P.M. Headlines

(Politico): "White House correspondents partiers say Tom Brokaw got it wrong"

(Reuters): "Mississippi man charged with attempted use of biological weapons"

(Guardian Express): "New York to seek 9/11 victim remains and plane debris"

(The Hill):  "Lawmakers head for flights home after voting to end delays at airports"

(New York Times): "Islamist rebels in Syria create policy dilemma for Obama"

Listening to Now: Amy Speace - "Weight of the World"

By Richard K. Barry

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story with the provocative headline "If You Like Judy Collins, Try Amy Speace." The writer, Val Haller, notes that Judy Collins has signed Ms. Speace to her own Wildflower music label.

Ms. Speace has released four albums, starting in 2002 with "Fable," then "Songs for Bright Street," "The Killer in Me" and "Land Like a Bird." All were well reviewed. An NPR critic commented, "Her velvety achey voice recalls an early Lucinda Williams." Judy Collins describes the song "Weight of the World" as "one of the best political folk songs I've ever heard." And in The Tennessean, Peter Cooper writes, "What Speace says — what she sings — she tries to say with a confluence of poetry and honesty, of emotional specificity."

I don't know about the comparison to Collins, but it is powerful music.  

Todd Akin sort of says he might possibly make a potential political comeback

By Richard K. Barry

In an interview with KDSK-TV in Missouri, former Senate candidate Todd Akin (R) said that a political comeback is possible. You'll recall Akin of the "legitimate rape" comment, which destroyed a campaign that might otherwise have easily defeated Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. 

To refresh your memory, the comment was, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Within days of the comment, some in the Republican leadership lobbied to get him to drop out, but to no avail. McCaskill defeated Akin by 15.5 percent. 

Since then, Republican Karl Rove has started a new PAC to try to prevent candidates like Akin from running for the GOP. To that Akin replied, "Karl Rove has made himself and expert. I think I lost one race. He managed to lose about 12 of them in one night." He added that Rove spent an estimated $175 million with nothing to show for it. 

No love lost there. 

Akin cites a number of future activities that might keep him busy, including, academia, public speaking, and even politics.

"It's one of those things that depends on the circumstances really. I don't rule anything out," he said. " I consider it a bright new future and I'm interested to see what the possibilities are."

In truth, the interview was hardly an announcement that he expected to make a political comeback. It was more of a statement from a man badly beaten down that he would like to think he could make a comeback if he wanted to. 

That's a different question. 

You can see the full interview here.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Ken Rogoff doesn't tweet his junk

By Frank Moraes

Kenneth Rogoff, last year:

In a series of academic papers with Carmen Reinhart... we find that very high debt levels of 90% of GDP are a long-term secular drag on economic growth that often lasts for two decades or more.

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, today:

Nowhere did we assert that 90 percent was a magic threshold that transforms outcomes, as conservative politicians have suggested.

I will admit, Carmen Reinhart did not run around the country claiming that we had to have austerity or we'd have slow or even negative economic growth. No, it's always been Kenneth Rogoff. Just the same, we didn't hear a peep from Reinhart that he was mischaracterizing their work. But let's lay that aside for the moment. If Reinhart & Rogoff didn't show that a 90% debt to GDP ratio was some bad tipping point, what was the big deal of their paper? Matt Yglesias answers this question, "The raw fact that there's a statistical correlation between debt:GDP being high and GDP growth being low is trivial and offers no policy guidance."

What we have here is a case of scientists riding a popular wave based upon an obscene overstatement (that they helped create) of their work. And then when their work is shown in no uncertain terms to not show what was claimed, they retreat back to the safety of scientific objectivity and caveats. This is totally unacceptable. Rogoff especially should be thrown out of the field. But of course he won't be. He's "elite." And you know what that means: unless he's caught tweeting pictures of his junk, he can't be touched.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Priorities

By Mustang Bobby

Via NBC:

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill on Friday to give the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flexibility to defray spending cuts from its budget as part of the sequester, allowing the agency to restore furloughed air traffic controllers whose absences had spurred nationwide flight delays.

The House moved quickly late Friday morning to follow the lead of the Senate, which unanimously approved legislation late Thursday evening to give the secretary of transportation increased authority to transfer funds from its existing budget to restore furloughed air traffic controllers.

The legislation heads to the White House next for President Barack Obama’s signature. White House press secretary Jay Carney said at his press briefing on Friday that Obama would sign the legislation.

Though some House Democrats griped on Friday that the air traffic controller furloughs should provide the impetus for Congress to address all of the cuts prescribed by the sequester, the House easily cleared the two-thirds procedural threshold it needed to approve the FAA patch.

So while it’s perfectly okay with the House and the Senate that hundreds of teachers get laid off from Head Start and cutbacks go into effect for other critical programs, dog forbid that some congressperson has to cool their heels at the Cinnabon at O’Hare for an extra hour because the FAA was short-staffed. Got it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Pushing the GOP to support gay rights"

(Fox Business): "More good labor news: Jobless claims fall 16K"

(Ezra Klein): "The Democrats have lost on sequestration"

(USA Today): "Obama: Planned Parenthood is 'not going anywhere'"

(The Big Story): "GOP faces Senate recruitment woes in key states"

Behind the Ad: Sen. Mitch McConnell, knee-deep in bullshit

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell campaign

Where: Kentucky

What's going on: Steve Benen says it best. This ad "has to be seen to be believed. "

The Republican lawmaker who's spent his career fighting for the rich presents himself as some kind of nouveau-populist, with a pitch that bears no resemblance to his lengthy congressional career.

Time magazine ads the context you need, which is that polls put McConnell seriously underwater in his home state of Kentucky with only a year and a half to go before the election. A Public Policy Polling survey from early April found that 36 percent of voters approve of the job he is doing and 54 percent disapprove.

So, what's a Senator to do?

Reintroduce McConnell to Kentucky with some fancy Hollywood production values as a populist fighting for the little guy. And who better for the job than Lucas Baiano, the wunderkind video producer who has produced similar videos for Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry. 

I don't know what is more frightening, that McConnell would have the nerve to attempt to reinvent himself in this way, or that anyone might take him seriously.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Misty water-color memories

By Mustang Bobby

If you thought it was nice that all five living former and the current president got together yesterday to dedicate the George W. Bush Presidential Center, and you thought it was magnanimous of men like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to say nice things about him, well, I’m not going to pee on your campfire. Let him have his moment in the sun and all that; he’s out of office and can’t do us anymore harm except to continue to assault the English language.

Conservatives accused Democrats and liberals of hating him blindly, of never giving him the chance to prove that he’s not evil incarnate. (Ironically, a lot of conservatives have done the exact same thing to Barack Obama, so I guess they know what they’re talking about.)

Personally I never hated George W. Bush. That would mean I actually cared about him. But I could never muster the energy to actually give a shit about him as a person. His policies and his methods of governing and the things done in his name are another matter. And so while I never made it personal, and I don’t really care about his museum or the attempt by his minions to polish up the turd that was his administration, I do remember the reasons that I counted down the days until he was out of office and back in Texas where the worst thing he could do to the sensibilities of the world was to launch an attack on the art world with his new-found toy: a paint brush.

If you need a reminder of what it was like, Steven Rosenfeld at Jezebel has compiled a concise list of the 50 reasons a lot of people despised the presidency of George W. Bush. Some are little, but most of them are harsh reminders that while it’s fine to let him have his little museum, it is a monument to abject failure.

Actually, the real monument to his legacy are the rows of white marble stones in Arlington National Cemetery and the other graveyards around the country where young men and women now lie because of his lies. Paint that, Mr. Bush.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

American politics ever to the right

By Frank Moraes

According to The Hill yesterday evening, House Lawmakers Pull Immigration to the Right. That's to be expected. As Idaho Republican Raul Labrador notes, "There's [sic] a lot of things in the Senate bill that are right, but the reality is that the Senate is controlled by Democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans, and what you're going to see out of the House is probably a more Republican bill." There's no problem with that thinking at all!

And that's why it is so important for the Democratically controlled Senate to produce bills that maybe kind of sort of just a wee bit liberal. Instead, the Senate's great compromise is that undocumented residents will be able to become citizens in a minimum of 13 years—that's eight years of temporary legal status before they can get a Green Card. Compare that to conservative icon Ronald Reagan's law: 18 months. Is this what we are supposed to think is a great liberal proposal? It isn't even an acceptable liberal compromise. And that's not even including all of the other right wing pro-business aspects of the bill.

But naturally, the House bill will have to be worse. According to The Hill, it will require 15 years. And remember, this is coming from a bipartisan group. What finally gets out of the House will be even worse. How about 25 years? 50 years? The maximum age that a human can live seems to be 124. So why not make it 125 years?! In fact, that would be perfect for Congress. They could pass a bill that doesn't do a thing and still claim that they are doing something. A win-win!

Perhaps some day the Democratic Party will learn that if they put forward a proposal for a 3-year path to Green Card (which they could correctly argue is twice Reagan's law), they might have ended up with a 5-year path. "But the Senate had to get past a filibuster!" Well whose fault is that? Regardless, even if they can't pass legislation, the Democratic Party has to stand up and say, "We are for reasonable policies." As long as they hurry to meet the Republicans in the middle, the conversation just moves further and further to the right.

And that's how we got to this place. We need to get back to where we were in 1970 (at least). And we won't get there by moving inch by inch to the right.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Thanks for nothing, Mom

By Richard K. Barry

Barbara Bush was asked on the Thursday morning Today Show if she thought son Jeb should run for president, to which she answered:

He's by far the best qualified man, but no. I really don't.

I think it's a great country. There are a lot of great families, and it's not just four families or whatever. There are other people out there that are very qualified and we've had enough Bushes.

And then this:

There are other families. He'll get all our enemies, half of our friends.

Could it be that Barbara Bush sees a buzzsaw called Hillary Clinton on the horizon and would prefer that her son not get in front of it? 

In her defence, she is the mother and she is entitled to be protective of her children. 

Barbara Bush's comments about Jeb are at about the 2:22 mark. Interesting woman.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "McCain: White House looking for excuses not to intervene in Syria"

(USA Today): "Hagel: Syria likely used chemical weapons"

(Jonathan Chait): "Yes, George W. Bush was a Terrible president, and no, he wasn't smart"

(Fox News): "Bloomberg says Boston bombers' next target was Times Square, as suspects moved"

(New York Times): "Federal spigot flows as farmers claim discrimination"

P.M. Headlines

(Christian Science Monitor): "Senate, House pursue sharply different paths to immigration reform"

(The Hill): "Obama uses Bush library dedication ceremony to push immigration reform"

(Associated Press): "Barbara Bush on Jeb run: 'We've had enough Bushes'"

(Daily Beast): "Bush's legacy, Obama's choice"

(Reuters): "Some lawmakers told last week about Syria, sarin"

Mark Sanford debates cardboard Nancy Pelosi

By Richard K. Barry

Losing the special House election in South Carolina may be the least of Mark Sanford's worries. He could be on the way to losing his mind, which is how it must have appeared when he debated a near lifesize picture of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi yesterday.

The gimmick had to do with the fact that Sanford's Democratic challenger Elizabeth Colbert Busch has refused to participate in four debates as Sanford requested and will only debate once. 

Why he didn't get a picture of Colbert Busch I just don't know. Perhaps he's read that Pelosi  is less popular. 

Apparently Sanford asked cardboard Pelosi some tough questions and chided her for her lack of response. Other times he answered for her. It must have been scintillating. 

I guess he could have debated on empty chair, but that's so last August. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Does the Tea Party still matter?

By Richard K. Barry

Though not directly related to any one campaign, it might be significant election news that the House Tea Party caucus has decided to "relaunch" itself.  For a while they kind of went away. They lost ten caucus members in the 2012 general election, and high profile adherents like Michele Bachmann have been putting out their own brushfires.

But worry not. They're back.

This can't make other House Republicans very happy as they go through a rebranding exercise to make their party more acceptable to mainstream voters. 

As David Firestone at the New York Times writes:

The Tea Party, or what remains of it, has no interest in rebranding, and even the presence of a smaller, less influential caucus will exert on ideological tug on less radical Republicans.

All it takes is a handful of crazies to put the GOP off its game, if history is any guide.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

He has the right to remain silent

By Mustang Bobby

Via TPM:

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks but did so before he was advised of his constitutional right to keep quiet and seek a lawyer, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking, according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.

It is unclear whether any of this will matter in court since the FBI says Tsarnaev confessed to a witness and U.S. officials said Wednesday that physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene.

But the debate over whether suspected terrorists should be read their Miranda rights has become a major sticking point in the debate over how best to fight terrorism. Many Republicans, in particular, believe Miranda warnings are designed to build court cases, and only hinder intelligence gathering.

Conservatives often bemoan how hard it is to convict criminals and how terrible it is that some people get released or acquitted because of a “technicality” such as a conviction being overturned because it was based on illegally seized evidence. They complain that the deck is stacked against law-abiding citizens and the bad guys are all using the system to their advantage.

Read more »

Anthony Weiner won't say if his political career will blow up again

By Richard K. Barry

Seriously. Anthony Weiner is talking like he's going to run for mayor of New York, but he wants us all to know that there could be other embarrassing pictures of him out there.

“If reporters want to go try to find more, I can’t say that they’re not going to be able to find another picture, or find another … person who may want to come out on their own, but I’m not going to contribute to that. The basics of the story are not gonna change,” Weiner told RNN-TV’s Dominic Carter.

As Nate Silver pointed out last week, according to recent polling, Weiner's negatives are impossibly high for him to win the Democratic nomination. What does Weiner suppose happens to those negatives if more pictures surface?

I always liked Weiner's politics and was really disappointed when his career imploded, but sounds to me like he thinks someone else did these things to him. He seems to consider himself an innocent bystander. He says he's not going to contribute to the basic story, as if he is not the author of that story.

Just watch the clip. I'm not wrong.

You're a talented guy, Mr. Weiner. Go do something else with your life that isn't politics. That's over.

   

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Freedom to overpay for healthcare

By Frank Moraes

Back during the end of the Bush administration, Andrew Sullivan and Ezra Klein got into a bit of a pissing contest and I think it bears discussion. Klein wrote an article where he praised (at least) the efficiency of the United Kingdom's actual socialized medical system (the doctors work for the government). I'm sorry to say that I haven't been able to find the link to it because neither Klein nor Sullivan linked to the original article. It doesn't really matter.

Sullivan, who is originally from the UK, shot back, "One reason I'm a conservative is the British National Health Service. Until you have lived under socialism, it sounds like a great idea." He goes on to note that it isn't that bad. But, "I prefer freedom and the market to rationalism and the collective. That's why I live here." That doesn't sound so bad. It's a typical argument that you hear in favor of the broken American healthcare system. But wait.

Sullivan had been the wunderkind editor of The New Republic (where he more or less destroyed the reputation of a once great magazine). And then after that, he was a much in demand writer. In other words, he was making a lot of money. So of course he would love the system here. In fact, if he were in the United Kingdom, I'm sure he would love the private medicine he could purchase there. This is the Dick Cheney Effect: rich people get great healthcare wherever they are.


Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Obama, Cornyn, Perry to speak at memorial to victims of West fertilizer plant blast"

(Wall Street Journal): "Senators seek way to ease FAA cuts"

(Reuters): "Justice Department says no need to furlough employees"

(New York Times): "Possible Fed successor has admirers and foes"

(Washington Post): "CIA pushed to add Boston bomber to terror watch list"

P.M. Headlines

(Pew Research): "Mixed reactions to Senate gun vote"

(Huffington Post): "Kelly Ayotte's approval rating plunges after vote against gun background checks"

(National Journal): "Mark Pryor may soon have a Bloomberg problem"

(ThinkProgress): "Rhode Island becomes 10th state to approve equal marriage"

(The Hill): "Reid bill would require background checks to purchase explosives"

Why Obama wants a grand bargain

By Frank Moraes

Last night, Politico reported, Sources: Obama Plans W.H.-GOP Budget Group. In other words, it is Grand Bargain time! Don't worry, that feeling in the pit of your stomach is a normal reaction to the loss of all hope. But maybe it isn't as bad as all that. Regardless, it is an opportunity for me to discuss some new thinking I've been having about Obama's obsession with making a deal. The news is good! And bad! It depends upon how you want to look at it.

Why does Obama want a deal that will cut Social Security and Medicare in the long term? Because he doesn't care about the long term. Does that sound harsh? I don't mean it that way. The truth is that the economy is really bad right now. The stimulus is making it worse. Obama hopes to get a deal that will get the economy back on track now. And if that requires screwing seniors over the next couple of decades, so be it.

There are two ways to look at this. Imagine if Obama could get the economy growing again and create The Wrath of the Conquest of the Planet of the Bride of the Son of the Return of Morning in America. Then in a few years, the Democrats would likely have greater control of the government and would be in a position to fix the harm done by Chained-CPI. They could say (and this is true), "This cost of living adjustment is incorrect for seniors; we shouldn't havelowered it; we should have raised it!"

Of course, there are other ways that Chained-CPI hurts the Democratic base. In particular, it is a way to raise taxes (slowly, but surely) on the middle class. This is, as they say, something that Obama said very clearly that he would not do. So there's that. And that brings us to the second way of looking at Obama's pursuit of a Grand Bargain.

Maybe he just wants things to be good now, since he's in office. If it all goes to hell afterwards, who cares? In fact, that might be good. Nothing made people appreciate Clinton like George W. Bush. So if seniors in 2018 are eating cat food and the economy is struggling because of lack of demand, people will look back (Republicans especially!) and say, "That Obama was one bad mother f..." (Shut your mouth!) But I'm talking about Obama. (Then we can dig it!)

It may surprise you all, but I actually think it is the first way. Obama thinks that we need to fix the economy now. And he's right. If we are to have any hope in the future, we need to deal with our problems today.

So take a moment to appreciate these nice things I'm saying about Obama. I assure you, I will be back to complaining very soon!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder struggling in a new poll

By Richard K. Barry

It is not a good thing when you are a sitting governor and you are statistically tied with two opponents who are not well known to voters. Such is the position in which Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder finds himself.

EPIC-MRA of Lansing polled 600 Michigan voters earlier this month, asking them a series of questions about the governor, who has not yet formally announced his re-election plans, along with former U.S. Reps. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek and Bart Stupak of Menominee, who have both hinted at possible gubernatorial runs.

Schauer led Snyder 39-38 percent. And Snyder led Stupak by the same margin. The problem for Snyder is that only 25 percent of those polled said they knew Schauer and only 44 percent said they knew Stupak.

According to MLIVE:

But the results "speak volumes about Snyder's low performance amongst independent voters," said EPIC-MRA pollster Bernie Porn, who noted that Stupak and Schauer both polled strongly in their home districts and have plenty of time to boost their profiles around the state if they decide to run.  If they're able to raise the money they need, they can introduce themselves and get their name recognition up quickly."

Like I said, not a good thing for a sitting governor.

 (Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Behind the Ad: Mark Sanford attacks Elizabeth Colbert Busch for her labor ties

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Mark Sanford campaign

Where: South Carolina 1st Congressional District 

What's going on: Latest polls have former Gov. Mark Sanford (R) almost ten points behind Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) in the special House election in South Carolina. I guess if you're a Republican in the South and the going gets tough, you attack your opponent's connections to 'big labor."

According to the ad, because she has accepted union donations, a whopping $5000, she will "return the favour" should she be elected to Congress. For some reason candidates who take money from "big business" never seem to be in danger of returning that favor. 

It's tough times for Sanford who can't even get the date of the Alamo right. He ran a full page ad over the weekend comparing his struggle to the Alamo, though misstated the year (it was 1836, not 1863, as he'd written).

Okay, silly mistake, but when things start to go wrong, they continue to go wrong. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Kill me once, shame on you

Kill me twice?  

By Capt. Fogg

What do you say about a "religious" couple who have so much faith that they let their 2 year old die in 2009 because they thought prayer was making him better -- and again letting their 8 month old die from diarrhea last week because, you guessed it, the power of prayer was better than Immodium or God forbid, a trip to the pediatrician.

Well, I won't tell you what I'd say, I'll say it. Maybe it's true that Gods don't kill people -- people kill people, but maybe it's also true that faith is dangerous and maybe faith kills and maybe it kills all the more because we worship faith itself and give special status to people who believe in such dangerous superstitions instead of charging them with manslaughter.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible have been teachers in and members of the First Century Gospel Church in Philadelphia, PA where 'faith healing' is promoted.  A church that receives taxpayer support for convincing people to let their children die rather than receive medical attention.  First Century indeed.  In the 21st, it's unacceptable, it's shameful, it's ignorant, it's murder. Yes, I believe in religious freedom, but not in the freedom to inflict dangerous superstitions on other people, particularly minor children.  I fully support the freedom of people like the Schaibles to jump off cliffs to prove that faith will support them as long as no one is forced to hold hands with them in the attempt.

Too bad you can't make people blow into a meter and determine their faith level, but any level that allows children to die to prove their parents' devotion to asking gods for favors rather than doing what can easily save their lives -- is too damn much. 

Oh, and by the way, if this is a "Christian Nation" why aren't we indicting the Federal Government?  Why not the First Century Gospel Church? Why not Jesus as a co-conspirator, an accessory before and after the fact?  If he could have acted and didn't -- if in fact he exists, isn't he guilty too?  

If you're going to give me some crap about 'Heaven' and God's 'mysterious' ways, or God giving us free will,  don't bother to blow into the Faith-O-Meter.  You're already proved how full of it you are

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Boston bombing suspect cites U.S. wars as motivation, officials say"

(Bloomberg): "Boston bombings intensify calls to boost border security"

(USA  Today):  "N.Y. judge sentences terrorism defendant to life"

(Washington Post): "Charges dropped against Miss. man in ricin case as FBI searches second home"

(Voice of America): "Obama renews call for Assad Departure"

P.M. Headlines

(NBC News): "Search of Tsarnaev' phones, computers finds no indication of accomplices, sources say"

(The Hill): "Defense hawks say Boston bombings prove America is a battlefield"

(Politico): "Max Baucus is retiring"

(Seattle Post Intelligencer): "RI Senate to vote on gay marriage"

(Pew Research): "A rise in wealth for the wealthy; Declines for the lower 93%"

Cartoonists against gun violence

By Richard K. Barry

In a short film sponsored by Mike Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, some of the country's most celebrated cartoonists contributed their work to encourage lawmakers and Americans to address gun violence.

It's narrated by actors Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell feels the need to defend his record on mental health issues

By Richard K. Barry

Whatever one thinks of the secret taping of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) campaign strategy session, the words captured on tape have not helped him. The characterization of once potential Senate challenger Ashley Judd's mental health issues as a campaign opportunity has left some unimpressed.

Clearly, McConnell felt the need to do some damage control.

In response to those who have called him “insensitive to Americans suffering from depression or mental illness,” McConnell says in the op-ed, published in the Lexington Herald-Leader, that ”nothing could be further from the truth," citing his legislative record, including his support for a 2004 youth suicide prevention bill, the creation in 2000 of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network and a 2008 bill to improve mental health care for veterans, among others.

The Hill writes that "some critics have called for him to apologize to Judd and other sufferers of mental illness because he remained silent during the meeting as an aide outlined her battles with depression, as chronicled in her autobiography."

The Senate Minority Leader has consistently criticized "those 'far-left partisans,' accusing them of trying to tear him down through inappropriate tactics."

What is interesting here is not the substance of McConnell's defence, but the fact that he felt the need to respond at all. I can't defend the tactics of Progress Kentucky, the group that secretly taped the meeting, but McConnell is hoping voters will focus on how the comments were obtained instead of what the comments were.

McConnell's actions suggest he doesn't believe they will.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Iran denies link to what Canada calls thwarted train terror plot"

(New York Times): "Boston bombing suspect's bedside hearing"

(New York Times): "In gun bill defeat, a president who hesitates to twist arms"

(USA Today): "USA Today poll: Public support for gun control ebbs"

(Real Clear Politics): "CNN tarnished its brand with Boston coverage"

P.M. Headlines

(Boston Globe): "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Marathon bombing suspect, charged in federal court with using a weapon of mass destruction"

(The Hill): "White House: Boston suspect will not be treated as combatant"

(National Post): "Two men arrested over 'al-Qaeda inspired' plan to attack Via Rail train in Toronto area"

(CBC News): "Alleged al-Qaeda-supported plan against Via train thwarted"

(Public Policy Polling): "Colbert Busch expands lead"

Happy Earth Day

By Mustang Bobby

The Google Doodle today notes that we all live on this planet together:

Meanwhile, we remember that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill started three years ago and we're still cleaning it up with chemicals that are still toxic, our fertilizer can still blow us to smithereens, and climate change is still happening despite what some crackpot Jesus-shouter congressman from Texas thinks about Noah and the flood.

It's still snowing up in Michigan and they're still bracing for floods in the Midwest.

Have a nice day.

House GOP incumbent-protection plan

By Richard K. Barry

Well, it's actually an incumbent-retention program, also known as the Patriot Program, and it's for vulnerable Republican incumbents warranting special help to keep their seats. Put differently, it's a list of incumbents in danger of losing their seats and therefore in line to get additional resources from the Republican Party apparatus.

But the program is also about helping those who pledge to help themselves by reaching certain benchmarks for communications, fundraising and strategy. It is therefore possible for no-hopers to be left off the list because they aren't worth the investment, although that could change as they demonstrate strength.

For now, the interesting point is that those identified have big target on their back.

Here are the 11 House Republicans named to the program in the first round:

• Rep. Mike Coffman in Colorado’s 6th District.
• Rep. Rodney Davis in Illinois’ 13th District.
• Rep. Jeff Denham in California’s 10th District.
• Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania’s 8th District.
• Rep. Bob Gibbs in Ohio’s 7th District.
• Rep. Chris Gibson in New York’s 19th District.
• Rep. Joe Heck in Nevada’s 3rd District.
• Rep. David Joyce in Ohio’s 14th District.
• Rep. Steve Southerland II in Florida’s 2nd District.
• Rep. David Valadao in California’s 21st District.
• Rep. Jackie Walorski in Indiana’s 2nd District.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

More Columbine than al Qaeda?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Crooks and Liars reports, former CIA Deputy Director Philip Mudd told Fox News yesterday that the Boston Marathon bombing looks "looks more to [him] like Columbine than it does al Qaeda." He added:

Two kids who radicalized between themselves in a closed circle go out and commit murder. I would charge these guys as murders, not terrorists...

What I'm saying is we want to categorize this... with a simple term, and at looking at the psychology of clusters like this -- which I did for 20 years -- the psychology is not that simple. It's two kids who decided, for whatever ideology, that they wanted to commit murder. And the murder piece is significant as the terrorism piece.

Of course, it's still to early to draw firm conclusions. But it's clear that many in the media and on the right, including some leading Republicans, are looking for easy answers and proposals based on their biased preconceptions and agendas: it's radical Islam (or, for the real bigots, Islam generally); it's jihad; it's al Qaeda or some such terrorist group (possibly Chechen); it's part of a much larger operation with further attacks possible; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be designated an enemy combatant (and so denied constitutional protections even though he's an American citizen); the FBI, which had been warned by the Russians, should have known better and didn't do enough to prevent the attack; America is under attack; we need to ramp up national security; etc., etc.

It's not wrong to consider the various possibilities and examine with great care what was behind the bombing, which seems to be what law enforcement officials are doing, but it's awfully dangerous to presuppose the outcomes of the investigation, or to act as if we already know all the answers.

And that's Mudd's very sober point: this was a crime, and it may be connected to radicalism, but that doesn't necessarily make it terrorism, let alone terrorism sponsored by an enemy of the United States.

Come back, Obama

By Frank Moraes 

Just one more quick note about all the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. I believe that Obama was so quick to call the bombing a terrorist act because, as usual, he's a wimp. I'm sure he is worried that just like in Benghazi, the right wing will attack him for not calling it a terrorist attack. I'm all for being a wimp when it protects a person. I've managed to avoid fights all my adult life by being a wimp. But Obama will not avoid fights this way. If he hadn't called it a terrorist attack, the right would have attacked him. If he said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be given his Miranda rights, the right would have attacked him. As it is, he has indicated that Tsarnaev will be tried in our regular court system, so the right is attacking him for that.

Will the president never learn that the right will attack him regardless of what he does?

I have an idea for the president. It's radical, I know, but here goes: why doesn't President Obama try to please his base? It is very possible he would actually succeed at that. Trying to please the Republican Party is a fool's errand. In fact, trying to please the centrist Washington insiders is also a fool's errand. Did you read Maureen Dowd over the weekend? The defeat of the gun bill is apparently Obama's fault. She's a great example of how Obama just can't win with the only people he seems to care about winning with.

The clock is running out for the president. He needs to come back to the liberals he was courting all the way through 6 November of last year. Because despite everything, we still like him. And we're the only ones who ever will as long as he is in power.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(ABC News): "Authorities: Boston bombing suspect is responding to questions in writing"

(New York Times): "Officials say bomb suspects appeared set to attack again"

(Reuters): "Russia's Islamist rebels say not at war with Washington"

(NBC Politics): "Terrorist suspect may have travelled to Russia in 2012 under alias"

(Maureen Dowd): "No bully in the pulpit"

P.M. Headlines

(CBS News): "Boston bombing suspect in serious condition"

(ThinkProgress): "Top Democrat slams GOP's Islamophobia after Boston bombing"

(The Hill): "Schumer, Graham spar over 'enemy combatant' designation for suspect"

(Reuters): "Two people shot at Denver marijuana rally: police"

(New York Times): "Danes rethink a welfare state ample to a fault"

Listening to Now: Jackie Wilson - "Lonely Teardrops"

By Richard K. Barry

Jackie Wilson, AKA Mr. Excitement, was a phenomenally talented R&B and soul singer on the planet from 1934 to 1984. He was one of the most important artists of his time. 

He was a two-time Grammy Hall of Fame Inductee, and inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1987. In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine rated Jackie Wilson #69 on their list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.

Global warming and expansionary austerity

By Frank Moraes

When I was doing research in global warming, it was very annoying. The theory was all laid out. And that was most of what we had. At that time, the evidence for global warming was weak. So an iconoclast like me naturally looked for ways that the theory was wrong: negative feedbacks and stuff like that. Because here's the thing: the basic theory was right. It is simple energy transfer, and thus about as controversial gravitation theory. If it was wrong, it was because there was some other energy forcing that we just didn't see.

Over time, the data got better. Now, the data alone indicate that the earth is warming, although you need some theory to explain that humans are causing it. But note what the global warming deniers do: they attack the data and the data alone. They can do that because there is a lot of data. But the process is clear: first they decide global warming is bunk, then they search the data trying to disprove it.

The situation is little different when it comes to economics. Mike Konczal wrote an excellent article over at Wonk Blog today, Reinhart/Rogoff-Gate Isn't the First Time Austerians Have Used Bad Data. In it, he provided a history of conservative efforts to justify the idea of expansionary austerity. This is the idea that if the government cuts its budget to the bone, the private sector will have "confidence" that will get the economy booming. If this sounds like magical thinking, you're right.


Read more »

Mirandize this!

By Capt. Fogg

Why are we supposed to be "terrorized" by the one in a hundred million chance of being blown up by cookware in the streets when we have black-booted, goose-stepping Republican goons insisting that the rights and liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution don't apply any time they don't think they should? What terrifies me is not the bang in Boston but the whimper of  cowards demanding that people can arbitrarily be deprived of their innate and inalienable rights by semantic chicanery and that we justify it by fear.  

Why is the serial killer, the arsonist, the murderous Christian leader not a terrorist and so exempt from the protection of the law we fraudulently flaunt as our American birthright?  Because we don't like their religion? Because they have 'foreign' names? Ask the Republicans. Ask them why they're again demonstrating that the Constitution is a quaint anachronism and an impediment to the lustful needs of absolute power -- or 'Homeland Security' as they like to call it. Ask them why a massacre in Boston justifies the dismemberment of  the Constitution that grew out of  a previous one.

There is no chance in hell that whether or not young Mr. Tsarnaev talks to the FBI truthfully or not at all, has anything to do with whether or not he is ritually told he has the right to keep quiet, is responsible for what he says and has the right to legal counsel. He has those rights and we all have the guarantee of those rights. He already knows it and he's already demonstrated the personal qualities that prove he doesn't have a hell of a lot of respect for the USA or its laws and restraints anyway. If he can be forced to incriminate himself, if he can be stripped of all the rights we used to guarantee, we thereby incriminate ourselves as liars, hypocrites and barbarians unworthy of being called a free nation.


Read more »