Obamacare is now a losing issue for Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, Republicans. So desperate, so very desperate, and yet it's all just slipping away: 

Republicans struggled to land punches against ObamaCare in a hearing Wednesday, as responses from insurance companies deflated several lines of questioning.

Democratic lawmakers were emboldened to defend the Affordable Care Act with renewed vigor and levity, creating a dynamic rarely seen in the debate over ObamaCare.

Adding to the irregularity, exits on the Republican side at a subcommittee hearing led by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) allowed multiple Democrats to speak in a row and let heavy Democratic criticism of Republicans go unanswered, a contrast with the heated exchanges of last fall.

*****

Republicans were visibly exasperated...

Yes, because reality is not matching up with their ideological bullshit.

**********

Look, Obamacare is far from perfect, and many of us would prefer a single-payer system, but it was really only a matter of time before those early tech glitches were fixed and the system started working effectively. And it's not just working effectively, it's working brilliantly, and should just keep getting better and better as more and more people sign up and costs continue coming down. 

Which is why it's always seemed crazy to me that Democrats would try to run away from it instead of embracing it. The fact is, while Obamacare may be toxic to Republicans, and while some Democrats in red or reddish or otherwise swing districts may be concerned about being too closely connected to it, Obamacare is the signature achievement of this Democratic president. And that means it's seen as a major Democratic achievement. And so if you're a Democrat, you're on board whether you like it or not. Even if you think you can run away from it, you'll never be able to match Republican extremism in opposition to it.

There is political calculation involved, but there is also myopia and, worse, cowardice as well. Many Democrats tried to take cover when the glitches hit and that's all the media could focus on. But they were going to be fixed. And while maybe you couldn't quite predict just how successful Obamacare would be this early on, why bet on failure? Why not embrace it and hope, given expectations, that it would work out?

Read more »

Republican shit-making dredges up the IRS "scandal" again

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's back. And by "it," I mean the IRS "scandal" that Republicans spent so much effort last year trying to turn into a smoking gun of Obama White House corruption and Democratic partisan evildoing:

The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to hold Lois Lerner, a former Internal Revenue Service official accused by Republicans of abusing power, in contempt, laying bare the bitter divide over which much of the midterm elections will be fought.

It was a moment of high drama, complete with allegations that the White House oversaw a Watergate-style cover-up that helped steal a presidential election, and invocations of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and his delusions of widespread conspiracy.

Republicans spent much of the day laying out a case for why the Obama administration is politically corrupt and, by extension, why Democrats could not be trusted with power. In doing so they revealed the issues that, in addition to unhappiness with the Affordable Care Act, will form the legs of the stool on which their campaign strategy will rest.

Republican leaders hope that with the series of events they set in motion with the vote, which passed 231-187 along party lines, they will expose a pattern of cover-up and political whitewashing by the White House.

This is all just partisan theater, part of a desperate attempt by Republicans to find a line of attack, a scandal, that will work this year now that Obamacare, the object of so much of their idiotic outrage, has proven to be a rousing success. It's why Benghazi has made a comeback of late, and now the IRS. Republicans are just hoping something, anything will stick.

Which is to say, their "strategy" basically consists of making shit up and trying to deceive and terrify voters into voting for them in November.

Which is pretty much standard operating procedure for the GOP.

Why now for Monica Lewinsky?

By Carl

Monica Lewinsky has an article in this month's Vanity Fair in which she opens up about The Affair.

I don't really have to tell you which one, do I? Unless you are younger than 20, maybe 21, it would have been really hard not to be at least dimly aware of the incident that may have brought down a president.

This is a woman whose name will be forever linked to scandal. I can imagine it's hard to live like that, particularly when your own involvement in the scandal was not illegal. I mean, she's not Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan. About the closest parallel in our lifetime is Yoko Ono, and she got a lot more support from the man involved than Lewinsky did.

Lewinsky's only "crime" was entrusting her secrets to a woman who thankfully slunk off into the hell of obscurity after betraying a naïf. I won't mention her name. Google is your friend if you don't recall.

Lewinsky turns 40 this year, and so I'm sure she saw an opportunity, indeed perhaps even a need, to get this off her chest. Kudos for her. And kudos more for finding a sweet spot in the political calendar to engage the country again.

In fact, it says a lot about Lewinsky that she doesn't hold a grudge – much. In fact, she sympathizes with the other "other woman" in this mess, Hillary Clinton, and points out that her anger was not misplaced but perhaps misdirected. (Clinton, it was recently revealed, blamed Lewinsky and herself for the mess, claiming she was emotionally unavailable to Bill at that time, thus neatly deflecting blame from Bill Clinton himself.)

Read more »

The (ugly, dirty, sordid) truth about Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I highly recommend Alec MacGillis's excellent piece on Chris Christie at The New Republic. It's a comprehensive look at the long and sordid political career of the scandal-ridden governor -- who he is, how he rose to power, and how he abused his power once in office. And it's not just Bridgegate. The George Washington Bridge scandal has just been the most high-profile example of his political malfeasance, opening a door onto so much else, so much that was always there but that was hidden behind his carefully manufactured image of "straight-talking, corruption-busting everyman." Now he's seen as "a liar, a bully, a buffoon," but in truth he's always been that.

What is remarkable about this meltdown is that it isn't the result of some deep secret that has been exposed to the world, revealing a previously unimagined side to the candidate. Many of the scandals and mini-scandals and scandals-within-scandals that the national media is salivating over have been in full view for years. Even the now-infamous Bridgegate was percolating for months before it exploded into the first major story of the next presidential race.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

Chris Christie lashes out in response to the latest George Washington Bridge allegations

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So how does scandal-ridden New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, bullying blowhard extraordinaire, respond to new allegations he knew full well about those lane closings on the George Washington Bridge?

Why, by going on the attack, of course, verbally assaulting the man who dared come forth against him, as well as the newspaper that dared report something other than pro-Christie spin:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, after a low-key initial response to Friday's explosive allegations about his involvement in a bridge-closing scandal, mounted an aggressive defense late Saturday afternoon, attacking The New York Times and a former political ally in an email to friends and allies obtained by POLITICO.

"Bottom line — David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein," the email from the governor's office says, referring to the former appointee who reignited the controversy.

*****

The subject line of the 700-word email from the governor's office is: "5 Things You Should Know About The Bombshell That's Not A Bombshell." It offers a harshly negative portrayal of Wildstein's character and judgment.

Oh, but Chris Christie won't do and say anything to save Christie? The man's a massive egomaniac, and he's now watching his presidential ambitions slip away in slow motion.

And of course you knew it was going to be a vicious ad hominem attack like this. Surely you did, if you know Christie at all.

He's like this normally, but with his credibility already shot it would now appear that desperation is settling in.

Things just keep getting worse for egomaniacal bully Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

We'll have to see if there is anything to this, if there is in fact the evidence to back it up, but one of New Jersey's governor's old pals and allies, the man at the center of the George Washington Bridge scandal, appears to be on the verge of taking Christie down:

The former Port Authority official who personally oversaw the lane closings at the George Washington Bridge, central to the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, said on Friday that "evidence exists" that the governor knew about the closings when they were happening.

A lawyer for the former official, David Wildstein, wrote a letter describing the move to shut the lanes as "the Christie administration's order" and said "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago. 

As you might expect, Christie continues to deny, deny, deny, but the state's leading paper, the Star-Ledger, emphasizes the importance of this new revelation:

Forget about the White House in 2016. The question now is whether Gov. Chris Christie can survive as governor.

*****

If this charge proves true, then the governor must resign or be impeached. Because that would leave him so drained of credibility that he could not possibly govern effectively. He would owe it to the people of New Jersey to stop the bleeding and quit. And if he should refuse, then the Legislature should open impeachment hearings.

There are any number of reasons why Christie should resign, or face impeachment, or at the very least be held in contempt, but obviously the GWB scandal and Christie's repeated denials of any wrongdoing are at the center of his corrupt administration.

Christie has proven himself to be an egomaniacal bully who abuses his power for personal and political gain. It is long past time for him to be held accountable.

Make no mistake, the GWB scandal is pure Chris Christie

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The politically-motivated closing of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, targeting Democrats (probably not Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich but rather Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg), speaks volumes about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, those close to him, and the culture of bullying and retribution that lies at his core both personally and politically.

And while his various Republican pals and conservatives in the media are using this opportunity to slam President Obama, by suggesting that Christie, in contrast, owned up to the problem, apologized, and thereby showed true executive leadership, what we're actually seeing, and what is actually becoming more and more apparent as more and more comes out, is that Christie directly enabled this to happen whether he was in on the details or not and that there was a concerted effort to cover things up after the fact:

Some of Governor Christie's closest loyalists made an effort to keep information about the George Washington Bridge lane closures out of public view for months, as questions swirled about what now appears to have been a politically motivated vendetta, thousands of documents released Friday show.

The documents provide a sweeping timeline of the internal deliberations taking place among at least 10 of Christie's trusted aides. They stretch from the weeks before the September lane closings up to and beyond the November election and are punctuated with vulgarities aimed at the media and signs of tension between New York and New Jersey officials who share control of the agency that operates the bridge.

The documents also show that Port Authority Chairman David Samson, Christie's top appointee at the agency, blamed a New York official — the one who reopened the lanes and said the closings were possibly illegal — for a leak to the media.

Comparisons to Richard Nixon and his henchmen are apt, but any such historical perspective tends to shroud the point: This may all be rather Nixonian, but it's also pure Chris Christie: playing politics as if it's a feudal (and very personal) bloodsport, pitting loyalists against everyone else, bullying the media when the story emerged, resorting to sarcasm and ad hominem attacks to try to blow things off, along with that Jersey swagger that is so typically his, supposedly apologizing but hardly taking responsibility and really just blaming others, throwing anyone and everyone under the bus, whatever is required to save his political skin, showing his massive egotism in stressing how hurt he is by all this, how he was let down, suggesting he's the real victim here, his sycophantic minions circling the wagons and waging an ongoing campaign of lies and smears to protect their master, just he wanted from them.

Really, this whole scandal has it all. And however much he may continue to deny that he had any knowledge of anything that was going on, it has his fingerprints all over it.

Chris Christie the Bully faces his political comeuppance over GWB scandal

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's a scandal that no amount of his usual swagger and sarcasm can put to rest. And so New Jersey Governor (and, to some, leading Republican light in 2016) Chris Christie put his tail between his legs yesterday and came out to address the media with the appearance of a humbled man:

In a remarkable day of swirling political drama, Gov. Chris Christie tried on Thursday to control the damage from revelations that his administration ordered the revenge-closings of traffic lanes at the George Washington Bridge by firing a top aide, cutting ties with a longtime political adviser and repeatedly apologizing in a nearly two-hour news conference.

Sounding somber and appearing contrite, the normally garrulous Mr. Christie said he had had no advance knowledge of the lane closings and had been "humiliated" by the entire episode.

"I am a very sad person today," the governor said. "I am heartbroken that someone I permitted to be in that circle of trust for the past five years betrayed that trust."

Was he genuinely apologetic? I would suggest that he was politically apologetic, that is, apologetic because the scandal has grown into a political disaster for him, apologetic because his political life demands it. And indeed, as New York magazine's Adam Martin points out, his entire statement was oddly passive in its presentation, as if this is all happening to him, as if he's just the victim. Note that he's "sad" and "heartbroken." Oh, really? And somehow that's really what this is all about, not the bullying message sent to the the mayor of Fort Lee, not all those people who found themselves trapped in the bullying tactics that are central to Christie's character and career? 

Read more »

Virginians don't much care for their governor

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Boo-hoo:

PPP's newest Virginia poll finds that Bob McDonnell's net approval rating has dropped 12 points in the last month, and that for the first time since taking office he's under water. Only 36% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 41% who disapprove.

McDonnell's numbers are down across the board from our last poll of the state. He's dropped from 73% approval with Republicans to 62%, 22% approval with Democrats to 14%, and from a 39/41 spread to a 36/43 one with independents. McDonnell's favorability numbers are even worse than his approval numbers with just 32% of voters seeing him in a positive light to 45% who have a negative opinion.

McDonnell's ethics issues seem to be driving this downturn in his popularity.

Oh really? You think?

I guess this is what happens when you take gifts from a shady corporate exec trying to buy influence, arousing the FBI's interest, and spend public money improperly at your mansion, and otherwise come across as a walking ethics violation.

But the question is how McDonnell's current troubles will impact the Republican ticket, specifically blow job hater Ken Cuccinelli (running for governor) and all-around wacko E.W. Jackson (running for lieutenant governor). (Those PPP numbers are coming today. Stay tuned.)

Suffice it to say, Virginia Republicans don't look all that good at the moment.

Disloyal Democratic Party

By Frank Moraes 

I am very glad that Eliot Spitzer has decided to re-enter politics by running for New York City comptroller. And right on cue, Matt Yglesias has said what had to be said, "Eliot Spitzer Never Should Have Resigned in the First Place." Mostly, his article was an excuse to point out that Spitzer most likely wants this "lowly" job because it would give him control of the public employee pension funds. And that means he would have some power to go after Wall Street. Surprisingly, Yglesias does not go to the next step, which is that Wall Street is going to put big money behind Spitzer's primary opponent Scott Stringer. And it may not be that hard for Stringer to get the advantage given he isn't a bad guy himself. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how the election goes.

What I'm more interested in is the Spitzer resignation itself. As with Anthony Weiner, I think his resignation had more to do with the complete lack of support by his own party than anything else. In both of these men's cases, the scandal was relatively small. But Democrats are not a group prone to circling the wagons. They are more in the habit of waving a white flag and yelling, "We've got him here! He's all tied up! We'll bring him right out!"

This has long been a problem for me with the Democratic Party. As much as I hate just about everything the Republicans stand for, at least they are loyal when it comes to all of this non-ideological bullshit. Of course, they are like the medieval Catholic Church when it comes to ideology. The Democrats are just the opposite. A Democratic candidates can be anti-individual welfare and pro-corporate welfare and we will herald him as the greatest Democratic President since FDR. But let a sex scandal show up and suddenly the Democratic Party is as pure as Mother Teresa. In fact, I wonder if the Democratic Party would have stayed as loyal to Bill Clinton had it not been for the constant ridiculous trumpeting of fake scandals all through his presidency. (Regardless, it was only his will to fight that saved him.)

It is interesting, this comparison of the two parties. They kind of show the main ways that parties can go wrong. The Republicans have become too pure in terms of ideology and the Democrats have become too impure. Both of these failings have advantages. But what it means as a practical matter is that the very best politicians in both parties are drummed out: Republicans because they are too reasonable and Democrats because no one is ever that perfect. At least, no one who has anything going on intellectually!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

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 »

What can Republicans talk about besides scandals?

By Frank Moraes 

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

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

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

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

Read more »

Relentless Republican outrage and the fake scandals that failed to bring down Barack Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another fake scandal.

It wasn't really such a bad week for President Obama, just a bad week for President Obama according to a Beltway media establishment desperately looking for some excitement and more than willing to go right along with the ongoing Republican assault on everything the president does.

The point is, while it was a week of annoying scandalmongering, and surely incredibly annoying to the White House, what really happened is that the Republicans pushing the scandals along with their media enablers were finally exposed as a bunch of frauds. Consider:

Benghazi: This has long been over, but Republicans won't let it rest. They thought they had a smoking gun in leaked White House e-mails that suggested political interference in post-attack talking points, but the story, after the White House released the full e-mails, is now rightly about how Republicans altered those e-mails and how ABC News was played and/or in on it. End result: Republicans look bad.

IRS: Conservatives freaked out and Republicans ultimately blew their load. The IRS could and should have handled their investigation of Tea Party groups with greater care, but there's no scandal. Obama didn't order any sort of Nixonian investigation of his enemies and the IRS invesigates the tax-exempt claims of groups across the spectrum. End result: Obama found a scapegoat in the IRS commissioner, which is a shame, but it's clear the IRS did nothing fundamentally wrong. Republicans don't look bad as much as they look hypocritical.

AP: The federal government's subpoenaing of the media organization's phone records may be the only real scandal here, and initially the Beltway media were up in arms, but there's no one really driving this one other than Obama's critics on the civil libertarian left (e.g., Glenn Greenwald, and I tend to agree with them). Everyone knows that this sort of thing has gone on for a long time (Patriot Act, anyone?) and everyone knows that Obama has maintained much of the Bush-Cheney national security state. And Republicans have no interest in defending the media from the left. They're not saying anything because they agree with the Justice Department. End result: Obama and Holder deserve criticism, but this one's done.

Oh, but Republicans are as desperate as ever to try to bring down the president (as well as the person they see as their likely nemesis in 2016, Hillary Clinton). Indeed, what this week proved is not that the president is being brought down by scandal (given that these are faux scandals pushed by Republicans and sensationalized by their media enablers) but that Republicans have nothing but obstructionism and outrage to hurl in his direction. His approval numbers are fine, Obamacare is becoming the law of the land, and while they've successfully blocked him in Congress (e.g., voting down the extremly popular Manchin-Toomey background check gun bill) their electoral prospects remain dim. They tried for four years to tear him down. This is just more of the same. It's all they've got.

Read more »

Affinity bias and the White House scandals

By Frank Moraes 

I've been thinking a lot about why so many journalists I follow went so wrong on the supposed White House Scandals this week. I think it has a lot to do with affinity bias. And that does not speak well for the state of journalism.

A lot of people wonder why, for example, conservatives often hold opinions that are just wrong. Throughout the Bush administration, Fox News viewers were systematically misinformed about important issues. Why was that? It's quite simple: they trusted Fox News. And that is not only acceptable, it is necessary. We can't independently become experts on every issue we hear about. So we find people who we trust as experts and believe what they say.

Of course, it pays to be selective. Anyone who gets their information from cable news is cruising for a bruising. In general, I think that MSNBC is a lot better than Fox News. But that isn't always case. I think Fox News has done a better job under Obama than they did under Bush. It's all been pretty bad, though. MSNBC has done better generally, but I think they were soft on Obama during the campaign. At times they act as apologists for the Obama Administration -- especially certain shows. Regardless, I think that MSNBC does a better job of informing liberals than Fox News does informing conservatives. Of course, the best conservative print publications are better. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review and Josh Barro of Bloomberg View are both fact based. I wish a lot more conservatives got their news from people like them.

There really is a difference between what liberals and conservatives think about things even when they are working off the same set of facts. And that should be enough. But instead, generally conservatives get different facts than liberals do. I think this is about 90% the fault of conservative media, but it hardly matters. My point is that we've got to trust someone.

I've worked very hard to find people who I feel I can trust -- people who will not knowingly deceive me and will admit when they are wrong. I still feel very dependent on these people. But not always. For example, most of them went crazy this last week. They acted as though there was something to all these scandals. There were damned few people like me who were pushing back against this. And my question is: why?

Read more »

Death, Teapot Dome, and Benghazi, Cuba

By Frank Moraes 

According to Public Policy Polling (pdf), 74% of Republicans think that the Benghazi scandal is worse than Watergate. But I wonder: do these people even know what Watergate was about? That scandal has come to be a blanket term for a whole lot of presidential malfeasance. The Watergate break-in was just the loose thread that once pulled unraveled the whole shirt. But we can't know what these Republicans think about Watergate because they weren't asked. They were, however, asked if Benghazi was worse than Iran Contra and only 70% thought it was. And even more interesting, 74% think Benghazi is worse than the Teapot Dome scandal.

(Note: the worst thing about the Benghazi "scandal" is that it has forced me to learn to spell it! Look people: I have a hard enough time keeping the spelling of all the really useful words in my mind. There's only so much space. I blame the Republicans.)

What are we to make of these numbers? I think it's pretty simple: Republicans don't like Obama. Because let's face it, I doubt that 5% of Republicans have even heard of Teapot Dome and 1% know what it was. I suspect if you asked Republicans if Benghazi was worse than Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, they would say, "Yes!" I even know their argument: only one person died in Jerusalem whereas four people died in Benghazi! Okay, maybe they wouldn't say that because most of them are Christians, but it does make as much sense as the argument, "No one died as a result of Watergate!" (Interestingly, the whole Benghazi "scandal" has been about what the White House said about Benghazi after the attack: the controversy is the "talking points." No on died as a result of the talking points either, but that isn't mentioned.)

If you think I am overstating the ignorance of the Republicans, just check out another part of the poll. PPP asked the "worse than Watergate" respondents where Benghazi was. Of them, 39% didn't know. Here's what they said:

• 10% Egypt (Close!)
• 9% Iran (Only 1,500 miles off!)
• 6% Cuba (6,000 miles!)
• 5% Syria (1,000 miles)
• 4% Iraq (1,000 miles)
• 1% North Korea (5,600 miles!)
• 1% Liberia (2,600 miles, but it does sound the same)
• 4% Didn't know (Good answer!)

(I got the distances from this great tool: Distance From To. Check it out!)

Read more »

What the Republican obsession with Benghazi is all about

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The American Prospect's Paul Waldman may be onto something -- scandal envy:

Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with "Fast and Furious," but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn't produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they're going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there's no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it's all they have handy.

There may be some truth to this, but I really don't think Republicans are thinking historically (nor, of course, rationally).

It's Obama Derangement Syndrome (and it's far, far worse than anything seen during the Bush years). There may be a few exceptions, but by and large Republicans despise the president with an intensity that is psychotic. It may be racism, it may be the view that he simply doesn't deserve to be president (for racist or other reasons), it may be lingering bitterness (as in the case of John McCain), it may be any number of other things, but the goal is the same: to bring him down, or at least to put him in his place (which of course has racial/racist connotations).

Which is to say, Republicans aren't focusing on Benghazi because they want Obama to suffer just as his predecessors did but because they want him to suffer period. They're desperate, particularly after his re-election win, and they think they can get him on Benghazi, even if there's nothing there.

Are they "livid"? Are they "trying to gin up a scandal"? Yes, of course. And if it doesn't work with Benghazi -- as it won't -- they'll try with something else. There's really no end to this psychosis.

Seriously funny

By Mustang Bobby

When you take away all the serious issues surrounding the Petraeus story — the possible breaches of security, the FBI digging into e-mails without a whole lot of probable cause, the probable break-up of marriages — and look at it with from just the perspective of characters and plot and story, this is a farce worthy of the best comedy writers.

Look at it: the dizzying connections between the leading characters, the jealousy between men and women fighting over their prizes, the FBI agent posing shirtless for photos, the society folks puffing up their resumes and connections, even the local TV coverage with the classic "oops" moment; it's an updated Feydeau farce. Or better yet, a Woody Allen sex comedy; after all, he knows something about fooling around with women on an inappropriate level.

I realize a lot of careers and important issues are on the line here, but perhaps the best way to look at it is to realize just how seriously funny all of this is once you get down to the fact that these alleged grown-ups were acting like a bunch of horny teenagers.

Stay tuned for scenes from our next episode of Covert Affairs. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Making sense of l'affaire Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Far be it from me to wallow in the gutter. And while there are indeed some interesting, and troubling, issues raised by this whole David Petraeus infidelity mess (like the FBI overstepping its bounds, like a distinguished military leader proving to be yet another right-wing hypocrite), I do think the media are obsessing a tad too much (with some dealing with their own Petraeus infatuation), making more ado than needs to be made about what is essentially a private matter with only vague public implications (like the possible communication of top-secret information).

But we're written about it -- Carl here, Frank here, Libby/me here -- and, well, why not keep going?

First, is it any wonder Petraeus said he didn't want to be Romney's running mate? Just imagine. How deliciously scandalous.

Second... oh, where to go with this? It's a mess (and getting messier, now with another general, John Allen, involved -- a guy set to become head of NATO). So for now here's a helpful flowchart from Gawker:

Okay, third. I love that Chuck Klosterman is involved, if only on the periphery as an ethicist. I'm a fan, and what he has to say about his involvement (and being sucked into a ridiculous conspiracy theory) is, as usual, excellent.

Enjoy whatever schadenfreude you take from this whole thing. 

Update:

It's getting better and better... 

Jill Kelley requested "diplomatic protection" in 911 call 

Paula Broadwell's License Discovered in D.C. Park

Petraeus helps whistleblower's 'unstable' twin in nasty custody fight
 
Gen. John Allen also helped Jill Kelley's sister during custody battle 

Jill Kelley, Woman Who Sparked Petraeus Scandal, Ran Questionable Charity

Good times.

Thoughts on Petraeus

By Carl 

I really don't have much to say about the Petraeus resignation and scandal, except a few observations.

First, a hint to public officials everywhere: if she'd (or he'd) be out of your league if you were a civvy and both of you were in a bar, then leave it alone. Go home, jerk off, and forget her. You're sixty and not particularly good-looking -- how long did you think it would last? And you're forty and a starry-eyed biographer -- how long did you think it would last?

Next, Andy Borowitz had the best take on the "conspiracy" angle, by pointing out that Petraeus began the affair over a year ago, so clearly he intended to use it to distract from the Benghazi story. Petraeus can still be called as a witness in the House hearings and worse for the Obama administration, can't hide behind executive privilege or national security any longer.

Third, it's pretty sad that a man of such accomplishment and a woman of such accomplishment have created such a roadblock for themselves. I'm not going to point fingers: the second the tango began, both of them were to blame and who's to say when the music started?

My real sympathy goes out to the spouses of the couple in question, of course, but I save my deepest symapthies for Jill Kelly, the woman who triggered this whole mess -- not incorrectly -- by complaining about threatening anonymous e-mails. She gets implicated in so many ways here and I expect this will have repercussions for an apparently (there's one implication right there) uninvolved person. Think about it: she is suspected by folks of being the "other" other woman, her actions disgraced Petraeus (*ahem* no, but people will think that), her name gets dragged out through trials and investigations and she'll now have to lawyer up for what? For being the recipient of some really nasty e-mails.

Finally, I wish we'd all grow up a little and learn that power begets sex. This is an unspoken deal that politicians and their families make going in, and if you think they do not, then they're being naive and not paying attention. While the smart ones manage to stay away from it all, to ask anyone to betray their sex drive is like asking them to stop eating.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

This day in history - June 5, 1963: John Profumo resigns

By Richard K. Barry

The Profumo Affair was a 1963 British political scandal named after John Profumo, Secretary or State for War. Profumo had an affair with Christine Keeler (pictured above), who was also reputed to have been involved with a Russian spy.

Not only was Profumo married but Keeler was a "London call girl" (a quaint term of the time). And an affair that close to a Russian spy was surely bad form in the middle of the Cold War.

Revelation of the whole sordid entanglement was, as one would imagine, devastating, as was the fact that Profumo lied about it in the House of Commons when questioned.

He was forced to resign, which badly damaged the reputation of Prime Minister Harold Macmillian's government. Macmillan himself resigned a few months later due to ill health.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)