Don't primary red-state Democrats

By Frank Moraes 

After a string of clueless attempts to be iconoclastic, Jonathan Chait managed to write something that is both iconoclastic and right, "Senate Democrats Wise to Block Background Checks." His argument is very simple: red-state Democrats have to make some non-liberal votes to maintain credibility with their voters; this bill was almost completely useless, or, as Chait puts it, "a compromise of a compromise"; therefore, this was a good bill to vote against. And as I noted on Monday, the final law could have been much worse than nothing at all.

One thing that Chait doesn't mention is that as much as these red state Democrats may annoy us from time to time, they are very strong members of the team. In fact, currently the Democratic Party has more discipline in the Senate than the Republican Party. So the calls I'm hearing from certain corners that we could to primary these red-state Democrats are just crazy.

There is a related issue that I think is really important. Democratic politicians from blue states are often quite conservative, especially on economic issues. Dianne Feinstein, from my own great state of California, comes to mind. When it comes to red-state Democrats, a primary challenge might end with a Republican winning the general election. But why aren't we primarying Democrats in blue states?

One of our biggest political problems is that the Republican Party is too extreme and the Democratic Party not extreme enough. One way to fix this would be to enforce a little ideological purity on our representatives from liberal areas. After all, what makes the Republican Party unacceptable is not that Orrin Hatch of Utah is an extremist. He's from an extremist state; he should be extremist. But why do the people of the very liberal state of New York have an economic conservative as governor?

So we need to stop this nonsense about primarying red-state Democrats and start talking about primarying their blue-state counterparts who have no good reason for being as conservative as they are.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Orrin Hatch appears safe in Utah Senate primary

By Richard K. Barry

In case you were worried that venerable Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) might go down to defeat in a Republican primary like his long-time Senate colleague Dick Lugar, fear no more.

According to Political Wire, a Deseret/KSL poll finds that Hatch leads his challenger Dan Liljenquist (R) by a 60 to 32 percent margin.

Just when you think these guys have totally lost it, they pull themselves back from the brink. I hate it when that happens.

The primary is tomorrow.

Save the RINOs

By Mustang Bobby

David Brooks is horrified at the prospect of Republicans putting survival over principle and eating their own:

Politicians do what they must to get re-elected. So it's not unexpected that Republican senators like Richard Lugar and Orrin Hatch would swing sharply to the right to fend off primary challengers.

As Jonathan Weisman reported in The Times on Sunday, Hatch has a lifetime rating of 78 percent from the ultra-free market Club for Growth, but, in the past two years, he has miraculously jumped to 100 percent and 99 percent, respectively. Lugar has earned widespread respect for his thoughtful manner and independent ways. Now he's more of a reliable Republican foot soldier.

Still, it is worth pointing out that this behavior is not entirely honorable. It's not honorable to adjust your true nature in order to win re-election. It's not honorable to kowtow to the extremes so you can preserve your political career.

Oh, really? He's worried about honor in a party that re-elected a felon in 1972, sold weapons to a sworn enemy and used the proceeds to back Central American terrorists, impeached a Democratic president for getting an adulterous blowjob while at the same time the chief accuser was getting his own horn honked by a woman not yet his wife, elected a president by constitutional legerdemain that doesn't pass the laugh test, outed a CIA operative for political revenge, and cheered on a racially-tinged rabble of white patriarchal know-nothing moochers whose mantra of ignorance became a frothy mix of blind hatred and xenophobia against a centrist Democratic president who happened to be black. It's going to take five years for the light from Honor to catch up with this gang.

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party's reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.

But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that's an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they'd stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. They're not rhinos. They're Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they're challenged aggressively from the right. 

Oh, so now Mr. Brooks finally decides to stand up for the mainstream. It's a little late, don't you think? Like perhaps three years? Or thirty? He's a mite young to have been shocked and saddened by the McCarthy era or Nixon's Southern Strategy, and he might have dismissed the gentle condescension and fluffy bigotry of Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens" as just the pendulum swinging back against the dirty hippies, but he might have gotten a clue that the rot was setting in when Larry Nichols went after the Clintons with the tales of drug-running and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) was shooting at a melon in his backyard to prove that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. So now he's telling Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar to get in there and stand up to the bullies? Oh, yes, there's a winning strategy: "you and him fight and I'll watch."

Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They're supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. Republican leaders haven't done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Oh, very good: pull out the Martin Niemöller quote and go Godwin's Law -- evoking the Hitler era -- on them to put the cherry on top.

So you're finally worried about the RINOs, eh?  BTYFO ('Bout Time You Found Out), Bobo.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Senator Orrin Hatch bows to the Tea Party

By Richard K. Barry

A lot of people expect Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah to get a challenge from his political right in 2012. In fact, Rep. Jason Chaffetz looks to be the one who will take on the task.

And Chaffetz, should he challenge Hatch for the Republican nomination, will have some juice as the principle author of the "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation in the House.

Hatch's sin is mostly that he's been around too long. In fact, he's been around so long that he has a history of working with Democrats to actually pass legislation and govern the country in a responsible manner. Of course, that's not allowed if you're a Tea Partier. Working across the aisle is proof positive that you need to be replaced. Chaffetz intends to continue hammering away at Hatch for having done things like vote to increase the debt ceiling in the past and for supporting the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

As Chaffetz has said:

Part of the reason we are in this debt crisis is because 26 times Sen. Hatch had an opportunity to vote no and he voted yes to raise the debt ceiling. Sixteen times a direct vote for yes, and 10 times allowed unanimous consent for the increase in the debt ceiling. That's why, in part, we're in this mess.

(And how many of those debt ceiling increases were under Ronald Reagan? Was it 18?)

Along with Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who is also likely to face a Tea Party challenge, Hatch has just been around so long that there is too much history of his having worked in a bi-partisan manner for the good of the country, of actually having governed. And, like I said, that just won't do if your a Tea Party type.

It's all about right and wrong. They are right and everyone else is wrong and don't get caught so much as smiling at the enemy.

Having said that, there is a real sadness in what is happening to someone like Hatch who has served his country for so long, no matter what one might think of his politics. He's reduced to making cringe-worthy statements like "I'm a Tea Party person," or "The fact of the matter is I've been a Tea Party person I think since before the Tea Party came into existence."

Yeah, right.

How much do you want to bet that Hatch comes close to gagging when he says those words, that he hates what he's being forced to say and do by the insane ideological purity of what has become of the radical right of the Republican Party?

When Hatch says "I'm a Tea Party Person," it sounds very much in tone like what a social misfit might say to prove he is worthy of the notice of the supposed in-crowd, while knowing all along that he shouldn't lower himself in such a way, but he's just so damned terrified of being left on the outside.

This is nothing short of a purging of those who were once the most revered figures in a political movement because they have failed to keep up with the ideological requirements of the new regime. We've seen this before in history and it never ends well.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Down the Hatch

By Zandar

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch is either dense or just mean or both.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is going after Sen. Orrin Hatch for saying that the poor need to "share some of the responsibility" for shrinking the debt.

"The top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of all income taxes. The top 50 percent pay something like 98 percent of all income taxes. Fifty-one percent don't pay anything," Hatch said.

"Democrats say they [the 51 percent] pay payroll taxes. Well, everybody does that because that's Social Security. They pay about one-third of what they're going to take out over the years in Social Security," Hatch said. "Obamacare -- a family of four earning over $80,000 a year -- gets subsidies. Think about that. That's what we call the poor?"

Well, plus that 51 percent pay sales tax and gas tax too.  But think about it, Hatch complaint is that the millionaire needs a tax break, but the family of 4 where the breadwinner is earning $8 bucks an hour and can barely feed their kids needs to be paying more in taxes?  Really?  What percent of their income is the person making $15,000 a year spending on sales taxes for food, clothing, and essentials?  What about housing?  Could the person bringing in seven figures possibly be able to afford a bit more in taxation?

Republicans will do anything to preserve tax breaks for the people who own them and donate to them, and anything to hurt those of us at the bottom of the ladder instead.  America's most precious resource is rich political donors, you know.

Are mainstream GOPers going to be better prepared this time?

By: R.K. Barry

Veteran Republican Indiana Senator Richard Lugar said earlier in the week that he'd raised a bit less than $1 million this year for his re-election bid. Apparently, the Senator has a little more than $3 million in total socked away to help him do battle with Tea Party candidate state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in the GOP primary later this year.

You may recall that Lugar, as well as Utah Senator Orrin Hatch (who, coincidentally, also says he has raised $3 million), have been targeted by the Tea Party for their willingness to work with Democrats on important issues, which appears to be a sin well beyond redemption for the hard right.

I note this only because there have been suggestions that these incumbents could be in trouble. I suppose that could be true. I don't yet have a feel for these races.

But what I would suggest is that in 2010 a number of more mainstream Republican hopefuls were seriously surprised by Tea Party challengers and may not have done the work necessary to secure their party's nomination. Sometimes in politics you don't see a tide coming until it's too late and that may have been the case in a number of nomination races.

Based on the fund-raising efforts of Senators Lugar and Hatch, I suspect they don't intend to be surprised this time and that could make a big difference in these contests and elsewhere.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Their religion is politics

By Mustang Bobby.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) spoke up at at town meeting in Utah on the state of the GOP:

He said the Republicans need to organize and pull together just as unions, environmentalists, personal injury lawyers and gay rights activists do for Democrat candidates.

“Gays and lesbians don’t pay tithing, their religion is politics,” said Hatch.

Aside from the cultural stereotyping that gays and lesbians are not religious -- a statement not borne out by the facts -- he also assumes that all gays and lesbians are political; again, a statement not borne out by the facts. Not only that, Mr. Hatch is making this statement as a senator from the state of Utah, which is overwhelmingly dominated by a faith -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons -- that is not only very powerful by its sheer numbers, it is deeply steeped in politics and the use thereof to get its way. The Mormons played a significant role in the passage of Prop 8 in California, rescinding the rights of same-sex couples to marry. So when Mr. Hatch speaks about tithing, he doesn't seem to have any objection to the money going to a political cause that he supports.

It's not just the Mormons. Religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have been the biggest mouths in leading the charge against gay rights and marriage equality, speaking out not on the basis of civil rights but on the imposition of their religious beliefs on the secular society. For these and a lot of members of the Religious Right, politics is their means of getting their religion into the laws and foundation of this country.

Mr. Hatch's sweeping generalization about gays, lesbians, and faith and practice is just as odious as the prejudices that percolate about the Mormon faith. His assumption that gay people can't be religious is on the same level that all Mormons practice polygamy, all Catholic priests are pedophiles, and all Muslims are terrorists. He's also equating an innate trait -- being gay -- with a conscious choice of belonging to a religious denomination. Perhaps he believes that being gay is just as much a choice as being Mormon or Catholic, but even if he does, it shows a stunning ignorance that he would make the sweeping assumption that all gays are atheists and are out to win over the country by forcing their Radical Homosexual Agenda onto the nation. And even if they were, they have as much of a right to do it as the Mormons or any other group that wishes to make their voices heard.

Perhaps Mr. Hatch is envious of the organizations that the Democrats have aligned with them that support them and he wishes that the GOP wasn't so self-destructive, i.e. the teabaggers that brought down Bob Bennett, his fellow Senator from Utah. Or perhaps he's just a sniveling bigot who can't pass up the chance to do a little gay-bashing.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Hatching hypocrisy

By Mustang Bobby.

Via the inimitable digby we learn that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is introducing an amendment to the 2005 Stolen Honor Act that would make it a crime to lie about serving in combat in order to win an election.

My amendment would add to this existing statute, making false statements regarding participation in combat operations. It appears to me that individuals make these false claims in order to obtain honorariums, employment, elected office or other positions of authority.

If convicted of this misdemeanor offense, the perpetrator could face 6 months in jail and/or a fine. This is the same penalty for falsely obtaining and wearing awards or medals.

Gee, I wonder who he's going after with that? (Hint: Richard Blumenthal, the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut.)

However, this could have some unintended consequences. There are several people who have, to be charitable, stretched the truth about their time in combat. People like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who claims to be "an Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran" when he never left the U.S.; George W. Bush, who said that he "learned some good lessons from Vietnam"; and of course there was Ronald Reagan himself who told people that "as a young soldier in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, he had filmed the liberation of Nazi death camps." Reagan never left the U.S. during World War II.

I have a counter proposal for Mr. Hatch: make it a crime to lie about someone else's service in combat in order to win an election. I think he might be able to get John Kerry to co-sponsor that one.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Your moment of Rachel

By Creature

Orrin Hatch is a lying McLiar (and the Washington Post is his shameless enabler).

Quote of the Day: Orrin Hatch on Tea Parties and the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Hatch, quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune:

If we fractionalize the Republican Party, we are going to see more liberals elected.

What Hatch wants is for the teabaggers to sign up with the GOP, that is, for the Tea Party "movement" to be, essentially, a subsidiary of the Republican Party.

Now, of course, the "movement" is generally Republican in outlook, if well out on the extremist right, but of course the Republican Party is increasingly extremist, with the right-wing fringe becoming more and more the mainstream. 

But there is also a good deal of independence among the teabaggers, and so, like Palin, what Hatch is doing is trying to boost his party's electoral fortunes by bringing the party and the movement together. The difference is that for Palin the match would be firmly one of like and like, and she's selling the GOP as a party the teabaggers can fully get with, as her GOP is a party in line with the Tea Party "movement," party and movement with common principles, whereas Hatch, the conservative but also establishment and somewhat realist Republican, seems to be threatening the teabaggers, blaming them for dividing the GOP and advising them to get with the party, and with its electoral objectives, or else, "else" meaning more liberals elected.

I'd say they're both right:

Palin is right that Republicans and teabaggers have a lot in common and that the latter should join up with the former.

Hatch is right that Republicans can't win, or won't win as much, if they're divided, that teabagger attacks on Republicans are weakening the party, and that, basically, teabaggers should put pragmatism before principle.

And yet I can't help but think that Hatch, however conservative he may be, is out of touch both with his own party and with what is happening more broadly on the right.

He propses, for example, that "extreme conservatives," to quote the Tribune, are to blame for Sen. Gordon Smith's defeat to Democrat Jeff Merkley in Oregon in 2008: "Hatch said if the Tea Party had not backed a constitutionalist candidate in that race, Smith wouldn't have lost."

Fair enough, but what Hatch doesn't seem to get, at least here, is that the teabaggers, or many of them, don't want to put the interests of the Republican Party before their own ideological objectives. They won't want to sell out, that is, even to a party that has embraced them, that seemingly will do anything for their support, and that clearly, to them, offers the much lesser of two evils. Remember what happened in NY-23 last year? This isn't a movement that wants to compromise, and, while it may eventually come to dominate the GOP, it won't give in and won't accept establishment calculation.

Even Palin seems to get that. And that's saying something.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Orrin Hatch

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He took home the award back on October 16, and he gets the nod again today. What for? Why, for being crazy, of course, in that especially partisan and dishonest way of his.

Consider this, from The Hill.

In an interview with right-wing CNS News, Hatch actually suggested that health-care reform would destroy America's two-party system:

And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, "All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party."

Right, because apparently American democracy is that fragile, just a step away from one-party rule. Why do conservatives insist on essentially dismissing America's political system as so inherently weak?

Of course, this isn't just crazy, it's actually rather revealing of a key Republican motive in opposing any and all reform. For what Hatch is admitting here is that reform would actually be very popular, that it would be giving Americans what they want. And, of course, it would provide a huge long-term boost for the Democrats. And Republicans can't have that, can they? Of course not -- not when, as usual, they put party before country and self-interest before the interests, not to mention the health, of the American people.

But that wasn't it for the crazy. Hatch went on to say this:

Do I believe [Democrats are] that diabolical? I don't believe most of them are, but I think some of them are. Maybe diabolical's too harsh of a word, but the fact is, they really, really believe in socialized medicine.

This, of course, is just plain stupid. Adding a public option, another choice, to what would remain essentially a market-oriented system would not constitute socialism, not by a long shot, and neither would a more stringent regulatory regime to rein in insurance industry excesses and injustices. The idea is to bring more people into the system, people who currently have no access to it and in many cases no hope of accessing it, as well as to make health care more affordable and available for people who are currently limited to a private option that is driven by profit, not the health of customers, and to reduce costs across the board, costs that are spiralling out of control and threatening to sink the entire system. If robust enough, a public option that opens up the market to millions who are currently on the outside looking in would undeniably be a significant addition to the existing system. It would not mean a government takeover of the system.

For the likes of Orrin Hatch, it's much easier to lie and distort and smear and play to irrational fears than to debate the issue on the facts and merits. Which is why we continue to get this sort of ridiculous nonsense from Republicans. The smarter ones among them know that Democrats are on to a winning formula, with good and just public policy likely leading to partisan gain. It was the same with Hillarycare back in the '90s, when Krazy Bill Kristol led the offensive against reform. This time, there can be no backing down.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Orrin Hatch

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Asked yesterday by Andrea Mitchell about a MoveOn.org protest outside his office in Salt Lake City, Sen. Hatch said this:

MoveOn.org is a scurrilous organization. It's funded by George Soros. He's about as left wing as you can find in this country. And they're up to just one thing, and that is to smear good people. And frankly, they're not gonna smear me without getting kicked in the teeth by me.

First, as TPM's Ben Frumin notes, MoveOn.org is not funded by George Soros but rather by small donors.

Second, Soros, while on the left, is hardly the extreme leftist Hatch makes him out to be. Really, no one else in all of America is further to the left than Soros?

Third, what's with the violent imagery? Kicked in the teeth? I get that Hatch is angry, even if his anger derives from ignorance, partisanship, and his own ideological extremism, but what's with lashing out like that? And on national TV? It's one thing to say such things in private, where such hyperbole can be kept under wraps, quite another to throw a little rhetorical tantrum in public, without a trace of irony or humour, not least when you're a politician, an elected official.

If Hatch wants to take on MoveOn.org, fine, he's free to do so, just as Democrats take on right-wing groups. But threatening it? Even if he didn't mean it literally -- and, of course, he didn't -- his choice of words reveals a great deal about his current mental state. Evidently, he's nuts.

**********

I see, by the way, that this post closely resembles my friend Steve Benen's post on the matter. We both use a list (first, second, etc.) to comment on Hatch's threat, and we both note that Hatch isn't "literally" threatening violence. This is purely coincidental. I only read Steve's post after I'd already written this one (late last night, to be published this morning). I attribute it to great minds thinking alike, of course. Or maybe I just write a lot like Steve -- if not always, at least now and then -- a blogger I admire a great deal.

Anyway, let me quote Steve's conclusion:

We're talking about regular ol' folks -- concerned citizens who want to see a broken health care system fixed. Hatch believes the appropriate response is to go on national television and talk about kicking grassroots organizers in the teeth?

What do you suppose the reaction would be if Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he found the Teabaggers to be "scurrilous" and intended to kick them in the teeth?

Well, the right would freak out, and we'd never hear the end of it. But of course Republicans can get away with things Democrats can't, both in the media and in the political arena.

We need to change that by holding Republicans like Hatch accountable for what they say and how they say it. If he wants to kick MoveOn.org in the teeth, we need to hit back hard.

When faced with serious, vocal, and organized opposition, after all, and unable to deal with the issue on the merits, all Hatch can do, it would seem, is threaten violence. That says an awful lot not just about Hatch but about Republicans generally.

It's always good to get a glimpse into the mind of the opposition, however distorted it may be.

If they lie they shouldn't be invited back

By Creature

It's really that simple. As Steven Benen points out in two posts this morning, Orin Hatch and Dick Armey were both on national TV yesterday lying. Will that stop the networks from invited them back? Not. A. Chance.

Geithner, the Tax Man, and the Treasury

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, how the right is salivating over Treasury nominee Tim Geithner and his tax problems, specifically, his failure to pay almost $43,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes over several years earlier this decade.

Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, Geithner explained, according to the Post, that the "mistakes on his tax returns early this decade were unintentional and that he has since paid back the $42,702 he owed, including interest... [H]e mistakenly believed that his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, was deducting those taxes from his paycheck." Democratic committee chairman Max Baucus called his mistake "serious," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is withholding judgement, and two other Republicans, Jim Bunning and Jon Kyl, are temporarily delaying his confirmation, but, of all people, Orrin Hatch, one of the most conservative and most partisan of Republicans, came to his defence: "I still support him. I have no problem. He's a very, very competent guy."

But then there are those who are making much ado, such as the Politico's Roger Simon, a noted conservative, who asks today, "What if I didn't pay taxes?" Which isn't fair, of course, because Geithner still paid most of his taxes, he just neglected to pay certain taxes that he thought were already being deducted." It an incredibly and typically idiotic piece.

Then there's The Wall Street Journal, a right-wing rag (in editorial terms), which facetiously calls for "a Geithner tax amnesty." But Geithner didn't "forget" to pay his taxes, it was just an oversight on his part -- a serious one, to be sure, but it's not like he was engaging in tax fraud or otherwise simply refusing to pay his taxes.

And it isn't just the right. Even The New York Times (which is actually far more rightist than most people realize) editorialized that "the disclosures cannot be dismissed so easily, or papered over," that "Geithner must be questioned forcefully about these matters at the hearing next week, and his explanations must be credible."

As the Times reports elsewhere, though, "several tax experts" say that "it is an easy mistake for an employee of an international organization to make." Even the Politico admits this: "Should the U.S. treasury secretary know how to do his own taxes? Maybe not, say payroll lawyers, accountants and tax professors, who consider Timothy Geithner’s failure to pay four years of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to be a fairly common mistake — even for a top economist chosen to run the Treasury Department, including the Internal Revenue Service."

And while media outlets like CNN are similarly making much ado and focusing on all the supposed opposition to Geithner, Republicans, with few exceptions, are pretty much on Geithner's side, dismissing the tax oversight and stressing his abilities and qualifications.

Now, this is not to say that I myself am fully behind Geithner. I have my reservations, but they have nothing to do with his taxes. Rather, they have to do with the fact that he once worked for Henry Kissinger (I'd like to know more about what he did for Kissinger & Associates), that he's another Rubin-Summers (who were both enablers of the banking crisis back when they were at the Treasury in the '90s under Clinton), that he has been very much part of the problem with respect to the financial meltdown, and that he's an enthusiastic cheerleader for the ever-growing financial bailout.

Still, I'm not against him -- I trust Obama on this -- and, despite these concerns, I do not necessarily oppose his confirmation. Indeed, as Robert Kuttner (via Benen) noted last September, Geithner is actually quite progressive with respect to regulatory policy. And Paul Krugman likes him, which is, for me, very much in his favour, even if Frank Rich makes a strong and persuasive case against him for being "no less tardy [than Rubin] in discovering the reckless, wholesale gambling that went on in Wall Street's big casinos, all of which cratered while at least nominally under his regulatory watch."

Regardless, it looks like he'll be confirmed. Thankfully, the stupid matter of his taxes won't be his undoing.

Orrin Hatch, your toolness is showing

By Creature

Soon after agreeing that "of course" Alberto Gonzales has credibility problems, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), appearing on This Week, made sure his ass-kissing bona fides were still intact [h/t my dvr]:

HATCH: Let me tell you: Alberto Gonzales is not going to retire. He is not going to resign. I have a lot of respect for the man. He is willing to hang in there. I think he's done a lot of good things down there, even though, yeah, he's been used as a punching bag by the Democrats and, I might add, some Republicans who I chatted with, and said, yeah, they have gone too far. Not just Democrats, but some of the Republicans themselves. All I'm saying is, is that you know, we've had all of these hearings, we've had of this bluster, we've had all of these documents, and there isn't one evidence of impropriety and yet they've built this like it's some sort of a big scandal and it's not.

Orrin Hatch is right on three points: Gonzales certainly has a credibility problem, he will not retire, and he will not resign. As the New York Times opines today, he must be impeached.

And, it seems, Senator Hatch was the only one willing to go on the TeeVee and defend the attorney general. ThinkProgress brings us this from FOX News Sunday:

Chris Wallace revealed that no conservative would willingly defend Gonzales on Fox. "By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales," said Wallace. "We had no takers."

I guess FOX News lost Orrin's number: 1-800-GWB-TOOL.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)