P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "For Bloomberg, gun control fight shifts to state capitals"

(New York Times): "US and China agree to hold regular talks on hacking"

(USA Today): "Rockets from Syria hit Hezbollah stronghold"

(Fox News): "Friction between McCain, Paul underscores divide within Republican Party"

(CNN Entertainment): "Actress Jean Stapleton, known as Edith Bunker in 'All in the Family' dies"

Shame on Andrew Cuomo

By Richard K. Barry

Wow, look at the size of my thumb.

I stand with those who think that former Rep. Anthony Weiner's crotch-tweeting was foolish but hardly reason to condemn him for the rest of his political life. When you think about the kinds of actions politicians more or less survive like, oh, let's say, lying to the American public about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, well, you get my point. 

I thought Andrew Cuomo's comments that electing Weiner as mayor of New York City would be a "shame on us" event for voters was rather obnoxious. Perhaps he has come to that conclusion himself as he has stopped talking about the matter.

Politicker:

“I appreciate that you continue to ask questions that you know that I don’t want to answer,” Mr. Cuomo accordingly deadpanned earlier today when faced with yet another question on Mr. Weiner, this one about the scandal-scarred mayoral candidate’s recent rise in the polls.

“I respect your perseverance,” he added. “I hope that you respect my discipline.”

Perhaps ironically given his last not-quite-a-joke “shame on us” reaction when asked about Mr. Weiner’s potential victory–which he unconvincingly insisted was humor–the crowd of reporters laughed at today’s remark.

Cuomo has now taken the more sensible view that he should keep his moralistic musings to himself. 

“The mayoral election has a long way to go,” he said. “It’s going to be a long campaign, let’s see what happens. I’m sure there will be a lot of twists and turn. There normally are. It seems like a more interesting race than usual … So, let’s see how it goes, but I don’t intend to comment on the twists and turns of the New York City mayoral election.”

There is a famous quote I can't quite dredge out of my brain this morning, but it has to do with the fact that we seem more intent on punishing immorality when it is committed on a smaller scale than when the stakes are higher. 

Human nature is a funny thing. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

157 visits, oh my!

By Frank Moraes

You know me: I have a love-hate relationship with libertarians. But I have a hate-hate relationship with what I call "pretend libertarians." These are people like Rand Paul who use libertarian rhetoric, but who are just conservatives. Another one of these people is Tucker Carlson. Don't get me wrong: I like the bow tie. I'm big on any display (regardless of how minor) that shouts "Iconoclast!" But Carlson isn't much of an iconoclast. And he isn't much of a libertarian. He's just a conservative apologist who uses libertarian rhetoric.

A lot of people were excited when he started The Daily Caller. A real Washington libertarian publication. Just check out that name, "The Daily Caller"! It makes you think of someone reading Common Sense in the public square. Libertarians love that shit.

But that's not what The Daily Caller has been. It's been just another conservative rag. In its defense, we will have to see the reporting coming out of it when a Republican is in the White House. But I don't expect much. Carlson is a conservative first and foremost. If I were a as disingenuous as he is, I would say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist." After all, there is much about socialism that I admire. But I am not, in fact, a socialist and it would be an insult to actual socialists to claim that I am.

Read more »

Have another scandal, please

By Mustang Bobby

If the game plan of the righties was to bog down the Obama administration with claims of scandal and thereby turn the country against him so that he had no choice but to either resign or go back to Kenya, it’s not working out like that.

President Obama’s approval ratings have increased since a trio of controversies involving his administration began dominating the news cycle.

Fifty percent of those surveyed in Gallup’s three-day tracking poll released Wednesday say they approve of the job the president is doing, compared to 43 percent who said they disapprove.

The 7-percentage point positive margin is better than where the president stood in the poll over the two weeks before the IRS and Department of Justice scandals broke, and is near Obama’s rating over the waning days of the 2012 campaign when voters convincingly elected him to a second term in office.

Obama’s Gallup numbers are up three percentage points since the pollster’s May 23-25 survey and suggest Obama’s approval ratings held steady, even as the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups made headlines.

It looks like things actually get better for the president the more they hound him. Hmm… Not to get all conspiracy-theorist, but maybe that was his plan all along: come up with these fake scandals to trap the GOP into being the assholes that they are to generate sympathy for the President and therefore get his way….

Hey, it’s not that far out there. After all, this is the guy with the parents who planned way back in 1961 to plant a story in the Honolulu classifieds about his “birth” in Oahu just so 45 years later he could run for president and take over the world.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Conservatives: Public backlash to immigration reform is coming"

(National Journal): "Marco Rubio to address House conservatives on immigration reform"

(Chicago Tribune): "Retired justice warns against 'politicians in robes'"

(Bloomberg): "If not Geithner, who will replace Bernanke?"

(BBC): "Turkey protest rages for second day"

P.M. Headlines

(MinnPost): "With Bachmann not running, Jim Graves pulls out of 6th District race"

(CBS News): "Naval Academy probing alleged sexual assault by 3 football players"

(TPM): "Why GOP scandal mongers can’t have nice things"

(New York Times): "GOP sizes up Obama as midterm target"

(Houston Chronicle): "Woman's jailing in Mexico highlights tourist risks"

Vimeo of the Day: "Sarah DiNardo. Tape Artist."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't quite know what it is about Sarah DiNardo's strange and wonderful tape art -- yes, art that she makes from obsessively/serenely rolling masking tape of different sizes and placing the rolls in intricate designs in found objects -- but it's pretty amazing. And remarkably beautiful. (I can't really do it justice with a short explanation. See for yourself. I really must acquire some.)

This excellent video captures the essence of the artist and her work. Even watching it is hypnotic.

Sarah DiNardo. Tape Artist. from gnarly bay productions, Inc. on Vimeo.

Behind the Ad: Terry McAuliffe, king of the platitudes

By Richard K. Barry

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

Who: Terry McAuliffe gubernatorial campaign.

Where: Virginia.

What's going on: Democratic candidate for governor in Virgina Terry McAuliffe says a divisive ideological agenda is bad and job creation is good. And he's a uniter, not a divider. Thanks for that, Terry.

By the way, Public Policy Polling just released a poll on the race indicating that neither candidate is much liked:

Terry McAuliffe is not popular, with 29% of voters holding a favorable opinion of him to 33% with a negative one. But we find that Ken Cuccinelli is even more unpopular, with 44% of voters rating him unfavorably to just 32% with a positive opinion. As a result we find McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli by a 5 point margin, 42/37. McAuliffe also led by 5 points on our January poll, but the share of voters who are undecided has spiked from 13% at the start of the year now up to 21%.

Last man standing!


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Michele Bachmann's influence: Credit where credit is due

By Mustang Bobby 

Rachel Maddow thinks that Michele Bachmann was far more influential in shaping the agenda of the modern Republican party than people give her credit for:

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

She may have a valid point. Without Ms. Bachmann, would we now have people in the Senate like Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Mike Lee of Utah? (We will always have folks like Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, and Steve King battering against the walls of Congress.) 

As Ms. Maddow noted in her piece, Matt Taibbi warned us in 2011 against making fun of Michele Bachmann: 

You will want to laugh, but don't, because the secret of Bachmann's success is that every time you laugh at her, she gets stronger. 

Fortunately, his prediction did not come true; Michele Bachmann's ride to national prominence was accompanied with the same laugh-track that followed Charlie Sheen's career path, and the Mel Brooks method — laughter as the best weapon — did not enable her. 

It was inevitable that we would have gotten the growth of the fringe-right even without the able assistance of Ms. Bachmann. That destiny was set long before she came on the scene in Congress. One can make the case that it started with the Republicans' reaction to the election of Bill Clinton, or even as far back as the presidency of Ronald Reagan where the damp and fetid undergrowth of religious bigotry and patriarchy grew and spread as a response to Roe v. Wade and the progress of LGBT rights. The emergence of Barack Obama — a man who encapsulates every boogedy-boogedy stereotype of the Other and Liberalism that the GOP has been mustering since the defeat of Herbert Hoover — broke open the floodgates, and Ms. Bachmann, ever the opportunist, took full advantage of it. 

As Edward R. Murrow once said about another prominent Republican, she did not create this situation, she merely exploited it — and rather successfully. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Another Republican, Obama?

By Frank Moraes 

I have had major problems with the nomination of James Comey to head the FBI. But now I'm not sure. You see, today Glenn Greewald wrote, "James Comey is far from the worst choice to lead the FBI." That's probably about equivalent to most people saying, "James Comey is the best person we could realistically get."

Of course, Greenwald wrote that after an article blasting Comey for two very troubling actions while working for George W. Bush. The biggest one is that Comey was the guy who signed off on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. You probably remember that. It was big among liberals at the time. I was outraged. Of course, the Obama administration has been no better. In fact, the Obama administration followed the Bush lead by giving all of the phone companies immunity. Well, it was Comey who signed off on that, claiming that it was legal.

Also of concern: Comey signed off on the use of torture. Of course, he was against it and repeatedly said so. But in the end, he did it. That doesn't exactly speak to the mainstream narrative that he's a guy who stands up for principle. I'm sure you know the story of him fighting with Alberto Gonzales over something that was so illegal even Comey disagreed with it. If not, here is Rachel Maddow the other night gushing about it:

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

But my problem with James Comey doesn't have to do with any of this. I figure Comey probably isn't a bad choice for the job. But just like with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, "Is no Democrat good enough?" I understand that as often as not these days, Republican bureaucrats are more liberal than Democrats. But I don't like the optics. And I especially don't like them with regards to security and military positions. It makes it look like Republicans really are better at these things than Democrats. In a fundamental sense, this means that Obama really doesn't care about his party. And that's a bad thing at a time when Republican politicians care only about theirs. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "McCain: 'Regrettable' if photo was taken with Syrian rebel kidnappers"

(Washington Post): "Hagel visits Asia to reassure allies"

(Politico): "Eric Holder to media: I get it"

(Washington Post): "Answers needed in death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev acquaintance"

(New York Times): "GOP sizes up Obama as midterm target"

P.M. Headlines

(Daily Beast): "Comey: Principled or self-righteous?"

(The Hill): "Obama’s poll numbers hold up despite the storm of scandal"

(CNN): "Holder runs into roadblocks on off-the-records meeting on leaks"

(Bloomberg): "Scalia gives Obamacare a big boost"

(New York Times): "Unions press to end favoured trade status for Bangladesh"

Because gun nuts are such level headed folks...

By Carl

Hmmm.  Maybe we should start profiling gun owners, too.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the latest high-profile target of poison-tainted letters sent though the mail, police revealed yesterday.The leader of the nation's largest city was threatened anonymously in two letters sent to Bloomberg's offices in Manhattan and Washington, D.C., NYPD spokesperson Paul Browne said. An undisclosed number of New York cops who responded to one of the letters now "are being examined for minor symptoms of ricin exposure," but the potentially dangerous substance never reached the mayor.

"The writer, in the letters, threatened Mayor Bloomberg, with references to the debate on gun laws," Browne said.

Saying he has a "constitutional and God-given right and I will exercise that right 'til I die," the author warned that the government would have to kill him before he would relinquish his weapons, a source told ABC News.

If this had been an arm of Al Qaeda, we’d have raised the terrorist threat level one notch up whatever rainbow we’re using now, and have started locking down mail deliveries.

But because, you know, Christian and likely white, well, we can’t abrogate the freedoms of our citizenry!

Just ask the next swarthy kid you see with a backpack about that.

What is it with gun nuts and the urge to kill people? Why do they think their rights trump the rest of society’s privilege to live in peace and quiet, pursuing what little happiness life provides them in this miserable muck we call “America”? And do they realize that they ARE the muck, and that the rest of society is the boot trying to extricate itself and move forward?

Probably not. That was a self-answering question.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

Behind the Ad: Tax fairness in the Mass. Senate election

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Ed Markey Senate campaign

Where: Massachusetts

What's going on: As we trundle towards Election Day in Massachusetts in the special Senate election (June 25) to replace John Kerry, the ads keep coming. In this one, Democratic candidate Ed Markey plays the tax fairness card against his Republican opponent Gabriel Gomez. 

The poll trend by Pollster has Markey ahead by a margin of 45.7 to 34.5 percent. They track 10 polls and the last update was 6 days ago. 

Markey's to lose, which I doubt he'll do.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Lincoln Chafee becomes a Democrat

By Frank Moraes

Have you heard the news? Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee will become a Democrat tomorrow. You probably don't care, but stick with me because this is interesting. He used to be a Republican. And then he became an independent. I'm still not sure what the hell that is. When a regular person is an independent, it normally means that they don't have a clue or any real interest in politics. You can generally depend upon them to think whatever the news is barking at them at the time. I figure these are the people who claimed to be Christians during Bush's first term but who decline to answer now. Confused people. I'm sure you know the type.

But in a politician, independent means something else. As far as I can tell, it normally means someone is a Democrat, but they don't like the label. Put in more general terms, it means they are socially liberal and economically conservative. And that pretty much means Democrat at this point. So Chafee is just admitting what's been clear for a while. It would be like Tobias onArrested Development announcing that he's gay. But you have to wonder about his first name: Lincoln. His parents have got to have been Republicans. And let's face it: the Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. It's more the party of John C. Calhoun, if you know what I mean.

I find it disturbing that we only see Republicans become Democrats. It never works the other way around with established politicians. Now I know: much of that is just due to the fact that the Republicans have become a revolutionary party. And indeed, most of these politicians have just stood still and watched as the Republican Party moved in directions seemingly designed to signal that they will lead the fascist movement in the 21st century. But it isn't just that. A politician could leave the Republican party and remain an Independent for the rest of his career. That's especially true of a governor. Consider everyone's favorite metrosexual Charlie Crist who only last year completed the final leg of his journey from Republican to Democrat. What's up with that, Charlie?

What's going on, I think, is that the Democratic Party has made it far too easy for old school Republicans to become Democrats. Look: I want the Democratic Party to be a big tent. If it weren't, I wouldn't be in it. Just the same, the Democrats have made it a lot harder for people like me on the left to stay in the tent because they've moved the tent so far to the right. In general, on economic issues, the modern Democratic Party is about where Nixon's Republican Party was. Actually, it's probably even more conservative than that. The only place where the Democrats have moved left is on social issue. And the only people who really agree with the conservatives on social issues are people in the bigoted Republican base. There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican elite would liberalize those positions if they thought they could get away with it.

Don't get me wrong: I am glad to have Chafee and Crist in the Democratic Party. But is it asking so very much that it not be a trivial move for the more reasonable Republicans to fit into our supposedly liberal party? That's all I'm asking for.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Behind the Ad: Republicans can't help going too far

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Mitch McConnell Senate campaign

Where: Kentucky

What's going on: The GOP is going to make good use of the IRS "scandal" in the next election cycle. We can be sure of that. Democrats can talk about the political activities of Tea Party groups and how appropriate it might have been to target them. But, on the face of it, the IRS issue will play well as a campaign theme for Republicans. It just looks bad.

But Republicans always overreach as they did in this ad. 

MaddowBlog:

[I]t's the message in the closing seconds that arguably matters most: as the video ends, and viewers see the words "Intimidation. Retaliation. Secretive" on screen, we hear the president say, "We're going to punish our enemies and reward our friends."

The problem is that McConnell is taking President Obama's words completely out of context. 

Jamelle Bouie (The Plum Line):

But this is an out-of-context quote, pulled from a comment made more than two years ago in an interview with Univision radio. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of, ‘we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ – if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder,” Obama said in that interview. McConnell’s use of the quote is the dishonest capstone to an intensely dishonest piece of political rhetoric.

The ad is dishonest in the way that it uses this mini-scandal to paint Obama as a monster. They just can't help themselves, though, as they move from character assassination based on innuendo to a full out fabrication. 

They don't know how not to go too far.



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Waiting in the wings

By Mustang Bobby

Republican strategists are reportedly relieved that Michele Bachmann is leaving Congress so that she will no longer be a lightning rod for all the fringe-cringe talk.

Charlie Pierce notes that there are plenty of folks waiting to take her place.

With the announced departure of Michele Bachmann from the World’s Greatest Legislative Body today, we inaugurate a new semi-regular weekly feature in which we study the possible successor to la Bachmann as Queen Regent of the Crazy People. (Louie Gohmert is, of course, emperor for life). A Top Commenter from Missouri has suggested Vicky Hartzler, who represents the Fourth Congressional District of that state and, boy howdy, the Top Commenter is not kidding. Among other things, Ms. Hartzler apparently believes that the heathen Chinee are spying on us through our toasters.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities.

She’d also rather the government not tolerate those “fringe religions” because the First Amendment says that Congress Shall Make No Law Unless Vicky Hartzler Thinks Your God Is Freaky.

Is she available for kids’ parties?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Washington Times): "Sen. John McCain accused of posing with kidnappers in Syria"

(CBS News): "2 letters addressed to Mayor Bloomberg found to contain ricin"

(New York Times): "Former Bush official said to be Obama pick to lead F.B.I."

(The Week): "Michele Bachmann's 19 greatest fibs, flubs, and head-scratchers"

(Jeffrey Toobin): "The abortion issue returns"

P.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Bachmann won't seek reelection next year"

(Politico): "Michele Bachmann retiring under fire"

(Washington Post): "Nearly 40 percent of mothers are now family breadwinner, report says"

(NPR): "Obama to name former Justice official next FBI chief"

(The Week): "Is Obama trying to stack the courts with liberals"

Special election in Alabama's 1st Congressional District

By Richard K. Barry

Earlier in May, Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala) announced that he would resign from Congress to take a job at the University of Alabama. A date has not been set for the special election to replace him, but this is a very reliable red state, so Democrats shouldn't get excited. 

Word now is that Rick Santorum will endorse conservative columnist Quin Hillyer. As a safe Republican seat, this will draw a lot of competition in the primary so I suppose Santorum could help his candidate stand out. 

Roll Call: 

Aside from Hillyer, consultants say the most likely and viable candidates in the race include:

-- State Sen. Tripp Pittman, a wealthy owner of a tractor company in Baldwin County, a rural area in the 1st District.

-- First-term state Sen. Bill Hightower. 

-- Former state Sen. Bradley Byrne, a lawyer who lost a Republican gubernatorial primary bid in 2010. 

-- Mobile County Sheriff Sam Cochran, who consultants say is well-respected in the community and has strong name recognition.

If you want to know how red a district it is, Romney beat Obama by a margin of 62 to 37 percent last November. 

Will this one get national attention like the South Carolina 1st? Uh, no. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Obamacare polls a little positive

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Bernstein has words of wisdom for us: Ignore Those Polls! Those being the recent CNN poll that show that over half of the people don't like Obamacare: 43-54. Apparently, Republicans are claiming that the poll proves them right: the people hate Obamacare! But then liberals have pushed back. Of the 54% who don't like Obamacare, 16 percentage points of them don't like it because it is not liberal enough. These are people like me who still want Medicare for all but who will take Obamacare over the Republican alternative, which is nothing at all. That means the numbers look more like this: 59-38. Liberals win, hooray!

But Bernstein points out that most people don't really know what they're talking about. It isn't until next year that Obamacare even begins its full implementation. So asking people about Obamacare now probably shows about as much as asking people who they will vote for in 2016. And he's right. The truth of the matter is after Obamacare is fully implemented, people will start to have real opinions on it -- opinions that are based upon their experiences and not the latest talking points they heard on the TV machine.

Still, I think Bernstein is wrong to pooh-pooh the poll all together. After all, a couple of years ago, Obamacare polled far worse. Two years ago, the numbers were 43-48. My guess is that the change is liberals moving from being against Obamacare to being for it. In the end, that 38% is just the Republican base. And they will be against it until they forget it was a Democratic program. We can look forward twenty years from now when Republicans carry signs that say, "Government Hands Off My Obamacare!"

So I wouldn't go as far as Jonathan Bernstein. The Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that this poll is good news for them. One thing about us liberals: we're so used to getting nothing that when we get a minor victory like Obamacare, we take it -- even if we grumble about it. Democrats do have a reason to be encouraged by this poll. However, Bernstein is right: in the final analysis, it doesn't matter. Obamacare will prove itself or it will not. But given it only has to complete with the Republican offer of nothing (not even the fee for the gaming license), it looks hopeful.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

The new gun-control movement, post-Newtown

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I wasn't terribly disappointed when the Manchin-Toomey gun bill was defeated in the Senate (even though it got well more than 50 votes, because of a Republican filibuster), because it was a bad bill. But it did include an expanded background checks provision, along with various pro-gun provisions, and so in the end it was probably better than nothing.

And yet in defeat that bill did more for the gun-control movement that it would have done had it ever become law, and in that sense a lot of good may come from what at the time seemed like a serious, embarrassing, and revealing setback.

Actually, though, it started not on April 17, 2013, but on December 14, 2012, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza, armed with a semi-automatic rifle, killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. There had been many other mass shootings previously in America, including recently at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, but Newtown was different. It was a brutal attack on a school, where parents leave their children and expect them to be safe, and the fact that so many children were killed in cold blood was simply too shocking, too powerful, too overwhelming, to ignore. (And there was a cultural/racial element to it as well. This wasn't inner-city Detroit. This was a part of America with which more Americans, including the political and media elites who shape public opinion, could identify. It's easy, sadly so, for many to ignore the plight of a city like Detroit. But if it could happen in Newtown, it could happen anywhere.)

This is not to say that the country was suddenly ready for significant gun control. That will take time. No, if not that, it was at least ready for something meaningful to be done to curb gun violence, to put a stop if at all possible to a mostly unregulated gun market that has resulted in guns, including weapons of mass destruction for which there is no reasonable justification for private ownership, falling into the wrong hands way too many times.

President Obama himself took the lead. In an incredibly moving vigil in Newtown a few days after the shooting, he said:

We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

And this: 

Charlotte, Daniel, Olivia, Josephine, Ana, Dylan, Madeline, Catherine, Chase, Jesse, James, Grace, Emilie, Jack, Noah, Caroline, Jessica, Benjamin, Avielle, Allison, God has called them all home. 

For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory.

Yes, the country was finally ready, at least for expanded background checks, and perhaps for much more, and they overwhelmingly expressed that in poll after poll. 

Read more »

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) is more than a little vulnerable

By Richard K. Barry

We will be hearing a lot about how Republicans have a very good shot at taking back the Senate in 2014. One of the many reasons is Sen. Mark Begich in Alaska. You may know that Alaska is a very red state. It is a state in which President Obama managed only 43 percent of the vote last year.

In 2008, when Begich won the seat, he did it by a mere 47.8 to 46.5 percent margin. And his opponent was the profoundly ethically challenged Ted Stevens who, if reelected, would have been "the first convicted felon elected to the U.S. Senate." (Funny, I would have thought there were others.)

The issue for Begich in 2014 is the competition. Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell is likely going to run for the Republicans as is Joe Miller. You will recall that Miller, with the backing of Sarah Palin, won the GOP Senate nomination in 2010 only to lose in the general election to incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) who famously won as a write-in candidate.

Facing Miller again, who is likely to be as crazy in 2014 as he was in 2010, would be a good thing for Begich. Running against Treadwell would be a problem.

A hint of how tough it will be for Begich can be found on his website, which flashes the slogan:
"As Independent as Alaska."

And then there is the possibility that Palin could run, which I would doubt. You've got to love Sen. Murkowski's comments about that possibility:

I think there are a lot of outside interests that would like to see Sarah Palin in some form of elected office. Most in Alaska recognize our former governor is really not involved in or engaged in the state anymore, that she’s moved to other interests. In order for you to represent the state of Alaska, you’ve got to be in the state.

Brrrrrr. Is it cold in here?

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Rep. Bachmann won't seek reelection"

(Reuters): "Olympia Snowe: Bob Dole is right about GOP"

(Politico): "Joe Miller files papers for Senate"

(Las Vegas News): "Harry Reid says abuse of filibuster must end"

(New York Times): "Anti-West hard-liner gains in Iranian race"

P.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "Obama back in New Jersey with friend Chris Christie to survey Hurricane Sandy recovery"

(Daily Beast): "Holder's regrets and repairs"

(Salon): "Anthony Weiner can actually win the NYC mayor race"

(The Hill): "Senate GOP feels jilted after being wined and dined by Obama on deficit talks"

(CBS News): "Russia says it will help Syria deter 'hot heads'"

What's wrong with MSNBC? (hint: Joe)

By Mustang Bobby

Why are MSNBC's ratings so low? Well, as Alex Parene at Salon suggests, it's not because of Rachel Maddow:

"Morning Joe" is the lowest rated of the big three cable news morning shows in both total viewers and the younger demographic. Fox News' Red Eye — a show Fox airs at 3 in the morning — had more total and 25-54-year-old viewers in April 2013 than "Morning Joe" did. "Morning Joe" in April 2013 was down, from its April 2012 numbers, in total and in young viewers by a greater percentage than the rest of the network as a whole.

I'm not harping on "Morning Joe" because I think the show is representative of everything wrong with contemporary political elite thinking, though it is, but because it illustrates MSNBC's larger problem: It's a political talk show. Every other TV morning show is mostly fluff and weather. "Morning Joe," instead of entertainment news updates, has a former member of Congress wave a newspaper at Mark Halperin for a while. MSNBC's target audience may just be much less interested in listening to people talk about politics in spring 2013 than they were during an election year.

What would you rather wake up to: a perky news anchor shitting rainbows about traffic, weather, and the latest on Justin Bieber, or Joe Scarborough ranting to Mark Halperin about Benghazi! and the socialism of Obamacare? Granted, the morning crew at Fox and Friends isn't exactly Mensa in the Morning, but at least they're sitting on a couch.

MSNBC's biggest problem is that their target audience — progressives or at least those who don't care for Fox's rabid partisanship — aren't a mass communication major market. They don't listen to talk radio unless it's interrupted by a pledge drive:

MSNBC is actually making some good decisions, lately, from the point of view of someone who'd like (talking head) cable news to be better. And anyone who says the network's failing because of liberalism should probably have to account for the fact that the channel's highest-rated show remains Rachel Maddow's. (Followed by O'Donnell, who really is the insufferable smug self-satisfied liberal caricature everyone thinks all of MSNBC is.)

But do you know who watches cable news all day? And at prime time? When there's not an election on, or a war, or some terrorism? Older conservative people. If MSNBC wants better ratings, it'll either have to train a generation to want to pay attention to political years all the time, or it'll have to produce a scripted show about zombies.

Maybe that's why they run "Caught on Tape" all weekend. Add in some undead and you've got a hit.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?

Read more »

So about those conservative groups supposedly being "targeted" by the IRS...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

See, this is how it happens. Republicans create a faux scandal without any grasp, or even any regard for, the facts, the media, both smelling blood to caving in easily to Republican pressure (when they're not in the bag for Republicans already), play right along, enabling the Republicans and providing them credence and a platform, reporting on the faux scandal they themselves are helping create, without any grasp of the facts themselves, and then, much later, the facts come out, slowly, but by then no one's really paying attention anymore and the damage has largely been done.

So Republicans, with their willing media enablers, created a faux scandal out of a report that the IRS had investigated conservative groups with regard to their tax-exempt status, a report that suggested that the investigating of those groups had been somewhat inappropriately conducted, specifically that they had been targeted, that the IRS had tagged certain groups because of their names, and, well, hell broke loose, as you know. Republicans freaked out, whether they knew better or not, feigning outrage and suggesting, stupidly, that Obama wasn't in control, as if the president micro-manages every facet of the federal government, Democats had no clue what to do, and President Obama even got involved, calling what the IRS did "inexcusable" and scapegoating the acting director of the IRS, Steven Miller, who was forced to resign (i.e., fired) even though it's pretty clear this all happened well below him in the organization.

Yes, the faux scandal swept through Washington and the president's knees jerked right along with the Republican / media faux outrage.

But that was all so... two weeks ago.

Even at the time, it was pretty clear what had happened. IRS investigators in Cincinnati may have handled their investigation with less-than-stellar tact, but there was no pressure on them from the White House, or from any outside organization, and they did not act with partisan malice towards conservative groups.

Let me repeat that: There is no evidence conservative groups were targeted for political reasons.

And so really there is no scandal at all.

Read more »

Bush 2.0

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: For my take on Obama's "end of the war on terror" speech, see here. I thought it was, in general, a thoughtful, intelligent speech that addressed, without entirely disregarding, my progressive concerns, and I applaud him for presenting a serious understanding of the complexities of the world and America's place in it, as well as for encouraging a broad discussion of national security, but he's got an awful lot to prove after more than four years of continuing, and in some cases worsening, the Bush-Cheney national security state. The rhetoric was there, but, then, the rhetoric's often there with him. The question is where he actually goes from here and whether there will actually be meaningful change, and of course whether that change actually puts an end to endless war and largely unlimited executive power. -- MJWS)

In general, I like caveats. The world is not a simple place. But that can be taken to extremes, especially by supposedly liberal politicians. The best description I've ever heard of Obama is by Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama presents a dizzying series of hands -- on the one and then the other, repeatedly, like some hyper-discursive blue-skinned Hindu deity -- in which he discusses the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (the wing to which he belongs, but he doesn't really come out and tell us that), which embraces the new economy of advancing pools, even though 'a sizable chuck' of the Democratic base resists the agenda." In other words, Obama is a conservative Democrat but he respects the rest of us who aren't.

After President Obama's speech last week, I didn't know what to make of it. As usual, it sounded very nice. He got all the stuff that I didn't like out of the way at first so he could provide me with a soft landing. But I've been hearing pretty words from Obama for five years and I've been disappointed in his actions for four. On economics, I feel more qualified to cut through his bullshit, but I'm none too clear on the War on Terror, regardless of what the current administration wants to call it. So I have to depend upon more knowledgeable people like Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald to clarify what the truth actually is. So I was very eager to hear what Greenwald had to say, especially given his tardiness in weighing in. Finally, yesterday morning he published "Obama's Terrorism Speech: Seeing What You Want to See."

He started out saying what I've long known, although in this case specific to Obama's speech on Thursday:

If one longed to hear that the end of the "war on terror" is imminent, there are several good passages that will be quite satisfactory. If one wanted to hear that the war will continue indefinitely, perhaps even in expanded form, one could easily have found that. And if one wanted to know that the president who has spent almost five years killing people in multiple countries around the world feels personal "anguish" and moral conflict as he does it, because these issues are so very complicated, this speech will be like a gourmet meal.

He then went on to point out the fundamental purpose of the speech was to calm progressives.

Read more »

(Not President) McCain goes to Syria (and undermines U.S. policy)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Obviously, the situation in Syria is awful. According to French newspaper Le Monde, a "merciless war" is being waged on the outskirts of Damascus, with the Assad regime using chemical weapons against the rebels.

And, in general, I'm with the rebels. I'd love to see the Assad regime fall and for the Syrian people to be freed from the shackles of that brutal tyranny.

But the question isn't really which side you're on, because obviously most good and decent people want Assad to go, it's how you most appopriately respond to the current situation with the intent of supporting the rebels' goals.

The first question is easy. The second, not so much.

For warmongering conservatives like John McCain, however, it's always all so simple: Where there's a problem, as in Syria, war is the solution, and when some war isn't enough, more, ever more, is always the answer.

When they're in power, war is what we get. And when they're not, like now, they just won't shut up about it.

Yes, McCain has been leading the charge, directed with vengeful venom against the man who beat him for the presidency in 2008, for the U.S. to step up its support for the Syrian rebels as well as to get more directly involved in the conflict. He even made his way to Syria yesterday, meeting with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, as well as with other rebel leaders.

On the ground yesterday, he was the United States. Or least he and others wanted it to appear that way. "The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time," said Idris. "We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation."

Yes, of course you are, but here's the thing. John McCain is not the president of the United States. And while you may be upset with what you see as lack of support from President Obama, McCain's self-aggrandizing globe-strutting isn't going to help.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Philadelphia Inquirer): "Obama, Christie together again"

(Politico): "John McCain in Syria, meets rebels"

(New York Times): "Obama plans 3 nominations for key court"

(CNN): "High court poised for a month of high-stakes ruling"

(The Hill): "House lawmakers press on the IRS investigation over recess"

P.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "Abandoned car closes the Brooklyn Bridge"

(USA Today): "Sen. McCain slips into Syria, meets with rebels"

(The Hill): "Obama honors fallen as US turns ‘page on a decade of conflict’"

(CNN): "Poll: Do you support or oppose the health care law?"

(Fox News): "Study on possible border entry fee sparks opposition"

Memorial Day 2013

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(image)

On November 11 each year, Remembrance Day (also Veterans Day in the U.S.), I post a poem from the First World War, from a great poet of that apocalypse like Wilfred Owen or Isaac Rosenberg.

Today is Memorial Day in the U.S., and so today I want to post a poem by an American poet of that war.

The writer and editor Archibald MacLeish was born in Glencoe, Illinois in 1892. A future Librarian of Congress, recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes, as well as an expatriate in Paris during the swinging '20s (along with Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, et al.), he served as an ambulance driver and artillery captain during the Great War.

MacLeish died in 1982. There's a good piece on him at the Poetry Foundation.

Here is one of his more well-known poems, "The Silent Slain":

We too, we too, descending once again
The hills of our own land, we too have heard
Far off -- Ah, que ce cor a longue haleine --
The horn of Roland in the passages of Spain,
the first, the second blast, the failing third,
And with the third turned back and climbed once more
The steep road southward, and heard faint the sound
Of swords, of horses, the disastrous war,
And crossed the dark defile at last, and found
At Roncevaux upon the darkening plain
The dead against the dead and on the silent ground
The silent slain --

My best to our American friends and family, and readers. Have a happy and safe Memorial Day. But do try to remember what it's all about.