Behind the Ad: W. Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin responds to the NRA

By Richard K. Barry

(Another in our extensive Behind the Ad series.)

Who: Sen. Joe Manchin (D)

Where: West Virginia

What's going on: Manchin has a new 30 second spot in which he talks about being a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association but says that he isn't tied to them on every issue.

The Washington Post:

“I’m a lifetime NRA member, but I don’t walk in lockstep with the NRA’s Washington leadership, this administration or any interest group,” Manchin says in the commercial, which debuted Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Throughout the ad, Manchin is handling a gun.

Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced a measure on expanding background checks for those wishing to purchase guns, though the legislation failed in the Senate earlier in the year. This has made Manchin a target of the NRA.

 In the spot, Manchin tells viewers to tell the NRA to support expanded background checks.

 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Former funny man fights to be taken seriously

By Richard K. Barry

It is difficult to resist calling Sen. Al Franken a former funny man, though once upon a time (maybe in the era of Milton Berle) that is how we identified people who made others laugh for a living. Anyway, no one is laughing at Al now.

For a guy who barely squeaked into the Senate by 312 votes in 2008, he seems to have a pretty good lock on his job in the 2014 elections.

Associated Press:

Four years into his term, Franken barely figures into the GOP's calculations for trying to wrest control of the Senate from Democrats. Republicans don't consider him a top target for defeat, and they haven't found a strong challenger in the Democratic-leaning state.

Those who know say he has succeed by keeping his head down and doing the work, in essence, by avoiding the national spotlight. This can't have been easy for a guy who spent so much of his life on stage, but he has managed. He rarely talks to the press and has steadfastly refused to make use of his skill for comedy. 

"People have seen that I did what I said I would do. I came to Washington, I put my shoulder to the wheel and I did the work," Franken said in a recent interview with The Associated Press, expressing optimism that he'll be re-elected. He punted on the question of whether he'd seek a more prominent national voice in a second term, saying: "I'm more worried about what I'm working on tomorrow."

Having won by such a narrow margin in a three-way race in 2008, the GOP probably assumed Franken would be relatively easy to take down. And while they may still be saying he is beatable, it sounds like even they don't really believe that. As one indicator, last fall more than 50 percent of those polled liked the job Franken was doing.

So far, Franken has two definite Republican challengers: Mike McFadden, a businessman and political unknown; and Jim Abeler, an eight-term state representative who's never run for higher office. Another lawmaker, state Sen. Julianne Ortman, is also considering a bid.

Yes, well, get out the fly swatter.

Yet more proof that second acts in American lives are indeed possible.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Snowden charges first step in perhaps long extradition"

(CNN): "In Doha, Kerry calls for political settlement in Syria"

(The Hill): "Cantor, Hoyer trade blame on farm bill"

(AP): "Minn's Franken hardly a GOP target for defeat"

(Financial Times):  "Obama sends coded warning on watering down trade deal"

P.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Obama says FBI nominee Comey will balance privacy, security"

(Talking Points Memo): "McConnell: The IRS scandal probably doesn't reach the White House"

(The Hill): "Immigration bill gains traction"

(Politico): "Inside the border deal that almost failed"

(Washington Post): "New pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC attracts donors and worries"

(The Daily Beast): "What's taking the Supreme Court so long?"

Dot-Blog won't save the world

By Frank Moraes

The newest Wonk Blog member, Lydia DePillis wrote an interesting article on the future of domain names, but I think she is fundamentally wrong.

The first half of the article is rather amusing. At the end of every day Wonk Blog publishes a feature that provides links to four or five almost random articles. These round-ups are called, "The Best Sentences We Read Today." And then, instead of listing the titles of the articles, they list interesting sentences from the articles. For example, two days ago we got this one, "Hoffa went missing in Detroit, a city that, then as now, was filled with great places to hide a body."

As a result of this feature, some guy went to the Wonk Blog staff and tried to sell them BestSentences.com for $30,000. He was going to throw in BestSentence.com too. Plus he offered a business plan of sorts where the website could have a community and people who could rate the sentences. Blah blah blah. DePillis is very nice about it, noting that it might even be a good idea. (It's not.) What I think is most funny is that this mystery man has owned the less appropriate BestSentence.com since 2008, but he only purchased BestSentences.com two weeks ago. I bet he'd be pleased if 500 bucks. Regardless, he shouldn't be talking to the Wonk Blog staff; they're just a bunch of nerds who work for Washington Post, that most likely owns the name Wonk Blog itself. (At least, I hope so; I like my wonks pure!)

Read more »

Plowed under

By Mustang Bobby

You would think that one of the basic rules of being Speaker of the House would be that you don’t bring a bill up for a vote unless you were sure that you had the votes to pass it.

That simple rule seems to have escaped John Boehner.

A broad five-year farm bill went down to a surprise defeat in the House on Thursday when Republican conservatives revolted against the legislation, arguing that it would cost too much, while Democrats defected, saying it would not spend enough on their priorities.

The 234 to 195 vote was the latest rebuke to House GOP leaders, who have struggled to muster enough control of the chamber to pass major legislation. The defeat also bodes ill for legislation on the budget and immigration that is expected to be debated in the House this summer and fall. Senators reached an agreement Thursday to increase funding for border security, a deal that increases the likelihood that the immigration bill will be approved with broad support.

So either Mr. Boehner is really bad at his job or the Republicans have no qualms about sabotaging him and his leadership for their own reasons.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Obama to meet privacy oversight board to reassure public on spying"

(The Hill): "House rejects farm bill, 195-234"

(Boston Globe): "Absentee ballots for Senate election down sharply from 2010"

(Newark Star Ledger): "For Sen. Chiesa, a daily crash course in the ways of Washington"

(Voice of America): "John Kerry to Doha for Syria talks"

The stupid party rolls on

By Mustang Bobby

Last winter Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told his fellow Republicans that the GOP has to “stop being the stupid party.” Apparently he wasn’t including himself in that admonition.

At some point, the American public is going to revolt against the nanny state and the leftward march of this president. I don’t know when the tipping point will come, but I believe it will come soon.

Why?

Because the left wants: The government to explode; to pay everyone; to hire everyone; they believe that money grows on trees; the earth is flat; the industrial age, factory-style government is a cool new thing; debts don’t have to be repaid; people of faith are ignorant and uneducated; unborn babies don’t matter; pornography is fine; traditional marriage is discriminatory; 32 oz. sodas are evil; red meat should be rationed; rich people are evil unless they are from Hollywood or are liberal Democrats; the Israelis are unreasonable; trans-fat must be stopped; kids trapped in failing schools should be patient; wild weather is a new thing; moral standards are passé; government run health care is high quality; the IRS should violate our constitutional rights; reporters should be spied on; Benghazi was handled well; the Second Amendment is outdated; and the First one has some problems too.

There’s a whole lotta stupid in that little paragraph — Republicans are defending trans-fats? — but this kind of reactionary rhetorical diarrhea doesn’t help re-brand the G.O.P. as anything other than a bunch of cranks who diss science in favor of superstition and do a really terrible job of masking their bigotry.

Speaking of the nanny state, who is the party that wants to probe every woman’s vagina, who wants to dictate the terms of marriage to everyone, and demands that brown-skinned people who roll their r’s have the right kind of papers? It isn’t the Democrats.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Droning on

By Carl

This should come as no surprise to anyone, even without the recent foofaraw about NSA grepping phone numbers:

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Wednesday that the agency has deployed drones to conduct surveillance in the U.S., and that the bureau was developing guidelines for their future law enforcement use.

Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the unmanned aerial vehicles, whose use by law enforcement has raised questions from privacy advocates and civil liberties groups, are deployed in "a very minimal way and very seldom.''

"Our footprint is very small,'' the director said. "We have very few.''

I don’t really have a problem with this, although I suspect that this will merely serve to irritate a whole lot of “libertarians.” After all, there’s very little difference between this operation and a guy sitting in a van with a dish antenna and a telephoto lens. Of course, a lot of that “don’t have a problem with this” relies on the FBI to develop guidelines that remain sensitive to the freedom of innocent people from unnecessary surveillance.

Yes, the FBI, along with the Treasury Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is a proto-domestic military force and they have been used in the past in that fashion. Part of the reason that is revolves around the Second Amendment nutbags who insist they have easy access to all kinds of formidable weaponry under the guise of “arms.”

Think about it: a nutbag has an arsenal and is suspected of a crime. Does he really think the government is not going to a) weapon up their own troops and b) survey the hell out of him in order to ensure their agents’ safety?

In a day and age when even corporations use drones for surveillance – as well as delivering pizzas – that the FBI doesn’t avail themselves of this technology would in itself be negligent.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Behind the Ad: Pro-Obama group pushes the benefits of health care reform

By Richard K. Barry

Who: Organizing for Action

Where: Nationally

What's going on: Organizing for Action (OFA) aired its first television ad on Monday, which focuses on all the good stuff about Obama's health care law. OFA, you may recall,  is the political advocacy group born out of President Obama's election campaign.

It's a 30 second spot and it features people who can't help but scream from the rooftops about how gosh darn wonderful the new legislation is.

According to OFA, the ad will be coupled with an education campaign that will help ordinary Americans learn the good news. Somehow 800 volunteers are going to be involved with this effort, though I am not sure how.

 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Conservative assault on families

By Frank Moraes

When I was a kid growing up during the Cold War, there was one thing that most disturbed me. It was the same thing that disturbed everyone. Political systems, economic systems, those are important, but they aren't personal. What was personal was how the power of the state was used to pit children against their families. The truth is, I don't know how true that was. It could have all been propaganda. But the idea that one should love the state more than one's family is typical of totalitarian governments.[1]

What has amazed me over the years is how conservatives do the same thing. I remember Reagan (it might have been Bush) praising a young girl for turning in her parents who were supposedly dealing cocaine. Because, you know, filial love should always be trumped by arbitrary drug laws. When I first read about that, I was horrified. But even more horrific was the fact that there was no push back in the mainstream press. It was as though the whole country had turned commie: yes Virginia, you really should honor the state ideology more than your parents.

Yesterday, I saw another example of this. George Republican Representative Phil Gingrey spoke on the floor of the House. He was arguing in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. It appears that children are getting the wrong ideas about gender roles, so he suggested that our schools should step in:

You know, maybe part of the problem is we need to go back into the schools at a very early age, maybe at the grade school level, and have a class for the young girls and have a class for the young boys and say, you know, this is what's important.

Where do children get their ideas about gender roles? I assume from their parents. But regardless, Gingrey doesn't want to teach children; he wants to indoctrinate them. The funny thing is that if men really are better at some things than women are, then in general, they will end up doing them. The whole push is to tell little boys that they really ought to be playing with guns and throw those teddy bears away. But that shows a shocking lack of confidence in the validity of their position.

The main issue, however, is that conservatives like Gingrey are not against big government. They are only against big government in as much as it affects businesses. When it comes to individuals, they not only want a big government, they want an intrusive government. And that's why I say that the Republican Party has become proto-fascist. They aren't all the way there, but there are lots of green shoots. They want to enforce a limited range of religious beliefs. They want individuals to do what is best for the collective. They believe in crony capitalism. They are jingoistic in the extreme. They are nationalistic. They don't like non-white races. Remember: hating the Jews was not a fundamental part of fascism (though it was of Nazism). I don't see huge differences between the Republican Party and other explicitly fascist parties around the world today. And Gingrey is a great example of this.
_______
[1] Jesus asked the same thing of his followers. Belief Net provides a good overview of some of Jesus' anti-family sayings.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(The Hill): "Right rips Rubio as Republican immigration votes slip away"

(ABC Online): "Afghanistan peace talks already in turmoil"

(New York Times): "Optimistic Fed outlines an end to its stimulus"

(Fox News): "Homes evacuated as wildfire flares near Denver; blaze one of several across hot, dry West

(Variety): "James Gandolfini dead at 51"

Echoes of Nam

By Carl

Lemme see….lengthy war, delicate negotiations, frustrated allies…yup! Sounds like Nam all over again!

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is expressing guarded optimism about the Taliban's announcement Tuesday that it will sit down for direct peace talks with U.S. and Afghanistan officials.

In comments at the Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland, Obama said the direct talks are an "important development."

"This is an important first step towards reconciliation, although it is a very early step," Obama told reporters. "We anticipate there will be lots of bumps in the road."

The Taliban will open an office in the Gulf nation of Qatar as early as Tuesday to facilitate direct peace talks with Afghanistan and the United States.

That last line is the most interesting, you see, because…

The Afghan president on Wednesday suspended talks with the United States on a new security deal to protest the way his government was being left out of initial peace negotiations with the Taliban meant to find a way to end the nearly 12-year war

The move by Hamid Karzai raises tensions significantly and could derail the peace process even before it has begun.

In a terse statement from his office, Karzai said negotiations with the U.S. on what American and coalition security forces will remain in the country after 2014 have been put on hold. The deal was expected to define the future of American troops here and also pave way for billions in aid to the Afghan economy.

And….

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(Reuters): "Internet monitoring must have proper limits, Merkel tells Obama"

(New York Times): "Extending a hand abroad, Obama often finds cold shoulders"

(The Hill): "House passes late-term abortion ban"

(Talking Points Memo): "Nate Silver: Politico co-founders lack 'curiosity for the world outside the bubble"

(USA Today): "Journalist Michael Hastings dead at 33"

Probing questions

By Mustang Bobby

Just as it’s always the most anti-gay crusader who gets caught with the rent boy, it’s the hard-core anti-big-guvamint rightie who gets caught pilfering from the taxpayers.

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and his wife, Maureen, have used taxpayer money for a range of small personal items they should have paid for themselves under state policy, according to spending records.

The McDonnells have billed the state for body wash, sunscreen, dog vitamins and a digestive system “detox cleanse,” the records show. They also have used state employees to run personal errands for their adult children. In the middle of a workday, for example, a staffer retrieved Rachel McDonnell’s newly hemmed pants at a tailoring shop nine miles from the governor’s mansion. Another time, a state worker was dispatched to a dry cleaner 20 miles away to pick up a storage box for Cailin McDonnell’s wedding dress.

The records do not indicate if the “digestive system ‘detox cleanse’” was for the governor or for the dog. Or if it involved an ultrasound.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Dear Chairman Bernanke

By Carl

I have an idea that might help ease the transition from the “Quantitative Easing” (QE) policy of the Fed over the past five years to a more free market oriented capital market. More after the break:

Here in the U.S., one thing is clear: The market is so accustomed to stimulus from QE that it is poised to retrench if it is cut off. And it is unduly fearful that the Fed would be short-sighted enough to suddenly turn off the spigot.

The market is such an extreme QE junkie that, perversely, whenever there's talk about the economy improving, stocks go down. Clearly, the market is afraid that the Fed would be cruel enough to put it on cold turkey.

Investors who react this way aren't thinking about a sound economy in which QE wouldn't be needed any more than a heroin addict thinks in terms of life without a fix.

OK, so here’s my thought: Methadone.

Methadone, in that you’d substitute one fix for a more controllable, sustainable fix that would give the addicts a chance to wean themselves off the socialist crutch you’ve been providing them.


Read more »

The EDNA is near?

By Mustang Bobby

There is an outside chance that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) could become law.

On Monday, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) signed on as the bill’s 51st cosponsor. The legislation would outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“Senator Carper believes it is important for federal law to explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — in the same way that current law addresses race, sex or religion — in order to ensure that all Americans are protected equally under the law,” said Carper spokesman Ian Sams.

When asked why Carper decided to sign on now, Sams added, “There’s nothing significant about the timing of his cosponsorship since he’s cosponsored the bill before, but he’s pleased to be the 51st senator to sign on in this Congress, as it means a majority of senators stand ready to pass this important legislation.”

Last week, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) signed on as ENDA cosponsors.

Although the legislation now has majority support, it will need more votes in order to reach the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster.

It still has to make it past the inevitable filibuster attempts by the Republicans who would run over their own grandparent to foil anything supported by President Obama, and it still has to get through the House, whose GOP antediluvians make the Senate GOP sound like a Quaker meeting, but it’s some progress to get 51 co-sponsors.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "President Obama: I'm not Dick Cheney"

(USA Today): "Justices: Arizona voter registration rules go too far"

(Reuters): "Putin faces isolation over Syria as G8 ratchets up pressure"

(CNN Money): "Ex-trader charged with Libor rigging in U.K."

(New York Times): "Iran president-elect wants to ease strains with US, but sees no direct ties"

Never mind

By Mustang Bobby

Over the weekend the story went out on CNET that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that the N.S.A. can listen in on any phone call it wants to without a warrant.

Except he didn’t say that.

Update at 2:50 p.m. ET on June 16: We’re pulling the plug on this story, following Rep. Nadler’s comments that debunk CNET’s story. In a statement to our sister site, Nadler said: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” We’ve left the amended article (post the previous update, below) in tact for transparency, but corrected the headline.

Glad we cleared that up.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The trouble with "red lines" is...

By Carl

….they often get crossed. And then what you gonna do?

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday that “the scope and scale” of assistance to Syrian rebels will expand, based on evidence that the Assad government is gaining ground in the protracted civil war and that it may have used chemical weapons in the conflict.

Speaking on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” McDonough did not say whether arms shipments to Syrian rebels would include artillery and other heavy weaponry that could help reduce the military regimes advantage. In the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has to tread carefully, McDonough said.


“We have to be very discerning about what's in our interest and what outcome is best for us, and the prices that we're willing to pay to get to that place,” he said. “We've rushed to war in this region in the past; we're not going to do it here.”

So basically, Obama wants to play this as the Opposite Iraq, and find a balance between Syrian autonomy and American influence and assistance.

Read more »

Why conservatives hate the government

By Frank Moraes

I've got a great way to make a group of people think that the government is complete corrupt and without any accountability. It's really easy. Have the people on TV tell them every day about some terrible scandal. Of course, there is no actual scandal. The news readers just report things that indicate that there is a scandal and don't report the vast majority of the evidence that indicates there is nothing going on. And then, when all the possible scandal confirming information has been reported, the TV drops the subject altogether.

This is brilliant because the news source never actually lied. It provided true, if highly misleading information. But the biggest part of this is not information at all; it is the sudden lack of reporting. Why would they do that?! It must be yet another example of the government clamping down on the news media. We really do have a fascist government! It won't even let them talk about these scandals on TV!

Yesterday, The Hill reported, House Republicans See Long Slog Ahead for Probes of IRS Targeting. It got me thinking about the effects that all of these non-scandals are having on conservative television viewers. For almost a year, they've been told that Benghazi is a big scandal: Obama killed those four people! And now? Nothing other than occasional comments to the effect that Benghazi is a bad scandal that shows how terrible the administration is, even if there is no evidence to support that.

What's interesting about the article in The Hill is that the Republicans themselves seem to be aware that they are doing this. Actually, it's been pretty clear for a while. Why else would Darrell Issa be selectively and deceptively releasing information from the House hearings? But it goes further than that:

"We knew that there was going to be a time when we would not put any new information out there," said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), who heads the Ways and Means investigations subcommittee. "I wouldn't even describe it as a lull in the process. I would just say that without new information to reveal out to the media, it seems quiet."

In other words, "We are only going to put out information that furthers our goals of embarrassing the White House." It also makes it sound as if the Republicans on the committee want to slow the process down so that they can use this non-scandal (You do know it is a non-scandal, right?) throughout next year's election cycle to impugn the Democratic Party.

As much as any group, conservatives bemoan the fact that the people have no respect or confidence in the major institutions of American life (except shockingly, the military). Yet they are willing to hurt our country on this score in the name of short term political gain. There is no doubt that Charles Boustany and Darrell Issa know there is no scandal behind the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. But they will use their plausible narrative and willing accomplices in the conservative media to imply that it is true. It's shameful. It's traitorous.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Waiting for the court

By Mustang Bobby

There is a chance that the Supreme Court will hand down rulings today on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Prop 8 cases. Mondays are usually good for Court rulings, so it will either be today or a week from today.

There are any number of ways the Court could rule on DOMA. They could go full tilt and overturn it completely, saying that federal law has no business dictating to the several states how to define marriage, or they could overturn the section of the law that denied marriage benefits to a legally married couple in New York, which was the basis for the suit in the first place. Or they could not rule at all, leaving the lower court rulings in place. Not being a lawyer or a dug-in Court watcher like SCOTUSblog, I have no tea leaves to read and report on, but my gut tells me that the Court will come down narrowly on the side of tossing DOMA to the point that it is basically ineffective and unenforceable. I’m guessing 5-4 with a vehement dissent from Scalia who will carry on like a diva about how the homosexual lobby has driven the Court to a politically correct ruling. (After Bush v. Gore, irony is not Justice Scalia’s strong suit.) I don’t hold out much of a possibility that they will leave DOMA intact. They would not have waited this long on that ruling.

As for California’s Prop 8, the Court could go the same way as DOMA: they could rule that the voter-approved ban on marriage equality in California violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and thereby reinstate the 2008 California supreme court ruling that marriage equality is permissible in the state. If they narrowly apply that ruling — meaning it is specific only to the case in California — then marriage equality would be the law there and only there. Or they could rule that bans on marriage equality violate the equal protection clauses, thereby overturning them in the states that provide for civil unions but not marriage, which would only apply to those states that have civil unions. Or they could rule that all bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional and overturn every state law prohibiting it, much as they did with Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that ruled bans on interracial marriage anywhere were unconstitutional, not just in Virginia. Or — and here’s the out for the Court — they could rule that the party suing to keep the ban in place did not have standing to sue, which would mean the case would be tossed and the lower court ruling — in favor of marriage equality — would stand. A punt win for equality.

Read more »

A.M. Headlines

(USA Today): "G-8: Obama arrives in Northern Ireland"

(Reuters): "Obama does not feel Americans privacy violated: chief of staff"

(ThinkProgress): "Lindsey Graham warns GOP: 'It doesn't matter who we run in 2016' if immigration reform falls"

(CNN): "CNN Poll: Obama approval falls amid controversies"

(New York Times): "From inner circle of Iran, a pragmatic victor"

A.M. Headlines

(CNET): "NSA admits listening to US phone calls without warrants"

(Politico): "Cheney defends NSA surveillance"

(Boston Globe): ""Markey holds solid lead over Gomez, poll says"

(New York Times): "Bill schools Barry on Syria"

(The Guardian): "North Korea proposes talks with US to ease tensions"