2nd Amendment is (or should be) equal to the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment and all of the others," Duncan said in his Facebook post. "Ask yourselves why it is under attack? Ask yourselves about a National gun registry database and how that might be used and why it is so wanted by progressives?"

Duncan then likened it to a tribal registry in Rwanda.



"Read about the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes," he continued. "Read that all Tutsi tribe members were required to register their address with the Hutu government and that this database was used to locate Tutsi for slaughter at the hands of the Hutu."

Duncan wrote that since the government had the names and addresses of nearly all Tutsis living in Rwanda, "the killers could go door to door, slaughtering the Tutsis."

He wrote that each Rwandan "had an identity card that labeled them Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa."

Duncan accused Democrats of "preying on the fears" of citizens.

Yes, that's right, this blithering idiot said that a gun registry would lead to genocide, as if the situation in the U.S. is the same as the one in Rwanda, with one tribe plotting to wipe out another and carrying out horrific mass murder. And he's accusing Democrats of "preying" on fear? Please.

You want fearmongering? There's no fucking gun registry, and there won't be one. It's just right-wing paranoia, stirred up by the NRA and other gun nuts to terrify, and mobilize, their followers against any and all gun control.

I'd say Duncan is engaging in such cynical exploitation himself, but he appears to be far too stupid for that -- and so crazy he actually seems to believe the shit he's spewing.

Not a hope in hell: Gun control now up for debate in Senate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There was much ado yesterday about the bipartisan (but still mostly Democratic) Manchin-Toomey proposal to broaden background checks for gun purchases (specifically to cover gun shows and the Internet), a deal that broke the NRA-backed Republican filibuster (the cloture motion passing 68-31) and allows for debate on the Senate floor of a package of gun control measures supported by Obama and the Democrats (and, of course, opposed by most Republicans and the NRA).

Is it a step in the right direction? Yes. Is it possible that something will end up passing, even if it's just expanded background checks (which would certainly be good in and of themselves but which aren't nearly enough)? Sure. And is it encouraging that Majority Leader Harry Reid is demanding a renewed ban on assault weapons and limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Of course.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. You know how the Senate works, you know what Republicans are all about, and you know that the Republican-led House isn't about to support anything resembling meaningful gun control legislation. Indeed, as Jonathan Bernstein writes in a sober -- and depressing -- post looking past yesterday's pro-debate vote to what lies ahead:

[W]e still don't know that an intact bill can make it to the final vote stage in the Senate; we still don't know if an intact bill can defeat a filibuster to get to that final vote; we don't know whether the House would take up a bill if it did pass the Senate; and we don't even know whether a bill could get a majority in the House even if they did take it up. So there's a long, long, ways to go. What happened [yesterday] was the easiest part.

In other words, as it says over the gates of hell in Dante's Inferno: "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate."

As you may know, that translates as "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

With Republicans able to block whatever they want, there's really no hope at all.

David Axelrod doesn't call us fucking retarded

By Frank Moraes

On the other night's Rachel Maddow Show, David Axelrod explained that everything Obama has ever done or ever will again do is just right. We actual liberals just don't get it. We don't understand the bigger issues that Serious Democrats understand. We don't understand that "free" trade agreements are great because they make rich people even more rich, even though they don't help the poor and middle class anywhere. We don't understand that the loss of manufacturing jobs is just a sign of globalization and there is nothing we can do so we ought to be happy with those minimum wage service jobs. We don't understand that what is good for GE, Exxon, and GM is good for America.

In other words: we don't understand that the Republicans are right about all the economic issues.

Axelrod patiently explained that we just have to do something about Social Security because Medicare is in trouble. He also explains that, sure, he would be for raising the payroll tax cap. That ought to be part of the mix. That was his word: part. Because, you know, we have to be reasonable about this. For every dollar that a rich man pays, we need to take a dollar away from a poor man. Not doing that might, I don't know, hurt the feelings of the Republicans. Of course, Axelrod was quick to note that a payroll tax increase will never happen. Rachel Maddow pushed back on him pretty hard; it was nice to see. And it even made Axelrod backpedal a bit.

And maybe that's why he never got around to saying that liberals are fucking retarded. Maybe that's why he's not mayor of Chicago.

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

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Kerry: "US will defend its allies"

(MarketWatch): "US jobless claims drop 42,000 to 346,000"

(ThinkProgress): "Elizabeth Warren tears into federal regulators for shielding big banks"

(Reuters): "Delaware becomes latest state to take up gay marriage"

(BBC News): "Cyprus to appeal to EU for extra bailout assistance"

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Kentucky Democrat says liberal group taped McConnell meeting"

(NBC Latino): "NBC/WSJ poll: Majority supports citizenship, believes immigration strengthens nation"

(NBC News): "Newtown passion moves Senate vote on guns"

(Talking Points Memo): "Boehner disagrees With NRCC Chair’s criticism of Obama budget"

(New York Times): "Pentagon says nuclear missile in grasp for North Korea"

Freedom is free. Fascism, however...

By Carl 

So it turns out that Mayor Mike Bloomberg has yet another black eye in his third term – Occupy Wall Street:

After eleven months of talking in the courts, New York City has agreed to pay Occupy Wall Street almost a quarter of a million dollars.

The lawsuit, filed on May 24, 2012, by lawyers representing OWS, claimed that 3,600 of 5,000 books in the free People's Library were destroyed during the violent raid and eviction of the protest camp in Zuccotti Park.

In addition to books, also destroyed were computers, live streaming equipment and bicycles which were owned and operated by an environmental nonprofit, Time's Up.

It's barely a victory... after all, people were harassed and arrested and injured for the crime of protesting and assembling peacefully, and $186,000 of that is eaten up by attorneys' fees... and yet, it's a start.

The greater victory is this: the city actually acknowledged responsibility for the actions of its police officers. This is diametrically opposed to the usual, "Who? Him? Don't know him. Rogue cop."

I can sympathize with the city, but to a limited extent. The administration of a city the size of New York demands some corner-cutting somewhere, and the fact that rights were trumped is indicative of that. Safety and health have importance, too, as well as the rights of other people.

With OWS, however, we see a situation where – some sanitation issues aside – peaceful protestors were using a public space, admittedly provided by a private corporation but in exchange for zoning variances, effectively making it a public space. It was this company that demanded OWS be removed, which started the whole mess back in 2011.

Read more »

Battlelines are drawn for the 2014 South Carolina governor's race

By Richard K. Barry 

State Senator Vincent Sheheen said yesterday that he will again run for governor of South Carolina. He lost in 2010 to then-Rep. Nikki Haley by the relatively narrow margin of 51.4 to 47 percent. 

Haley has not formally announced her intentions, but it is widely expected she will seek re-election.  

According to local press:

Sheheen said Wednesday he thinks Republican Nikki Haley's first-term record as governor gives him a better chance to win in his second try for the state's top office.

"In 2010, I ran because I thought I was best choice for governor, and I think, over the past three years, Nikki Haley has pretty much proven that," said the Kershaw County Democrat...

"People are tired having one of the worst unemployment rates in the country. They're tired of having roads crumble. They're tired of this administration putting forward no plans for public education."

*****

With Sheheen's announcement Wednesday, sniping from both sides began more than 18 months before the November 2014 general election.

"Not really much news here – he's been running for governor his entire adult life," said Haley political advisor Tim Pearson, who called Sheheen "a pro-labor union trial lawyer."

S.C. GOP chairman Chad Connelly added: "The Vince Sheheen that announced for governor today is even more liberal than the Vince Sheheen that voters rejected in 2010. Today's Vince Sheheen fully supports President Obama's failed policies."

And they're off!

Is it relevant that the last gubernatorial election in South Carolina took place on Nov. 2, 2010, a day when many things across the country were coming up Republican? I should think. In any case, a rematch for the two is likely to be close once again.

Your slip is showing

By Mustang Bobby 

Jon Stewart's pithy question about right-wingers and their obsession with intimate acts with barnyard creatures reminds me that there are some people who have some really creepy things lurking around in their subconscious.

For example, last month Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said he was not in favor of marriage equality because he didn't plan on marrying a man. Okay, fine; no one is asking him to. The question is really about those people who want to.

Now we have another member of the Georgia congressional delegation telling us that he’s not interested in gender transition surgery. Via The Huffington Post:

"I don't want to pay for a sex-change operation," [Rep. Paul] Broun told town hall attendees, presumably referring to a proposal, scrapped by the Obama administration late last month, that would have allowed gender confirmation surgeries to be covered under Medicare and Medicaid. "I'm not interested. I like being a boy."

Yeah. Anyone over the age of twenty-one who refers to himself as a "boy" has a few more issues than what's in the fine print of Obamacare. (FYI, such surgeries are not covered. That's up to your insurance company.)

By the way, the news that Mr. Chambliss is not gay was received with great joy amongst those of us who are.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The great liberal gun policy victory

By Frank Moraes 

The New York Times (and plenty of other news outlets) has reported that we have a gun control bill that can make it through the Senate. Hoo-fucking-ray! Let's look back on what's happened the last 4 months. Mass murders in America every few days. About 40 gun suicides per day. About 25 gun murders per day. But we can't talk about limits on handguns even though they are used in the overwhelming majority of gun related deaths. Let me rephrase that: it isn't that such handgun limits would be impossible to get through Congress, it is that we can't even talk about them. (Except for extremists like me.)

So after Sandy Hook, what do we get? The most liberal among us called for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines as well as background checks for all gun purchases. Well, right off the top the assault weapons ban was thrown away. I can't say that I care that much. Assault weapons are, after all, just scary looking guns; what makes them most dangerous are their 30 round banana clips. But there was still hope that we might be able to limit magazine sizes to ten.

To work NRA! This floors me. Really! The main argument I heard about limiting magazines to ten was, "Why 10? Why not 9? Why not 11?" That's what passes for serious debate in America. The answer, of course, is that everyone thought that number was a good compromise between interfering with the fun of gun enthusiasts and protecting society from the harm from (I'll just say it!) gun enthusiasts. Related to this tactic is the "It won't do any good!" argument. Moderates try to placate the NRA crowd by limiting their proposals. Then the NRA comes in and (rightly) argues, "It won't do much good." Okay then, how about a handgun ban? Oops! I forgot, we can't talk about that. (It might cause the NRA to explode.)

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Japanese automakers recall 3.4 million vehicles over air bags"

(Reuters): "Obama budget aims to kick-start deficit reduction talks"

(New York Times): "Senator's group reaches deal on immigration"

(Baltimore Sun): "Ben Carson steps down as Hopkins commencement speaker"

(The Week): "Can Rand Paul sell black voters on the Republican Party"

Thoughts on The McConnell Tapes

By Mustang Bobby 

David Corn at Mother Jones has once again tipped up the rock and caught some Republicans being themselves.

Last fall it was Mitt Romney and the 47% at Boca. This time it is Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his staff doing opposition research on Ashley Judd if she decided to run against him in 2014. They discuss everything from her views to her history of dealing with depression:

The aide who led the meeting began his presentation with a touch of glee: "I refer to [Judd] as sort of the oppo research situation where there's a haystack of needles, just because truly, there's such a wealth of material." He ran through the obvious: Judd was a prominent supporter of President Barack Obama, Obamacare, abortion rights, gay marriage, and climate change action. He pointed out that she is "anti-coal."

But the McConnell gang explored going far beyond Judd's politics and policy preferences. This included her mental health. The meeting leader noted:

She's clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it's been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she's suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the '90s.

There's a lot more, including digging into her views on religion, her patriotism, her living overseas, whether or not she's a resident of Kentucky, and so on.

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Syrian, North Korea top G8 meeting in London"

(Talking Points Memo): "Top Republican blasts Obama budget as 'shocking attack on seniors'"

(Politico): "Senators unveil deal on background checks"

(Washington Post): "Rand Paul: My support for Civil Rights Act has 'never wavered'"

(Seattle Post Intelligencer): "House Committee approves pro-business cyber bill"

He just don't get it, do he?

By Carl 

President Obama, I mean:

In his fifth annual budget proposal to Congress on Wednesday, President Obama once again put forward a fiscal mix of investments in infrastructure, education and research with further deficit reduction through tax increases and spending cuts.

But for the first time he included changes to Medicare and Social Security intended to entice Republicans back to the bargaining table. The concessions, however, showed little sign of winning them over.

The main new element of the budget is his proposal, offered previously in private negotiations with Speaker John A. Boehner, for a new cost-of-living formula that would reduce future Social Security benefits. On the spending side, Mr. Obama wants to spend $66 billion over 10 years to help states make prekindergarten available universally, paid for by higher taxes on tobacco products.

Mr. President, they don't care. They. Don't. Care. If you propose it, it's bad. You could repeal taxes on everything and Republicans, Inc. would still find a way to try and paint you as a tax-and-spend liberal. You could declare war on Islam, and Republicans, Inc. would still find a way to call you a Muslim. Hell, you could resign your office today and they'd start impeachment proceedings!

Read more »

Pretend liberals

By Frank Moraes 

Eric Alterman had a great article in last week's print edition of The Nation, "Cuomo vs. Cuomo" (it's behind a pay wall, but a subscription only costs $9.50 per year -- I think The New York Times charges more per month). In it, he talks about the two sides of Cuomo the Younger (Andrew): Socially Progressive Economically Conservative. This is so common that some clever pundits have coined an acronym: SPEC.

I have a better term for such people: Pretend Liberals. It is really quite simple: it doesn't matter what laws you have if the power of individuals is too unequal. If you have the money, you can get around most laws. Wanna launder drug money? That might cost you a few bucks, but certainly not your freedom. If you don't have money, you just better be lucky. Wanna launder drug money? You're looking at life imprisonment. Hell, you don't have to do anything at all for the state to kill you.

(It's interesting to think about this for a moment. There is a great test case: OJ Simpson. Rich OJ had no problem getting a not guilty verdict against a case that was pretty strong. Poor OJ got 33 years for a fairly trumped up charge. Rich man, poor man: free man, caged man.)

Thus, I think we really need to do something about the Democratic Party. Over the last 20 years, the party really has abandoned economic issues. Just watch MSNBC. It is frightening. Now, I'm not suggesting that the people on MSNBC don't believe in economic liberalism. Rather, they are all well-to-do, and are more than willing to overlook the economic issue if they can get some decent policy (or lip service!) on guns or gay rights. What's more, we have our great liberal president whose idea of fair is for the rich to pay an extra percent in taxes while the elderly get their benefits cut by substantially more. That's not liberalism; that's conservatism; it's just not fascism.

Read more »

Louisiana crawfish: The demise of Bobby Jindal

By Mustang Bobby 

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) proposed a new state sales tax to replace income and corporate taxes, and it went over like a lead po'boy. In a speech on Monday, he backpedaled and withdrew the plan.

On Monday, Jindal scrapped his own proposal to eliminate the state's income and corporate taxes and replace them with a statewide tax on sales and business services. His retreat was a concession to the reality that the proposal was headed towards a humiliating defeat — and taking Jindal down with it along the way. Jindal said in a speech to lawmakers that the backlash against his plan "certainly wasn't the reaction I was hoping to hear," but that he would respect the public's wishes and start again.

And it may have sealed his fate as a rising figure in the GOP:

Grover Norquist, the intellectual leader of the anti-tax crowd in Washington, had praised Jindal's plan as "the boldest, most pro-growth state tax reform in U.S. history." He noted that it was particularly significant, because with Obama positioned to veto anything resembling the House GOP's budget for the next several years, Louisiana might be Republicans' best chance to show off their tax ideas on the state level.

"The national media and Acela-corridor crowd continue to focus on the bickering Washington, but they can learn what real tax reform looks like by looking to Louisiana," Norquist said.

It didn't turn out that way. Only 27 percent of Louisiana voters supported the plan in the latest SMOR poll versus a whopping 63 percent opposed. The idea didn't even garner majority support among Republicans.

According to SMOR pollster Bernie Pinsonat, Jindal's true approval is likely even lower than their mid-March poll indicated.

Here's why I think his fifteen minutes are up: he proposed a plan that was right out of the GOP playbook to screw the poor while saying he was for fiscal responsibility. But he so overplayed his hand that even people in his own party hated it. Then, under mounting public pressure, he crawfished on it, taking it back and promising to listen to the public. That is anathema in the modern GOP, who have lived long and hard by the rule that you never, ever give in to the majority of public opinion (see universal background checks).

But he's young yet. He'll learn. Give him a couple of decades and he'll become as much of a hard-shelled crustacean as Mitch McConnell.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The quest for sane Republicans

By Richard K. Barry

It's easy to find wacky Republicans wherever you look. It's not much of a challenge. So when you find one who seems sane, you notice.

The New York Times ran a report on a California town, Lancaster, that has been successfully promoting solar energy. The mayor, a class-action lawyer by the name of R. Rex Parris, has been a strong advocate. 

When asked if global warming was indeed a threat, he responded, "Absolutely. I may be a Republican. I'm not an idiot." 

It's a good joke. Sadly, a lot of Republicans are idiots. 

A Joe Biden presidential campaign would break new ground

By Richard K. Barry

The New York Times recently pointed out a relative novelty in the current landscape to succeed Barack Obama as president. It's about the status of a potential Joe Biden candidacy:

Mr. Biden faces a situation unique in the annals of modern American politics. He is the vice president, the highest-ranking member of his party interested in running for president, yet he is not the heir apparent. While every sitting vice president who sought it in the last half-century captured his party’s nomination, Mr. Biden would start as the underdog if he ran against Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state.

There's nothing particularly interesting to say about it, given that it is obviously true.

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Obama to unveil $3.77 trillion budget proposal"

(New York Times): "Obama seeks compromise in mix of cuts and spending"

(Politico): "Anthony Weiner gives tearful confessional, eyes comeback"

(Roll Call): "Manchin, Toomey prepare to unveil gun deal"

(Fox Business): "WTO cuts 2013 trade forecast after record slow growth"

P.M. Headlines

(Mother Jones): "Secret tape: McConnell and aides weighed using Judd's mental health and religion as political ammo"

(Paul Krugman): Did Thatcher turn Britain around?"

(Politico): "Harry Reid cites father's suicide in gun debate"

(Reuters): "New York proposes new laws against public corruption"

(Reuters): "Alabama governor signs law tightening rules for abortion clinics"

It's days like these...

By Carl 

... I wish I was an ignorant Republican, Inc-er.

I did my taxes last night. It was not pretty.

I had an instructor for Tax Accounting when I was Actorino212, and he once said something really profound.

Which is to say it would mean nothing to a Teabagger.

He said, "Never regret having a large tax bill at the end of the year. It means you made a lot of money and the IRS let you hang onto it for a few more months."

I don't mind paying taxes, although I cringe every April. See, I earned that money in the greatest nation on the planet. I consider it the price for furnishing this great nation with the tools and people who make it great for me to live and work in.

When I was a kid, I watched my dad struggle to put food on the table. He was a union man, and work was spotty. Some weeks we made do on a ham cooked on Sunday that lasted us until the following week. He never took a vacation, opting instead for long drives on long weekends, despite the fact that he was up at 4 to get to work by 6.

He banked all his vacation time, as well as sick time and whatever other days he could bank in the union coffers, in order to build a nest egg for his retirement. The first sick day I remember him taking was when he tore his bicep clean off his arm, trying to lift a steel beam that had fallen on one of his workers. The next one was when he had a heart attack.

Read more »

Giving politics a worse name, New York-style

By Richard K. Barry

I know it's easy to have fun with numbers, especially when fooling around with percentages, but this is not good. BuzzFeed has done some calculating on the arrest rates of New York State politicians, and the results are stark:

When New York State Senator and former Majority Leader Malcolm Smith was arrested this week, he joined a remarkably large group: in the past six years, members of the New York State Senate have been about three times more likely than average Americans to run afoul of the law. And majority leaders have been over ten times more likely. 

The arrest rate in the country as a whole for a variety of crimes the FBI tracks is just over 4%. But the New York Public Interest Research Group says 11 state senators have been arrested in the last six years, bringing the arrest rate in the state senate (based on an estimate of how many have served in that time) to around 12%. And three of the five people to serve as majority leader or majority coalition co-leader during that time have been arrested. Which means the people who help make New York's laws are disproportionately likely to be accused of breaking them.

Come on, people. You're representing my home state, and you're embarrassing me. That's right. It's all about me. 

Constitution-free zone ahead

By Capt. Fogg

It's one of those news items that's been out there on the Web since February, In fact the ACLU has been talking about it since 2008,  but I had to hear it from someone in another country.  It's a situation I haven't heard on The Situation Room or even  on the blogs I read and yet it's the sort of thing one would have expected to arouse paranoia and rebellious rhetoric amongst the people who obsess about the Government taking away our freedom and our guns and our privacy.  Actually it seems to entail the government taking away what it damn well pleases for any reason it can think up -- and even for no reason at all.  Worst of all, and unlike your run-of-the-mill Chicken Little fantasies -- it's real.

The DHS has worried me since its inception and when national security became homeland security my innate suspicions were aroused.  I still think I was justified.  Yes, there have been exceptions to the 4th amendment proscriptions against searches and seizures of property since the beginning and many are there to allow customs enforcement, but now it seems our borders have by fiat, been arbitrarily moved 100 miles inland and nearly 200 million Americans -- almost 2/3 of the population can, without probable cause and without a warrant or reasonable suspicion and at the whim of law enforcement be stopped, required to prove citizenship, searched, papers and effects rummaged through and have property seized,  and you sir -- you can't do a damned thing about it.  The majority of the US population now lives in a 4th amendment free zone says the ACLU.

Read more »

Thatcher gets no credit for ozone

By Frank Moraes 

There was a very interesting discussion on All In about the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. I quite agree with what Chris Hayes says at the beginning of the clip below. But at one point, he asks Cass Sunstein if there is anything about Thatcher that liberals should applaud. Sunstein mentions the ozone layer: Thatcher and Reagan both pushed for the ban of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Let's stop right there. (We might as well, he doesn't mention anything else that liberals might like about Thatcher.)

The reason that we got the ban on CFCs is that DuPont wanted CFC-11 and CFC-12 banned. Why? The patents were running out and they had brand new patents on the replacement compounds. So as usual, these great lions of conservatism were just doing what the corporations wanted. I assure you that there would be a stampede of Republicans calling for carbon taxes if it were to Chevron's and Exxon's economic advantage.

So no. Liberals should not give even the slightest bit of respect to the Rusted Out Iron Lady. In banning CFCs Thatcher was doing exactly what she did when she privatized state utilities: the bidding of the power elite. That's all she (or for that matter Reagan) ever did.

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

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Holding freedom hostage

By Mustang Bobby 

Paul Krugman writes that the Republicans have dusted off an old argument from years ago to block the agenda of President Obama and the Democrats. Instead of arguing the merits of, say, expanding Medicaid to people who need it, they now say that giving people a guarantee that they will have health insurance is an assault on freedom:

Conservatives love, for example, to quote from a stirring speech Reagan gave in 1961, in which he warned of a grim future unless patriots took a stand. (Liz Cheney used it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article just a few days ago.) "If you and I don't do this," Reagan declared, "then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." What you might not guess from the lofty language is that "this" — the heroic act Reagan was calling on his listeners to perform — was a concerted effort to block the enactment of Medicare.

These days, conservatives make very similar arguments against Obamacare. For example, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has called it the "greatest assault on freedom in our lifetime." And this kind of rhetoric matters, because when it comes to the main obstacle now remaining to more or less universal health coverage — the reluctance of Republican governors to allow the Medicaid expansion that is a key part of reform — it's pretty much all the right has.

They trot out this pony for lots of other things, too. Universal background checks and liability insurance for gun owners shreds the Second Amendment. Giving free or reduced lunches to impoverished children takes away the parents' rights to feed their children the way they see fit. Banning interracial marriage is an assault on the rights of states to protect their own traditions, and of course the one we've been hearing a lot of recently, permitting marriage equality is a blatant attempt to muzzle the freedom of the "religious" to bully and harass the LGBT community.

David Brooks' column last week where he said that granting gays more freedom actually meant less was a caricature of the argument, and this is how we know that they're getting down to the fumes. When they have to tell you that more is actually less and up is actually down; that more choice for more people is tyranny and that finding a way to stop a madman from sweeping a kindergarten with 154 bullets in less than five minutes is the last step before Stalinism, it makes you wonder at what point will it dawn on them how utterly contemptuous of freedom they really are.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)