P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Thousands run final mile of Boston Marathon"

(New York Times): "Hagel calls sex assault in military a 'scourge'"

(New York Times): "A sleeper scandal awakens for Obama, post-election"

(ABC News): "Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to appeal judge's finding his department engaged in racial profiling"

(Arizona Republic): "Threats, vetoes fly as tensions rise over Medicare expansion"

The war must be over

By Mustang Bobby

President Obama’s speech on ending the open-ended GWOT:

In a much-anticipated speech at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama sought to turn the page on the era that began on Sept. 11, 2001, when the imperative of preventing terrorist attacks became both the priority and the preoccupation. Instead, the president suggested that the United States had returned to the state of affairs that existed before Al Qaeda toppled the World Trade Center, when terrorism was a persistent but not existential danger. With Al Qaeda’s core now “on the path to defeat,” he argued, the nation must adapt.

“Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” Mr. Obama said. “But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. It’s what our democracy demands.”

The politics of this perpetual war may be the hardest part. We have become so used to the drumbeat of invade and occupy from the neocons and the armchair generals who never wore the uniform or picked up anything more than a cigar that moving in any other direction sounds like retreat to them. But for the sake of our country, our treasure, and the lives of the people who are the ones who will have to fight, the war that we were whooped into and then lied to in order to perpetuate it must end, and the speech Mr. Obama gave yesterday was the first indication that it will.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Michelle Nunn gets ready in Georgia

By Richard K. Barry

The Hill is reporting that businesswomen Michelle Nunn is actively preparing to run for the U.S. Senate from Georgia as a Democrat. They say an
announcement is expected early this summer. 

Nunn, who currently runs a charity, is shaping up as the Democrats' best bet to take Sen. Saxby Chambliss's seat. Chambliss announced he would retire at the end of the term. 

The Hill:

“We'd be very excited to have her in the race. We expect a decision in the next few weeks,” said Georgia Democratic Party Chairman Mike Berlon. “Michelle is going to present a brilliant contrast to anybody the Republicans have running in the spring … She's a female, a proven administrator from a good family. We believe she can clearly win. She has all the tools to win this race in the general election.”

The "good family" reference is in regard to the fact that she is daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and she is the CEO of Points of Light, the world's largest organization dedicated to volunteer service. 

The Hill says that Democrats are hopeful that Georgia could be a rare pick-up opportunity in a year when they are mostly going to be playing defence. If, and we've seen this story before, a crowded GOP field produces a flawed candidate, anything is possible. 

Republicans already in the race include Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), and Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel (R).

Businessman David Perdue (R), the cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue (R), is also expected to run, and businesswoman Kelly Loeffler, who owns the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream, is also said to be looking at a bid.

For the record, Mitt Romney took Georgia in 2012 by a margin of 53.3 to 45.5  percent.

My guess is that a lot of things would have to break the right way. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Menendez: Immigration bill doesn't have enough votes to pass Senate"

(Washington Post): "The Press must have the ability to ask questions"

(Huffington Post): "Senate Republicans oppose budget blockade by Tea Party in growing GOP feud"

(New York Times): "States' policies on health care exclude some of the poorest"

(The Oregonian): "I-5 bridge collapse: Oregon's bridges in better shape than most -- but that's not saying much"

Patty Griffin: "Ohio" (feat. Robert Plant)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I love Patty Griffin. I really do.

Ever since I first heard her 1996 debut album, Living With Ghosts, and specifically "Forgiveness," still perhaps her finest song, a standout even on that wonderful album.

Some of her more recent work -- as she has shifted to a more twangy and traditional rootsy sound, if still within the folk/Americana genre -- hasn't exactly been my taste, notably 2010's Downtown Church, for which she won her only Grammy thus far for Best Traditional Gospel Album, but she continues to be a remarkable singer-songwriter.

I prefer the stripped-down Living With Ghosts and the rather more commercial Flaming Red (1998), her second studio album, amazing from start to finish, but her three other albums before Downtown Church were all very good: 1000 Kisses (2002), with "Rain"; Imposible Dream (2004), with the powerfully moving "Top of the World" (covered by the Dixie Chicks on their 2002 album, Home); and Children Running Through (2007), with "Burgundy Shoes." And then there's her great 2003 live album, A Kiss in Time, as well as a Live from the Artists Den release from 2008.

(This is all a long way from the classic rock and post-prog stuff that I listen to most, but my musical tastes don't begin and end with Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree.)

Griffin's seventh studio album, American Kid, was released earlier this month. While like her other recent albums it's a bit too traditional and countryish in places for my liking, it's extremely beautiful. And its peak, in my view, is "Ohio," with Robert Plant, her long-time collaborator and partner, singing backup. It's another great Patty Griffin song, from another lovely Patty Griffin album. Here's the video. Enjoy!

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Obama urges US military to stamp out sexual assault"

(Chicago Tribune): "Illinois House votes to allow residents to carry concealed guns"

(Gallup): "Fewer Americans identify as economic conservatives in 2013"

(Politico): "Gabriel Gomez calls Ed Markey 'pond scum'"

(The Hill): "Michelle Nunn actively preparing Senate campaign in Georgia"

Behind the Ad: Building McAuliffe's narrative in Virginia

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Terry McAuliffe campaign for governor

Where: Virginia

What's going on: Actually, not a lot. It's all about McAuliffe touting his ability to work with the other side, in this case supporting Gov. Bob McDonnell's (R) transportation bill. The point is to reassure those who might see McAuliffe as too much of a blind partisan.

The Hill:

McAuliffe focuses on his effort to help garner Democratic support for the bill, which passed over resistance from some Tea Party-affiliated Republicans in the statehouse — as well as from Virginia Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli (R), who opposed the bill until shortly before its passage.

What makes this interesting is that as polarized as American politics is, it's still important to let people know you will work for them to get stuff done and not spend all your time throwing bricks at the other side.

As The Hill points out, McAuliffe's Republican opponent Ken Cuccinelli has been trying to smooth some of his own partisan edges. They note, however, that this has been made that much more difficult as the "state GOP nominated a pastor who's made controversial remarks over gays and abortion in the past to be his running mate."

Or, as Daily Kos put it:

E.W. Jackson isn't just an oppo researcher's dream, he's an oppo researcher's mescaline-fueled fantasy bender riding on pegasus-back. Every day there's something new and amazing about the Virginia GOP's lieutenant governor nominee.

Anyway, they'll be lots more about him soon enough. Here's the boring narrative building ad from McAuliffe:



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Progressive Music Classics: "Corner Soul" by The Clash

By Marc McDonald 

(Ed. note: Here's another installment of Marc's ongoing series. For the full series, check out his site. Our last two were The Unacceptable Face of Freedom by Test Dept. and "Everything That Rises Must Converge" by Shriekback. -- MJWS)


Few albums have ever been more highly anticipated than Sandinista!, the 1980 release by The Clash. The band's previous album, London Calling had been a all-conquering masterpiece that had music writers, particularly in the U.S., swooning.

I recall how, in 1979, The Clash was hailed by many music writers as "the only band that matters." For a brief time, at least, The Clash were clearly the best band in the world.

But when Sandinista! landed in the record shops, a mere four days after John Lennon's murder, it left many fans and writers baffled. Anyone who was expecting a sequel to London Calling was likely disappointed. The massive, triple-album Sandinista! frankly seemed bloated and full of a lot of strange music that had many people scratching their heads in confusion.

At the time, I recall there was two divergent opinions about Sandinista! in the U.S. and the U.K.

Music writers in Britain had failed to embrace London Calling as enthusiastically as their enraptured U.S. counterparts had. And upon first listen, Sandinista! seemed to confirm their worst suspicions about the band.

In Britain, the band was seen as having "sold out" to punk principles. The very fact that Sandinista! was a triple album worked against it. It seemed to embrace many of the bloated excesses of the 1970s progressive rock of ELP, Jethro Tull, and Yes. It was that very sort of thing that punk had rebelled against in the first place in Britain.

I still recall the scathing review in Britain's top music paper, New Musical Express, that savaged Sandinista! as inferior and "ridiculously self-indulgent."

However, in the U.S., it was a different story. Rolling Stone hailed Sandinista! as a five-star masterpiece.

Three decades later, we can look back and ask the question: which side of the Atlantic was right? Was Sandinista! indeed a failure and a "ridiculously self-indulgent" record? Or was it a five-star masterpiece?

The answer: both sides were right. Sandinista! was "ridiculously self-indulgent." It was also a masterpiece.

Read more »

Chuck Grassley on court packing

By Frank Moraes

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt was very angry that the Supreme Court kept blocking his reforms. A slim majority on the Court was very conservative. (Sound familiar?) What could the president do? Well, he could pack the court. The number of people on the Supreme court is not stated in the Constitution. So Roosevelt threatened to add the number of seats on the court and fill them with pro-New Deal justices. Ultimately, this wasn't done for a few reasons -- most notably the retirement of a conservative judge that gave the liberals a small majority. But the point is, "court packing" does not refer to the normal procedure of presidents filling open seats.

Now you know more than Senator Chuck Grassley. In the debate over whether to allow Sri Srinivasan sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Grassley complained six times about Obama's supposed efforts at "court packing." He apparently thought that trying to fill vacancies was "court packing." We see this problem again and again. Start with a Senator of relatively limited mental acumen. Let them age past the 70-year cognitive decline. And watch the stupid fly!

Dylan Matthews helpfully put together the following compilation of Grassley's embarrassment:



Now, I don't want to hear any complaints that most people don't know what "court packing" was either. This is true. I've asked a number of people and there is widespread confusion on the matter. Just the same, none of these people go around complaining that Obama is engaged in "court packing." They don't even do it in private. And they certainly don't have staffs that vet their talking points.

Read more »

Barack Obama and the end of the War on Terror

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot to dislike about the way President Obama has handled the so-called war on terror -- the continuation of much of the Bush-Cheney national security state; the kill list and the drone war -- but he showed yesterday in his thoughtful speech at the National Defense University that he understands the nature of the problem -- that is, both the threat to America and the way America responds to that threat -- and recognizes the need for change.

Indeed, as is so often the case with him, what was truly remarkable was not just his intellectual grasp of the enormously complex world beyond America's borders but the maturity with which he was able to explain that complexity to an audience, the broader American and global audience as well as those in attendance, that is demanding answers without really understanding the questions, that is often at odds with itself, and that often wants simplistic solutions. And he laid out a plan for further action that was at once nuanced and crystal clear.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with all of it. His strenuous defense of the use of drone strikes -- they are effective; they are legal; they save lives -- hardly resolves the matter. The U.S. may be going after terrorists, and Obama may be exercising caution in the use of drones, but the drone war still kills and terrorizes not just those who wish to do America harm but innocents as well, and, of course, there is still the matter of the astonishing amount of power, including over life and death for many -- that has been vested in the office of the president and that Obama has at his disposal. He is certainly right that "[t]o say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance," and that sort of self-reflection is welcome, but it is not clear that the much-ballyhooed "framework" is enough to prevent abuse.

But, look, like this or not, and obviously many on the left do not, Obama said what needed to be said:

America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.  And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.

Now, this last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes — both here at home and abroad — understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There's a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties and nongovernmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and our facilities abroad, but also in the very places like Sana'a and Kabul and Mogadishu where terrorists seek a foothold. Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option. 

Again, I'm not saying that this is the end of it, that we should just take him at his word, or that it's all good now. Far from it. But this... this is leadership. Like it or not. Agree with him or not. The world is a crazy place and he's the president of the world's most powerful country. The choices aren't always clear, and there's rarely a clear good and a clear evil. Those who criticize him, as I myself have done, should consider what they would do were they burdened with those reponsibilities -- doing what needs to be done to protect the country and its people, and providing leadership both at home and around the world, while also operating within a democratic system at home that is anything but easy to navigate -- what they would do were they sitting in the Oval Office with the final say on what is done.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama to address Naval graduates as sex assault issue lingers"

(Huffington Post): "Eric Holder signed off on search warrants for James Rosen emails: NBC News"

(New York Times): "The end of perpetual war"

(KOMO News): "Cars, people sent tumbling into Skagit River as I-5 bridge collapses"

(Washington Post): "Tea party favorites Cruz and Lee spar with McCain in latest internal Senate GOP rift"

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "IRS replaces official who supervised agents involved in targeting tea party groups"

(The Post-Standard): "What Gov. Andrew Cuomo has to say about Anthony Weiner"

(New York Times): "Obama's speech on drone policy"

(First Read): "Ala. congressman to resign, setting up competitive primary"

(Boston Globe): "Boy Scouts approve plan to accept openly gay boys"

Anthony Weiner's rise

By Carl 

(I promise, that's the only dick joke in the post.)

Anthony Weiner has officially announced his candidacy for mayor of the city of New York, to replace three term gadabout-with-nothing-better-to-do-than-trash-my-city Michael Bloomberg.

I'll probably end up voting for him in the primary.

That speaks less of Weiner, who has always come off in my book as a bit of a dick (ok, sorry, my bad), than it does about the other candidates running in the Democratic primary, which is essentially the coronation of the next mayor. Weiner is currently polling second at 15%, and that poll was taken before he formally announced. Christine Quinn, the "frontrunner," is polling at 25%, which speaks volumes about a woman who has been Council Speaker for twelve years.

Quinn should be the presumptive nominee, but at 25% she's polling very weakly for someone with as much visibility as she's forced upon New Yorkers, and with good reason: she's really pretty shitty, unless you live in the West Village or happen to be gay. For those constituents, she's about as progressive as they come.

For working and middle class New Yorkers, not so much.

Read more »

Tea Partier: Louder-shouting Republican

By Frank Moraes

Yesterday, Ed Kilgore wrote, "Please Listen Up, Political Reporters: What Ted Cruz Means When He Says He Mistrusts Both Parties." In it, he took on Ted Cruz and his habit of claiming that he doesn't trust either political party. As Kilgore noted, "Does it mean, as political reporters often blandly repeat, that 'Tea Party' pols like Cruz are hardy independents who care about principle rather than about the GOP, and represent a constituency that is up in the air?" He provided two answers: "No" and "Hell no!"

This is an issue that I've been hammering on for a while. The only difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party is that the Tea Party is only made up of the stronger Republicans. So it makes no sense to even have a different name for the Tea Party; they are just the base of the Republican Party. What's interesting is that the Democratic Party has a progressive base too but no one labels it as a separate party. And that's strange when you consider that the this base is far more likely to abandon its party than the Tea Party is.

As you all know, I am constantly disappointed in the Democratic Party. Yet when someone asks me, I tell them I am a Democrat. I think it is disingenuous to say otherwise. This comes from my many conversations with conservatives who claim to be "independent." (This doesn't tend to happen with liberals; the independents who tend toward the Democrats really are in the muddled middle.) You aren't an independent if you agree with everything the Republicans say but think they aren't quite pure enough. And that is exactly what Ted Cruz is all about.

Read more »

Fed might as well have single mandate

By Frank Moraes

Matt Yglesias is very insightful about the Federal Reserve. Last year, he asked an incredibly important question, "If the unemployment and inflation rates were reversed, would the Fed do something about it?" The point is that the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate to keep both inflation and unemployment low. Yet all the Fed seems to care about is inflation. At the time he said that, inflation was 2% and unemployment was 8%. If it were the other ways around, the Fed would be working hard to cool the economy down. But they are perfectly happy with the way things were (and are).

There is some talk among conservatives that the Fed should have a single mandate: keep inflation low. The idea is that the Fed shouldn't worry about employment at all. Note that this is an idea that is designed to help the rich. Inflation hurts people who have a lot of money. Unemployment hurts people who have to work for a living. By saying that the Fed should only worry about inflation, the conservatives are telling us everything we need to know about them: they are policy hacks for the rich.

But today, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar asked the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke how the Fed would act differently if it did have the single mandate. Yglesias rightly noted that after much bobbing and weaving, the Fed chair said that he wouldn't do anything differently. And that's important, if not surprising. We have long known that the Fed didn't seem to think that 8% unemployment was anything to worry about. After all, none of the members of the Fed even know anyone who is out of a job.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Gabriel Gomez shows how "dirty" is done

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Gabriel Gomez U.S. Senate campaign

Where: Massachusetts

What's going on: I hate this kind of ad. It's the worst. In it, GOP Mass. Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez complains that Democratic nominee Ed Markey has run ads comparing Gomez to Osama bin Laden and blaming him for the Newtown school shooting.

The Boston Globe:

“Negative ads from dirty Ed Markey, smearing Gabriel Gomez, comparing him to bin Laden,” a narrator says in the ad, which shows clips of two of Markey’s ads attacking Gomez. “Now, Markey actually blames Gomez for the Newtown shooting. Disgusting. Thirty-seven years in Congress. Dirty Ed Markey.”

Here's the reality:

Despite what the ad says, Markey has not blamed Gomez for the Newtown shooting. Markey has released an ad that highlights Gomez’s opposition to an assault weapons ban and to limits on high-capacity magazines, “like the ones used in the Newtown school shooting.”

As for the Osama bin Laden reference and a Markey ad that juxtaposes images of Gomez and the dead terrorist:

The Markey campaign has pushed back by pointing out that the bin Laden image comes from a video produced by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, a group that accused President Obama of trying to exploit the killing of bin Laden for political gain. Gomez was a supporter of the group, appearing on MSNBC in August 2012 to defend OPSEC and speaking to Reuters about its activities.

As they say on the playground, you started it. Come on, Gomez, twist the facts if you must, but this is just a lie.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Bernanke to Congress: It's your fault

By Mustang Bobby

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke knows why the economy isn’t doing better: Congress screwed it up.

Of course, Bernanke is too polite to phrase things quite so bluntly. But to anyone versed in Fedspeak, that’s the gist of his message. Even as state and local governments are becoming less of a drag on growth, Bernanke says in his prepared testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, “fiscal policy at the federal level has become significantly more restrictive.”

“In particular,” his testimony says, “the expiration of the payroll tax cut, the enactment of tax increases, the effects of the budget caps on discretionary spending, the onset of sequestration, and the declines in defense spending for overseas military operations are expected, collectively, to exert a substantial drag on the economy this year.”

But they have voted 37 times to repeal Obamacare, so you can’t say they haven’t doneanything.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Daily Beast): "Obama to reduce drone strikes"

(Wall Street Journal): "Obama restarts bid to close Guantanamo"

(The Hill): "Issa may haul IRS's Lerner back"

(Reuters): "London attacker British, of Nigerian origin: source"

(Bloomberg): "Kerry meets Netanyahu, Abbas to 'exhaust possibilities of peace'"

P.M. Headlines

(TPM): "She has to go"

(New York Times): "U.S. admits for first time drones killed 4 Americans"

(USA Today): "One dead after machete attack near London barracks"

(New York Times): "Moore, Oklahoma, tornado havoc overwhelms, when seen firsthand"

(CNN Justice): "Sources: Man killed by FBI agent confessed to triple murder then grabbed knife"

 (Politico): "Ted Cruz: 'I don't trust Republicans'"

What can Republicans talk about besides scandals?

By Frank Moraes 

After reading John Dean's take on the recent scandals, I noticed that another of my favorite conservatives, Ramesh Ponnuru had waded into these waters with "'Obama Scandals' Could Actually Hurt Republicans." I love those scare quotes in the title. The truth is that these aren't really Obama's scandals, but it would be fair to call them Obama's troubles.

The argument that Ponnuru made is a common one these days on the left: the Republicans might be overreaching on these issues. Coming from liberals, I'm unimpressed. Just like with the talk that the current scandals might turn out to involve Obama, the Republicans might overplay the scandals. The truth is that the Republicans don't exactly need these scandals to overplay their hand. Regardless, this wasn't Ponnuru's main point.

The big comparison for everyone seems to be 1998. That was Bill Clinton's sixth year. Clinton had been involved in a scandal regarding lying about an affair. The standard narrative is that the Republicans overplayed the scandal and ended up doing damage to themselves. It is widely believed that the president's party loses lots of seats in Congress during the president's sixth year in office (this is a myth). So when the Democrats picked up a couple of seats, everyone said it was because the Republicans angered the voters with all their focus on Cigar-Gate.

But Ponnuru showed that this wasn't the case. Only 5% of the voters in 1998 were motivated by the sex scandal and most of them voted against Clinton. The real story was that the voters cared about the economy and education (As usual!) and they were very unhappy with where the Republicans were on these issues. Ponnuru argued that the current crop of Republicans is being equally out of touch. And the scandals are just making it worse on them because it is allowing them to focus on scandals that will likely come to nothing rather than pushing for real policy changes. As he put it, "They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes."

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Dreaming of a House without Michele Bachmann

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: House Majority PAC.

Where: Minnesota.

What's going on: The House Majority PAC is working to help Democrats retake a majority in the House. In a new video, they say that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is "running scared" a day after a new poll shows her slightly behind her Democratic challenger.

The Hill:

The video features news clips outlining a number of investigations into Bachmann's presidential run, including an FBI probe into alleged financial misconduct involving top aides to Bachmann's campaign.

Knocking off an incumbent is never easy but Jim Graves lost by just 4,300 votes in 2012 and he's back for another try in 2014. And he'll have a lot of help from House Majority PAC and other groups just like them.

Defeating crazy Michele would be so sweet for Democrats and they might just be able to do it this time.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Church/State

By Mustang Bobby 

The Supreme Court will hear a case deciding whether or not a town council in upstate New York can open its meetings with a prayer:

For more than a decade starting in 1999, the Town Board began its public meetings with a prayer from a "chaplain of the month." Town officials said that members of all faiths, and atheists, were welcome to give the opening prayer.

In practice, the federal appeals court in New York said, almost all of the chaplains were Christian.

"A substantial majority of the prayers in the record contained uniquely Christian language," Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "Roughly two-thirds contained references to 'Jesus Christ,' 'Jesus,' 'Your Son' or the 'Holy Spirit.'"

Two town residents sued, saying the prayers ran afoul of the First Amendment's prohibition of the government establishment of religion. The appeals court agreed. "The town's prayer practice must be viewed as an endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint," Judge Calabresi wrote.

Cue up the Chorus of The Poor Persecuted Majority who will tell us that there is no place safe in America for them to impose their faith and practice on the rest of us whether we want it or not.

Solution: put an imam in the rotation as "chaplain of the month" and see how quickly they decide to bag the whole thing.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, E.W. Jackson, apparently also running for Worst Republican Ever

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, here's what we know about this crazy guy so far:

-- He thinks President Obama sees the world from "a Muslim perspective" and is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

-- He thinks gays are "very sick people psychologically."

-- He thinks Democrats are like slave masters.

-- He thinks Planned Parenthood has been "far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was." Oh, and that "the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide."

And... well, you can read more here. This is all stuff he's said in the past, before he was a candidate. Who knows what will come during the campaign?

Oh, and here's another thing: 

E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP's nominee for lieutenant governor, began his career as a minister and attorney in Boston. While there, he lent his support to a high-profile 1988 fight against a plan to desegregate public housing developments in the neighborhood of South Boston.

Yes, that's right. He was against desegregation. And by the way, the fact that he's black doesn't really make that any better. 

Well done, Virginia Republicans. Your state is turning purple (or, rather, has already turned purple and may now be turning blue) and you respond to that by nominating a guy so out on the right-wing fringe he makes the guy running for governor, Ken Cuccinelli, look like a sensible moderate by comparison. (Well, no, not really. Cuccinelli still hates blow jobs and has a long record of the right-wing crazy.)

The only thing that would make sense would be if Republicans picked Jackson to make Cuccinelli look better. But that's way too Machiavellian -- there was no such conspiracy.

No, they just fucked themselves with Jackson. No wonder they're already panicking.

Just do it!

By Capt. Fogg

Perhaps Fred Phelps Jr. is getting slow, or perhaps he has to type with one hand because he's so exited at God's wrath being inflicted on Moore, Oklahoma.  The very thought of little children being crushed or torn to pieces as they scream in terror must excite him past the point of self control. It took him hours to inform us that this disaster was the result of Oklahoma City Thunder basketball star Kevin Durant’s public support for gay basketball player Jason Collins.  God works in mysterious ways, but there's nothing mysterious about Fred unless you're interested in the chemistry of foul smells.

But there's light at the end of the drain and maybe a suggestion for people like Fred with more demons than synapses in their skulls. Dominique Venner is billed in the press as a right-wing historian, although some may prefer to call him a hate-filled pervert obsessed with other people's sexual preferences,  or an ultra nationalist militiaman because of his past involvement with a paramilitary Secret Army Organisation which fought against France giving up colonial rights in Algeria. A gay hating enemy of human rights and freedom, in short. Mr. Venner walked into Notre Dame de Paris Monday, placed a letter on the altar and then blew his brains out with an illegally owned pistol.

The famous Cathedral has been the site of many demonstrations and protests over the issue of gay marriage which became legal last week. Catholic conservative Venner certainly made his point to the horror of the tour groups present and one has to wonder about the dedication of lesser nobles like Phelps for not martyring himself for his ridiculous cause.  I presume God has to wonder too.

So what about it Fred?  I mean you don't need to go to Paris or even to bloody up someone elses Church, you've got one of your own. Take your dad along, make it a father and son thing, or take the whole flock along, but Just do it!

(Cross posted at Human Voices.)

Behind the Ad: Mitch and Rand go fishing for votes

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Mitch McConnell Senate campaign.

Where: Kentucky / web ad.

What's going on: Tip O'Neill is famous for having said that all politics is local, and this ad proves the point. In it, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and his best buddy Senator Rand Paul appear together to tell local fisherman that the Senators will stand up for their right to fish wherever they gosh darn want to fish.

The Hill:

The video features clips of McConnell and Paul talking at a rally for a "Freedom to Fish" measure that protects fishermen's access to portions of the Cumberland River around dams.

The legislation was spearheaded by the two Kentucky senators and a handful of other Republicans and passed last week.

In the video, McConnell and Paul criticize the initial plans to build barriers around the dams, a plan officials said was informed by safety concerns, as "government overreach."

"The nanny state is on full display. Trying to tell us what we can do, where we can do it, how often we can do it, as if they're smarter than everyone," McConnell says in a portion of the video.

We have been hearing a lot about how vulnerable McConnell is going to be in 2014 as multiple polls have him below the magic 50 percent threshold. But Democrats won't beat him if they can't find a candidate, and so far that's been the problem.

Anyway, the ad is a cute bit of anti-Washington/pro-fishing propaganda. How could Kentucky voters not like that? And the music sure is pretty.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

In wake of tornado tragedy, both of Oklahoma's senators prove once again to be self-serving assholes

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Inhofe and Coburn, Oklahoma's finest.

First it was Tom Coburn, the junior senator, who said that he would "only support relief aid if it's offset by cuts elsewhere." As I wrote, "disaster relief is apparently one of those things you have to negotiate with Republicans. (Okay, we'll help you out a bit, but only if we fuck some other people elsewhere.) Chris Christie understandably went ballistic when Republicans did this in response to Hurricane Sandy. But who will speak for the people of Oklahoma?"

Well, Jim Infofe, but with shameless hypocrisy. The senior senator said that Hurricane Sandy aid, which he opposed, was "totally different" from Oklahoma tornade relief, because the Sandy bill had "things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C." "Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place," he added. "That won't happen in Oklahoma." No? Your buddy Coburn's already gone there.

In any event, Inhofe is full of shit. As the Post's Rachel Weiner and Matt DeLong explain:

The senator appeared to be referring to the fact that some funds from the Sandy package for the Federal Highway Administration could go to the Virgin Islands, as well as $2 million allocated to the Smithsonian for roofs damaged by the storm. We don't yet know what a congressional relief package for Oklahoma would look like, if one is even necessary. As of Tuesday morning, FEMA has $11.6 billion in its Disaster Relief Fund.

So some money could have gone to an American territory through the FHA and there was a need to repair some damage at the Smithsonian, an essential American institution.

Look, Inhofe and other Republicans were just looking for anything to block Sandy relief. This extra spending was what they used to justify their opposition.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Bloomberg): "New L.A. Mayor Garcetti confronts deficits through 2017"

(Politico): "Anthony Weiner announces NYC mayoral run"

(New York Times): "Another chilling leak investigation"

(BuzzFeed): "Sen. Patrick Leahy withdraws amendment to include gay couple in immigration reform bill"

(Politico): "Senate Judiciary panel passes immigration bill"

Texas uses "Merry Christmas Bill" to push theocratic agenda

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What the hell's the matter with Texas? It's not just that it's batshit crazy, or at least in the hands of batshit crazy Republicans, it's that the craziness is deeply anti-American:

Christmas may be seven months away, but Texas is ready for it.

State lawmakers there waged their own battle against the so-called War on Christmas on Friday, passing legislation, House Bill 308, that allows public school teachers to say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah" and display Christmas trees, nativity scenes or menorahs. Winter displays must represent more than one religion or include secular symbols.

But while the legislation specifies that schools may not constitutionally favor one religion over another, the bill is named for only one religion -- Christmas.

And that tells you all you need to know.

They've given themselves some cover by attaching Judaism to Christianity, which fundamentalists do these days, and by requiring that at least one other religion be represented, but come on, we all know what's going on here. (And it's not the war on Christmas, which doesn't exist. That "war" is made up by conservatives using fake victimhood to push their agenda.)

It's right-wing Christians pushing theocracy -- the Constitution, the very idea of America, be damned.

Your daily dose of rage-making capitalism

By Carl 

Inside this rather boring if frightening story about the problems at hedge fund SAC Capital, lies this sentence (bolded):

A legal deadline looms for prosecutors to bring a criminal case against Mr. Cohen related to charges against Mathew Martoma, a former SAC portfolio manager accused of illegally trading in the shares of two drug companies, Elan and Wyeth. The Martoma case is the first time that Mr. Cohen was linked to questionable trades, which occurred in late July 2008. Under the five-year statute of limitations for insider trading crimes, the government must charge Mr. Cohen by July.

Yet the eliciting of Mr. Cohen's grand jury testimony is not entirely bad news for the hedge fund manager, at least as it relates to his criminal exposure, legal experts say. A grand jury subpoena seeking Mr. Cohen's testimony suggests that the government is pursuing a case against SAC, but not Mr. Cohen himself. It is highly unusual for prosecutors to issue a grand jury subpoena to the target of an investigation, indicating that they want to interview Mr. Cohen broadly about his fund's activities.

But bringing criminal charges against SAC would also be an unusual move by the government. Over the last decade, the Justice Department has moved away from indicting companies after the 2002 indictment of Arthur Andersen was widely seen as having put the accounting giant out of business.

Excuse me?

To refresh your memory, the CPA firm of Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its license to practice in the United States after multiple felony convictions in connection with its audits of Enron. Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States later vacated the convictions, but not on the facts: documents relevant to the Enron investigation by the Justice Department were shredded. The case was thrown out for bad jury instructions. The facts were never at issue.

Read more »

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Finding the economic roots of Apple's taxable products"

(Los Angeles Times): "Top IRS official will invoke Fifth Amendment"

(Bloomberg): "'Obama scandals' could actually hurt Republicans"

(Post Politics): "Inhofe: Tornado aid 'totally different' form Hurricane Sandy aid"

(Charlie Cook/National Journal): "Republicans' hatred of Obama blinds them to public disinterest in scandals"

Los Angeles mayoral election is today

By Richard K. Barry

Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti wrapped up their campaigns yesterday in the race to be the next mayor of Los Angeles. As a local newspaper put it, they have been campaigning furiously in an attempt to "avoid the potential lowest turnout for an open mayoral seat in modern history."

Reuters:

Tuesday's vote is a runoff between the two veteran Democrats, who in March were the top vote-getters in a primary election in which Garcetti got 33 percent and Greuel 29 percent. One of them would have had to have won more than 50 percent of the ballots cast to have been elected outright.

The non-partisan campaign has centered on what Greuel and Garcetti agree is a dire financial outlook facing America's second most populous metropolis, and the political clout commanded by the city's public employee unions.

Though turnout might be low, that hasn't stopped the candidates from spending record amounts of cash, which passed the $33 million mark on Sunday:

In the campaign's final days, Garcetti vastly outspent Greuel on the airwaves and other campaign efforts, but Greuel had far more support from the outside groups.

A new poll by the Los Angeles Times and USC has Garcetti with a narrowing lead of 7 points.

Here is Chuck Todd's analysis. 

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

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Karl Marks: Who is the real Jonathan Karl?

By Mustang Bobby

It's a right-wing tactic to attack the messenger, but in the case of Jonathan Karl, he does have a resume that suggests he might be a tad inclined to see things from a right-wing point of view:

Karl came to mainstream journalism via the Collegiate Network, an organization primarily devoted to promoting and supporting right-leaning newspapers on college campuses (Extra!, 9-10/91) -- such as the Rutgers paper launched by the infamous James O'Keefe (Political Correction, 1/27/10). The network, founded in 1979, is one of several projects of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which seeks to strengthen conservative ideology on college campuses. William F. Buckley was the ISI's first president, and the current board chair is American Spectator publisher Alfred Regnery. Several leading right-wing pundits came out of Collegiate-affiliated papers, including Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry and Laura Ingraham (Washington Times, 11/28/04).

The Collegiate Network also provides paid internships and fellowships to place its members at corporate media outlets or influential Beltway publications; 2010-11 placements include the Hill, Roll Call, Dallas Morning News and USA Today. The program's highest-profile alum is Karl, who was a Collegiate fellow at the neoliberal New Republic magazine.

After a stint at the New York Post, Karl soon found his way to CNN, but he was still connected to ideological pursuits; he was a board member at the right-leaning youth-oriented Third Millennium group and at the Madison Center for Educational Affairs -- which, like the Collegiate Network, seeks to strengthen young conservative journalism. After moving to ABC in 2003, Karl contributed several pieces to the neo-con Weekly Standard, such as his April 4, 2005 article praising Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as out to "make her mark with the vigorous pursuit of the president's freedom and democracy agenda."

Karl's high profile at ABC demonstrates that conservative messages can find a comfortable home inside the so-called "liberal" media.

Does that mean that he can't be a fair and objective reporter when it comes to doing his job?  Not at all. A lot of journalists work for news organizations that have a political point of view but still are able to do their job without seeming to inject their point of view into their work. (Of course, to hear the right-wingers tell it, all journalists are left-wing shills for Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, and George Soros, but send a kid to college on a scholarship from National Review and he's the soul of objectivity.)

It's not what he thinks but how he acts that matters, and so far Mr. Karl's response (see here) tend to lend credence to the notion that in the case of Benghazi his background and job history do matter.

In his case, you wonder why he's not working as the head of the Washington bureau of Fox News.

(h/t to digby)

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)