Daily Kos

Open thread for night owls: Preying on the poor

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 18 May 2012 03:30:04 UTC

This piece made it as a post to the Rec List today, but I wanted to underline it to encourage those who haven't read it to do so.

Barbara Ehrenreich, who has written about class and poverty for more than 30 years, is the author, among other books, of the best-selling Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. At TomDispatch, she writes Preying on the Poor: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks:

Individually the poor are not too tempting to thieves, for obvious reasons. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you will be lucky to get away with bus fare to flee the crime scene. But as Business Week helpfully pointed out in 2007, the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.

Barbara Ehrenreich

The trick is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal, and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators. Employers, for example, can simply program their computers to shave a few dollars off each paycheck, or they can require workers to show up 30 minutes or more before the time clock starts ticking.
Lenders, including major credit companies as well as payday lenders, have taken over the traditional role of the street-corner loan shark, charging the poor insanely high rates of interest. When supplemented with late fees (themselves subject to interest), the resulting effective interest rate can be as high as 600% a year, which is perfectly legal in many states.

It’s not just the private sector that’s preying on the poor. Local governments are discovering that they can partially make up for declining tax revenues through fines, fees, and other costs imposed on indigent defendants, often for crimes no more dastardly than driving with a suspended license. And if that seems like an inefficient way to make money, given the high cost of locking people up, a growing number of jurisdictions have taken to charging defendants for their court costs and even the price of occupying a jail cell.

The poster case for government persecution of the down-and-out would have to be Edwina Nowlin, a homeless Michigan woman who was jailed in 2009 for failing to pay $104 a month to cover the room-and-board charges for her 16-year-old son’s incarceration. When she received a back paycheck, she thought it would allow her to pay for her son’s jail stay. Instead, it was confiscated and applied to the cost of her own incarceration.

You might think that policymakers would take a keen interest in the amounts that are stolen, coerced, or extorted from the poor, but there are no official efforts to track such figures. Instead, we have to turn to independent investigators, like Kim Bobo, author of Wage Theft in America, who estimates that wage theft nets employers at least $100 billion a year and possibly twice that. As for the profits extracted by the lending industry, Gary Rivlin, who wrote Broke USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc. -- How the Working Poor Became Big Business, says the poor pay an effective surcharge of about $30 billion a year for the financial products they consume and more than twice that if you include subprime credit cards, subprime auto loans, and subprime mortgages. [...]

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009:

These are the professionals we're supposed to be mourning and scrambling to save, the ones whose work all the rest of us are supposedly sponging off of. You know, the ones a democracy can't function without.
Maureen Dowd, Pulitizer Prize winner. Today. New York Times:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Josh Marshall. Blogger. Last Thursday. Talking Points Memo:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Tweet of the Day:

#Romney: "I stand by what I said, whatever it was. Unless it was something I said in Massachusetts in the 1990s."
— @TheDailyEdge via web

High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: What's the trend? It's a tougher question than you think.

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:05 UTC

If you believe the House of Ras, over the last week the presidential election has moved clearly in the direction of Barack Obama, as a once-formidable Mitt Romney lead has evaporated. Fox News echoes that movement in the president's direction, though the gap there was three weeks, instead of one.

If you believe YouGov (at least, when your Wrap curator gets the numbers right ... more on that later), Mitt Romney has surged in the past week, and has a modest advantage.

And if you believe Gallup, TIPP or PPP, the election has barely moved at all.

Wow, glad we could clear that up for you.

On to the numbers!

PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TRIAL HEATS:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama tied with Romney (45-45)
NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (46-45)

NATIONAL (TIPP for Investor's Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor): Obama d. Romney (43-40)

NATIONAL (Zogby Analytics for the Washington Times): Romney d. Obama (44-43); Obama d. Romney and Gary Johnson (44-43-2)

DOWNBALLOT POLLING:

NE-SEN (Rasmussen): Deb Fischer (R) 56, Bob Kerrey (D) 38
NH-01 (PPP): Carol Shea-Porter (D) 47, Rep. Frank Guinta (R) 43

NH-02 (PPP): Ann McLane Kuster (D) 42, Rep. Charlie Bass (R) 42

NC-GOV (Rasmussen): Pat McCrory (R) 50, Walter Dalton (R) 41

ND-SEN (Essman Research/Forum Communications): Rick Berg (R) 51, Heidi Heitkamp (D) 44; Heitkamp 48, Duane Sand (R) 45

ND-SEN--R (Essman Research/Forum Communications): Rick Berg 65, Duane Sand 21

SC-07--R (Francis Marion University): Andre Bauer 22, Tom Rice 21, Chad Prosser 8, Jay Jordan 5, Katherine Jenerette 4, Dick Withington 2, Renee Culler 1, Jim Mader 1, Randal Wallace 1

A few thoughts, as always, await you just past the jump ...

Mitt, you dunce, you have to remember your lies

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:54:36 UTC

Whatever you say.
(Orig. photo: Pool/Reuters)

Mitt Romney, who has a few months yet to stumble-tongue his way into another dozen or so memorable head-shakers before he actually gets the nomination, offered what may well turn out to be this campaign's most blunderful word-blunder yet. It's already viral, unrecallable:

Uh, I'm actually going to to, I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. And with regards to, uh, I'll go back and take at what was said there.

What's in evidence in this remarkable word salad is the mark of the bad liar.

We all know that Romney is a major liar. We've seen it over and over during this campaign. The pile of his lies already has grown enormously and the general election campaign is barely under way.

For someone with his assets, you would think he would have hired himself a better coach of effective lying. He can certainly afford it given the gobs of cash he's sucked up by destroying jobs and being rewarded for it. But apparently he's been a cheapskate on that front. Because he just isn't very good at it despite all the practice.

A good coach of effective lying will tell you that the first rule is: Don't deviate too far from the truth when lying. Because doing so will make it hard to follow the second rule, which is: Remember your lies.

Mr. "Whatever" has told so many lies and strayed from the truth so often that he can't remember which lie he told when. Sometimes, he's told two different lies about the same thing. And, in the heat of a campaign, that can really make things rough. Can, in fact, lead to the hemming and hawing we see in the statement made today. A jumble that will be used in campaign training seminars from now until mid-century on what not to do. Romney should patent that snippet now and make sure he makes money off it.

But, entertaining as it may be, it's not Romney's campaign clumsiness that's at issue. It's his policy agenda. And that is a nasty piece of business that would have him and his cronies doing even more of what Romney did when he was at Bain: demolishing jobs and transferring wealth into the pockets of the demolishers.

From that perspective, more stumble-tonguing, please.

Lady Republicans in the House prove how pro-lady they are by hating ladies

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:16:50 UTC

Oh sweet merciful Zeus, they're at it again. About a year ago, Republican women in the House of Representatives had themselves a little consciousness-raising session, "telling their own stories," trying to correct the "misconception about who are the Republican women," and declaring, "The Republican agenda is indeed pro-woman."

Well, since that went over like a lead balloon, those same women have now penned a column, insisting that "The Republican Party is the real party of American women." And if those meanie Democrats would just stop pointing out all the horrible things Republicans do and say to deprive women of their basic rights, women would finally "see that it’s the Republican Party that’s advancing their values, not the Democrats."

So how do the lady Republicans go about demonstrating their pro-woman bona fides? By opening with an "old joke":

There’s an old joke about a married couple that’s asked about their hobbies and interests. The husband says he’s focused on “important things” — like the federal budget, health care reform and peace in the Middle East. The wife says she’s focused on the “small things” — like their household budget, their children’s health care and keeping peace within their family.

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Get it? Women care about small stuff that doesn't matter! Hahahahahah! Hilarious! And feministical!

But let's continue down this ovarian acid trip of fauxminism below the fold:

You'd think church versus state would be settled by now. You'd be really wrong.

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Fri, 18 May 2012 01:30:04 UTC

(Right Wing Watch)

About a week ago, one of the closest runners-up for America's Dumbest Congressmen, Louie Gohmert (no, you will not be able to convince me he is dumber than Rep. Allen West, so save your breath on that one) held a prayer event at the Capitol. It was under the pretense of honoring George Washington's presidential inauguration, presumably because George Washington would have loved nothing better than to be forced to sit in a room listening to several hours worth of hard-right conservative preachers telling America what God and George Washington most wanted them to do. It sounds like the main focus was on how sin and abortion was leading America to ruin, and how the only solution is to put Republican Jesus in charge of both Congress and the Federal Reserve.

This bit, from ultra-right preacher Jim Garlow, I think serves as a nice little object lesson on why religion and politics should not be allowed to dance together too closely. An occasional hoedown is probably fine, but if they stay together too long, or aren't chaperoned closely as the long night wears on, things lead to things and after a while you've got a whole bunch of little Official State Religion Jesus-Law babies crawling all over the place, getting into everything. Yes, I know that metaphor went a bit off the rails there. I don't care. All I know is that religion is very, very promiscuous, and politics doesn't always think decisions through.

All right, so go ahead and watch that tape up there, and let's go through it and add some commentary to noted homophobe Dr. Jim Garlow's little speech as we go:

What would happen if we stop saying right versus left, as if they're moral equivalents, and start talking about right versus wrong that are not moral equivalents, in the pulpits of the day.

Why the hell are you talking about right versus left at all, in the pulpits of today? Are you saying it would be nice to switch things up and start preaching about right versus wrong, but you're just too consumed with talk about the political right and left and so there's just no time for the right versus wrong stuff? Then give up your damn tax exemptions, at the very least.

If 350,000 pulpits stood, would have stood for the last fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty years. We wouldn't have a debt of sixteen trillion in unfunded liabilities that can cause us to economically self-destruct.

So Jesus is, apparently, deeply against deficit spending and unfunded liabilities? I entirely missed that part of the Bible; I guess it must have been in the long-lost Gospel According to Paul Ryan. And Lo, for Jesus visited that guy in the wilds of Wisconsin, and told him that economic downturns should always be met with severe government austerity or the poor people wouldn't learn the proper lesson.

It wouldn't have happened. You know why? Because pulpits would have said thou shalt not steal from future generations. It's morally wrong. It's obscene. And people would have gone into voting booths with that riveting in their heart and would affected, and shaken, the kind of legislation that would take place in this great city.

I imagine it's less wrong to promise someone social insurance benefits after they've paid a lifetime of taxes, then cheat them back out of it because you've decided you want to spend their money on some spiffy new (insert war here), but nobody ever talks about that one. For that matter, the pulpits are damn quiet about the (insert war here) part, because Jesus said smite those guys, they probably have it coming. Me, I say Jesus says thou shalt have a decent transportation infrastructure, so thou dost not get thy economic ass kicked by other countries more willing to invest in themselves. Oh, and Jesus says pollution makes God cry, and he's going to smite the tar outta you if you keep pumping it up there into his backyard. The angels have to breathe that crap, you jerks.

If we'd had 350,000 pulpits across America understanding the potential of a holocaust that up to this point has cost us 55 million of our citizens there would have been declaration, the tearing up babies in the womb is a wrong thing and it needs to be stopped now, and it would have never happened,

Translation: If we lived under religious law, things would be different. Namely, the rest of you would do what our particular religion says and believe what our personal sect believes. And we believe all sorts of stuff that the rest of you disagree with, which for some reason means we should have been trying harder to force you to do what we say anyway. The rest of you don't get your own religious law, though—we're going to pass laws forbidding that. It's just ours.

if we had pulpits in America that would understand the dimension of the catastrophic price when you mess with the definition of the most fundamental institution there is, one man, one woman, in marriage. It would have been declared from every pulpit, and we wouldn't have the discussions going on we have going on today.

Yes, yes, it's the end of the world. Marriage is properly between one man and one woman's father, who is allowed to sell his daughter off to the highest bidder or in order to further his political or business ambitions. How dare you take that away from us.

I don't particularly care what Jim Garlow has to say on anything. It is, though, a nice instructive little reminder of how in general it is good to keep a nice little moat between the laws we all have to follow and what people like Jim Garlow have to say about anything. Having a political opinion is fine. Dressing your opinion up in the trappings of What God Wants is not fine, especially if your opinion is that the world needs to treat women, poor people, homosexuals, and the vast majority of everyone else much worse, just because your own invented morality says so.

This is probably why Americans are still not sold on the whole church-state blender idea, according to a recent Pew poll:

A majority of Americans (54%) say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters, while 40% say they should express their views on social and political questions. After a decade in which the balance of opinion tilted in the opposite direction, this is the third consecutive survey in the past four years in which more people say churches should keep out of politics than say churches should express their views on social and political issues.

Personally, I'm fine with churches expressing opinions on social questions. Have at it! Political questions, too, so long as you're willing to toss the tax exemptions aside and be honest about it. But there's still a difference between expressing an opinion and demanding the United States government write their laws in order to codify your opinion as the only valid one. People like Garlow don't understand the difference, and think that their mission in life is not just to tell their own followers how to live their lives, but to make damn sure the rest of us have to as well.

Democrats positioned to take back both New Hampshire House seats in PPP poll

rss@dailykos.com (David Jarman) — Thu, 17 May 2012 20:00:34 UTC

Carol Shea-Porter (D)

Public Policy Polling (PDF). 5/10-13. New Hampshire voters. MoE ±4.4% for NH-01 and 3.9% for NH-02. (6/30-7/5/2011 in parentheses):

Carol Shea-Porter (D): 47 (41)
Frank Guinta (R-inc): 43 (48)
Undecided: 10 (10)

Ann McLane Kuster (D): 42 (42)
Charlie Bass (R-inc): 42 (43)
Undecided: 15 (15)

New Hampshire seems to have especially outsized reactions to swings in the nation's political pendulum. That's particularly pronounced in the state's enormous House of Representatives, which swung from a 216-174 Democratic edge to a 298-102 Republican edge in the 2010 election—but it's also the case with the state's two U.S. House seats, which both flipped from Republican to Democratic control in the 2006 wave, and back again to Republicans in 2010. We don't seem to be looking at a wave building one way or the other in 2012; instead, put together an election likely to be fought at the 50-yard line and two very swingy seats, and you've got two true tossups, which is exactly what PPP's newest poll of the Granite State finds.

Most observers (with the notable exception of local blogger Dean Barker) have expected that NH-02 is likelier to flip back into Democratic control than NH-01. That's based partly on the districts' leans (the lines barely changed at redistricting, keeping NH-01 53 percent Obama and NH-02 56 percent Obama), but also the 2010 results, important because both races are rematches. Democratic incumbent Carol Shea-Porter lost by double digits to Republican Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, while Ann McLane Kuster (who was trying to hold the seat left open by Paul Hodes' Senate run) came much closer to ex-Rep. Charlie Bass (who picked back up the seat that he lost to Hodes in 2006). Add in Shea-Porter's reputation for weak fundraising, and voila: Conventional wisdom was formed.

However, PPP's newest poll stands that on its head: Shea-Porter leads Guinta by 4, while Kuster ties Bass. That's quite the turnaround for Shea-Porter from PPP's previous poll from almost a year ago, where she trailed Guinta by 7. What seems to have happened is that Guinta has become much less popular, down to a 36/44 approval from 39/38 last year. I'd speculate that might have to do with buyer's remorse, as Guinta has turned out to be much more rigidly conservative than that district would warrant; compare that with Bass, who's one of the House's most moderate Republicans.

But Bass's moderation isn't helping him much: He has even worse 34/49 approvals, though some of that seems to be Republicans who disapprove of him from the right (as seen in that only 62 percent of GOPers approve, but 79 percent will still vote for him). The real problem for Bass might be that there are significantly more undecided Democrats (16 percent) than there are Republicans (9 percent), so a tie is a bad place for Bass to start; that would give Kuster more room to grow than Bass.

When we issued our House Race Ratings several weeks ago, we started NH-01 at "Lean Republican" and NH-02 at "Tossup," based on the previous PPP poll but also on the difference in the districts, the candidates' 2010 margins, and their very different fundraising abilities. This poll (plus the Univ. of New Hampshire poll last month), however, shows that thanks to her name rec from her previous two terms and her grassroots support (along with an assist from an unpopular Guinta), Shea-Porter may actually have the better shot at a pickup here. With that, we're moving NH-01 to "Tossup" as well.

Mitch McConnell: Voting 'no' is ducking an issue

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:24:52 UTC

More bullshit from Mitch McConnell. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Seems Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has led one too many filibusters. Cuz he really doesn't seem to understand what voting means anymore.

"Yesterday in the Senate we got a vivid look at why the challenges in this country are so difficult to address," McConnell said. "With a looming deficit some have called the most predictable in history, with a national debt at a level none of us ever even imagined, with millions unemployed and millions more underemployed, with the biggest tax hike in history looming at the end of the year, and with entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security drawing ever closer to insolvency, here's what Senate Democrats did yesterday: they ducked.
"They were presented with five different options for dealing with these problems, and they voted against every single one of them."

Democrats ducked by voting? Disagreement is avoidance? Democrats agreed to voting on five bullshit budget resolutions, two of which didn't even get 20 votes! So were a couple of dozen Republicans ducking when they voted against those two resolutions?

Maybe this explains the Republican filibuster addiction. Maybe they're so confused they think if voting is ducking, then obstructing must be taking action.

Common Cause, Members of Congress sue to end filibuster

rss@dailykos.com (David Waldman) — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:04 UTC

Will the impetus for filibuster reform come from across the street?

Filibuster reform is back in the news. Or at least, talk of reform is back in vogue.

Now there's a renewed effort to revive another avenue of reform: the courts.

A lawsuit filed Monday by Atlanta-area Democratic U.S. Reps. John Lewis and Hank Johnson, among others, argues that the 60-vote hurdle to conduct Senate business is unconstitutional because it subverts the idea of majority rule.
[...]

Filed in federal court in Washington, the suit argues that the filibuster gives a minority of one legislative chamber veto power over all three branches of government, by allowing frequent blocking of executive and judicial nominees.

The suit focuses in particular on the failure to pass the Disclose Act and the Dream Act.

I'm not hugely optimistic about the prospects of the suit, simply because federal courts are normally loathe to get involved in the business of the political branches, particularly (you would think) where internal, procedural rulemaking is concerned. Nor am I 100 percent convinced it's a great idea to throw Congressional rulemaking open to the Roberts/Scalia judiciary. But I'll admit it was fascinating and enjoyable discussing the idea with lead counsel in the suit, Emmet Bondurant (who recently laid out his case to Ezra Klein), at an NYU Law school panel on filibuster reform a few years ago. (Brag, brag, brag! Yes, sometimes your Cheeto-munching front pagers masquerade as Very Serious People.)

Still, at the very least, perhaps the threat of outside forces acting on the Senate rules will be a motivating factor for the senators to clean their own house, before anyone else—particularly another branch of government (and one arguably in the unaccountable hands of conservative ideologues, at that)—takes the opportunity to do it for them.

First-time claims for unemployment benefits hold steady

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:07:16 UTC

(Rachel Maddow Blog)

For the week ending May 12, the Department of Labor Thursday, seasonally adjusted initial claims for unemployment benefits were unchanged at 370,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 370,000. The four-week moving average that flattens volatility in the weekly numbers was 375,000, a decrease of 4,750 from the previous week's revised average of 379,750.

For all programs, including the federal emergency extensions in the states hardest hit by the economic downturn, the total number of people claiming benefits for the week ending April 28 was 6,273,624, a decrease of 149,759 from the previous week. That number has been dropping sharply and will continue to do so as the number of weeks allowed for collecting benefits falls from 99 to 63 in September.

Although the job situation overall has been getting marginally better, what this reduction in benefits duration means is that hundreds of thousands of the worst-hit households will now be without jobs and without the modest safety net that unemployment benefits provide. Republicans argue that this will be a good thing because the benefits just keep lazy people from looking for a job. In fact, not only do the benefits help keep a roof over people's heads and food on the table for those without jobs, they keep other people employed as a consequence of the money being spent in thousands of local businesses.

Extended benefits are now available in 15 states and the District of Columbia. They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia.

Prosecution releases cache of evidence in Trayvon Martin killing

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:39:46 UTC

Angela Corey

Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey has released a vast array of evidence Thursday in the February shooting death of Trayvon Martin. He was shot by George Zimmerman in an incident that created a firestorm of public protest and debate. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder and is free on $150,000 bond.

The evidence, including interviews, recordings of 911 calls, video and other hundreds of pages of documents, is available to the media on a website specifically created for the purpose, and reporters combing through it so far have discovered:

ABC:

• The autopsy report shows traces of the active ingredient of marijuana, THC, in Martin's blood and urine.

• The report indicated that Martin was shot from a distance of 1 to 18 inches.

• It also said there was a quarter-inch by half-inch abrasion on Martin's left fourth finger, indicating a possible struggle.

Associated Press:

• A photo shows Zimmerman with a bloody nose, a one-inch laceration to the back of his head and a forehead abrasion.

Miami Herald:

• Twenty-three witnesses were interviewed. Their statements conflict:

[O]ne eyewitness who said he saw a man in a red shirt getting hit by someone else. When he returned for a second look, the man who was hitting the other was dead.
“I heard yelling out back in the grass area,” the unnamed witness said. “[...] I opened door and saw a guy on the ground getting hit by another man on top of him in a [...] position hitting a guy in a red sweatshirt or red top. I said I was calling the cops and ran upstairs then heard a gun shot. ... The guy on top who was sitting the guy [...] layed out on the grass as he had been shot.”

Another witness saw a “broad man” on top hitting another. The evidence list shows Zimmerman wore a size 38. His shirt was red.

“First we heard like a howling sound. And then the second time we heard a more-clearly ‘help’ sound,” the witness said. “I know after seeing the TV of what’s happening — comparing their pictures — I think Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size.” [...]

Another female witness told Sanford Detective Chris Serino she was concerned for her safety because Zimmerman knew where she lived, lived in her neighborhood and could come back to harm her, according to a police report.

Serino replied: the person we’re talking about is not somebody who’s going to do something like that.

NPR:

• Reporter Greg Allen states a witness says one man was chasing another, but with no indication of who was chasing whom. Police said they determined that, in one instance, Zimmerman called for help.

Orlando Sentinel:

• The documents reveal that Sanford Police believed the shooting was "ultimately avoidable" if Zimmerman had "remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement."

The autopsy (pdf)

Mitt Romney's 1994 campaign pledge: Repeal Bill Clinton's fiscal policy

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:21:04 UTC

In 1994, Mitt Romney campaigned on rolling back Bill Clinton's economic policies

Steve Kornacki reminds us that despite his weird embrace of Bill Clinton in 2012, back in 1994, Mitt Romney campaigned for U.S. Senate on a pledge to roll back Bill Clinton's economic policies:

Running against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, he embraced the ’93 budget as an issue, playing up the tax increases and claiming that it would do nothing to curb deficits because Democrats had refused to make real cuts in spending. When Clinton came to the state in late October to campaign with Kennedy, Romney held a rally of his own with Bill Weld, then the state’s Republican governor.

Kornacki dug up this passage from the Boston Globe at the time:

As Weld led the cheers of “Go, Mitt, Go,” Romney labeled Kennedy and Clinton “the guys who put together the biggest tax increase in the history of the nation” and said they were in Massachusetts “explaining why they need more of your money.”
“It’s fine for Bill and Ted to have their excellent adventure,” Romney said. “But I’d rather be here with Bill Weld showing the voters we care about taxes, about real jobs being created, about being tough on crime and being tough on welfare.”

But now Romney is trying to claim that he's the true heir of Bill Clinton ... even though his policies represent nothing more than Bush's policies on steroids. There's no chance that Romney will actually convince anybody with his weird gambit: The only question is whether it will help people understand just how delusional he can be.

Open thread: Thomas Friedman is an enormous mustache

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:00:04 UTC

The Chronicles of Mitt: May 17, 2012

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:30:04 UTC

Hello, human diary. Mitt here.

There was a brief kerfluffle today when a fellow wealthy American (a sports team owner, as many of my acquaintances are) was purported to be considering re-launching old 2008 attacks on Barack Obama involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who I understand to be a bad person—even though he is religious, which is a bit confusing, since normally all religious individuals are by definition good and correct. I believe I have diffused the situation with my response: I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described. (I am quite pleased with myself for formulating it in this efficient matter, as now I shall be able to use the precise same wording for any number of future incidents throughout the campaign.)

I am currently quite irritated, Mr. Diary, with the campaign of character assassination against me. I have always attempted to campaign in a generally positive way, although there have been many times in which I have repudiated the effort by a PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described. Generally, I have avoided speaking at all whenever possible, but during the debates I was always careful to say only positive things about President Obama. I think the videotapes will indicate the accuracy of this statement, and if they do not than I repudiate the efforts by those videotapes to promote a strategy of the nature they have described. Nonetheless, the opposing campaigns have consistently attempted to portray me in a negative fashion, which is unfair.

I think it only proper that no campaign should be allowed to bring up my past record or behaviors when I was in school, or when I was a businessman, or when I was a governor. Bringing up past actions on my part is nothing more than character assassination. My opponents should be required to limit their discussions to things I have done only during this particular campaign; also, my opponents should not be allowed to bring up things I may have said or done during this campaign. I strongly repudiate their strategies that are of the nature they have described.

Today, I visited New Hampshire once again, where I briefly bantered with the local commoners at the Sawyer Bridge, in Hillsborough. It is a very picturesque stone bridge, and is of significant historical interest. I understand that this bridge received over $150,000 in stimulus monies in order to effect repairs, however; this seems imprudent. It is true that the bridge is quite picturesque, but I think it would be equally picturesque as a pile of rubble. And rubble also has economic value, does it not?

I have asked Eric F. to draft an ad campaign around the idea that Barack Obama is anti-rubble, and that these "stimulus" efforts are unacceptably standing in the way of the rubble industry. It is doubtful we will be able to promote such an advertisement ourselves because of my unrelentingly positive nature, but I am certain one of our supporting PACs will be able to use the idea, upon which I shall repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described.

James O'Keefe makes another lie in North Carolina 'sting,' gets another state investigation

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:57:35 UTC

James O'Keefe (mugshot)

Man, "journalist" James O'Keefe stepped in it—over and over and over—in his effort to expose voter fraud in North Carolina during last week's primary. There's just one fraud here, and it's clearly O'Keefe.

A brief recap: One of the voters O'Keefe accused of voting as a non-citizen in his latest exposé is actually a citizen. And the dead North Carolina voter: not dead.

And now it turns out that another "non-citizen" the video highlights, William Romero, is indeed a citizen, a citizen who, along with his family, was harassed by O'Keefe's people before the primary.

The video opens with O’Keefe’s cameraman walking up Romero’s driveway and confronting a member of his family about whether he is a citizen. O’Keefe points to court records from 2010 where Romero was excused from jury duty because he was not a citizen at the time. Therefore, as O’Keefe argues, Romero’s voter registration dated December 5, 2011 is fraudulent because Romero “is not a United States citizen.” [...]
In fact, Romero’s family told ThinkProgress he became a naturalized citizen in early 2011.

What’s more, Romero’s family told ThinkProgress that they had began receiving harassing telephone calls two weeks before the incident in the video asking if Romero was a citizen. They confirmed to the caller—it’s unclear whether they were speaking with O’Keefe himself or another individual—that Romero is indeed a citizen. Nevertheless, O’Keefe proceeded to ambush the family at their home and publish this video claiming he’s not a citizen.

The positive news out of this is that O'Keefe's got himself into hot water in North Carolina, just as he has in New Hampshire, where a grand jury is investigating his stunt. North Carolina's state elections chief, Gary Bartlett, says his agency will "investigate whether the people in the video who tried to vote in the name of another violated state criminal law by impersonating a registered voter."

Joe Ricketts rejects plan to attack Obama with Jeremiah Wright, but gave some kind of green light

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:59:26 UTC

Who do you think you're kidding, Joe?

The $10 million attack-Obama proposal put forth by the advertising firm Strategic Perception and exposed by the New York Times Thursday is catching a lot of heat. So much so that the "Ending Spending" Super PAC of ~~Chicago~~ billionaire Joe Ricketts that would be funding the attack felt compelled to issue a statement renouncing the proposal:

Joe Ricketts is a registered independent, a fiscal conservative, and an outspoken critic of the Obama Administration, but he is neither the author nor the funder of the so-called “Ricketts Plan” to defeat Mr. Obama that The New York Times wrote about this morning. Not only was this plan merely a proposal—one of several submitted to the Ending Spending Action Fund by third-party vendors—but it reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take. Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a President this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally.

That's all warm and fuzzy and implicitly civic-minded. But it collides with what the proposal itself says about using the words of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to taint Barack Obama and reduce his chances in the November election. An attack along those lines failed in 2008. But only, the proposal's authors suggest, because its full force wasn't unleashed since John McCain was too weak.

The trouble with Ricketts's denial is contained in the proposal itself. On page 3, Ricketts is quoted as saying about a Wright-Obama slam that McCain rejected: "If the nation had seen that ad, they'd never have elected Barack Obama."

And on page 46 of the 54-page proposal, the authors state:

With your [Ricketts's] preliminary approval at the New York meeting, we have discussed this plan in highly confidential terms with the following proposed team members. All are ready to jump into action upon plan approval.
Team Lead:
Strategic Perception Inc., Fred Davis

Strategy and Grassroots:
Strate ic Perce tion Inc., Bill Ken on

Earned Media:
Strategic Perception Inc., Brian Nick

Polling:
North Star Opinion Research, Whit Ayres

Social Media/Web:
Campaign Solutions, Becki Donatelli

Media Buyer:
Smart Media Group, Kyle Roberts

External Spokesman:
Larry Elder

So, what are we to assume about that New York meeting? That Ricketts gave preliminary approval to a mere "suggestion," some skeletal proposal that made no mention of Jeremiah Wright but was something totally different than the polished, budget-detailed plan revealed by the Times? Puhleez. We may have fallen off a turnip truck. But it wasn't yesterday.

Given all the recycled lies in the proposal, Davis's operation ought to be renamed Strategic Deception. If somebody hadn't leaked the firm's rancid plan, quite possibly in hopes of killing it, there's every likelihood we would be seeing it laid out as planned during the Democratic Convention. We still may. And if we don't, with all the right-wing billionaire dollars floating around, there's plenty of reason to believe we'll see something just as bad or worse.

GOP Madness, Sour 16, match 4

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Thu, 17 May 2012 20:01:12 UTC

Today we're hitting the halfway mark of the second round. The bracket is here.

1. RICK PERRY'S NIGGERHEAD RANCH (with Cain bonus!)

In the early years of his political career, Rick Perry began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp, a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance.
“Niggerhead,” it read.

Original writeup here.

Remember—this is a two-fer. It wasn't just the fact that the governor of Texas had a ranch with this kind of name on it. But look what happened when Herman Cain tried to make the supposedly uncontroversial point that the ranch name was offensive:

At RedState, Erick Erickson concluded, "It also seems to be a slander Herman Cain is picking up and running with as a way to get into second place." Glenn Reynolds remarked that until now, Cain's "big appeal is that he's not just another black race-card-playing politician." Over at the Daily Caller, Matt Lewis called Cain's remarks "a cheap shot, and, perhaps a signal that Cain is willing to play the race card against a fellow Republican when it benefits him."

Rather than recoil from the ranch's name, the conservative movement rallied around it.

2. MITT ROMNEY THINKS CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE, MY FRIENDS

Original writeup here.

Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend.

Mitt Romney is qualified to talk about human beings, given that he, Mitt Romney, is also a human being, right?

Well, that's debatable. But at least the Romneybot was honest with this. It's not every day that Republicans admit to putting legal entities on the same level as real people.

Mitt Romney: I don't know what I said, but I stand by it, whatever it was

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:19:06 UTC

Mitt Romney, asked this afternoon whether he stands by his use of Jeremiah Wright to attack President Obama on Sean Hannity's radio show in February:

Uh, I'm actually going to to, I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. And with regards to, uh, I'll go back and take at what was said there.

Yes, the the same Mitt Romney who earlier today said he "repudiates" the use of Jeremiah Wright to attack President Obama ... now says he stands by his use of Jeremiah Wright to attack President Obama. Even though he doesn't know what his attack was. Or so he says.

12:32 PM PT: As several commenters have pointed out, in Mitt Romney's defense, it can be hard keeping track of what you say when you're lying all the time.

Midday open thread

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:05:04 UTC

Today's comic is Pray for Reign by Mark Fiore:
Bad news for racists:

For the first time, racial and ethnic minorities make up more than half the children born in the U.S., capping decades of heady immigration growth that is now slowing.
New 2011 census estimates highlight sweeping changes in the nation's racial makeup and the prolonged impact of a weak economy, which is now resulting in fewer Hispanics entering the U.S.

"This is an important landmark," said Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau who is now a sociologist at Howard University. "This generation is growing up much more accustomed to diversity than its elders."
Bibi Netanyahu would like everyone to know that no, he is not BFF with Mitt Romney:

We did not know each other that well. He was the whiz kid. I was just in the back of the room.” Netanyahu tells Stengel he has seen Romney only a handful of times over the years and only once this year. They spoke for 10 minutes in March during his visit to Washington, mainly about Iran.
Republican food fight in Nebraska:

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) thinks Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) did more harm than good by investing seven figures in a conservative candidate who finished a distant third in the Nebraska GOP Senate primary.
In an interview on Wednesday, Johanns had a blunt assessment of the race in which DeMint picked Don Stenberg and plunged $1.4 million from the Senate Conservatives Fund into the race, saying it was a “poor choice” by DeMint to get involved. [...]

Asked about DeMint’s efforts, Johanns said: “The question I’d get asked as I get around the state: ‘Who is this guy and why he is spending this money to elect people in our state?’ … I just think it was a poor choice of strategy. I don’t think they understood the state. People hate that kind of stuff in our state, and so they recoiled, they looked for an alternative.”
From the New York state senate, this is just plain awesome:

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this Legislative Body to honor and pay tribute to those individuals whose commitment and creative talents have contributed to the entertainment and cultural enrichment of their community and the entire State of New York; and
WHEREAS, Adam Yauch, also known as MCA, the rapper, musician, activist, film director and founder of the pioneering New York hip-hop group the Beastie Boys, died on Friday, May 4, 2012, in Manhattan at age 47; [...]

WHEREAS, The music and message of the Beastie Boys evolved over the years, but they can't, they don't, they won't stop changing the face of hip-hop, of music, and of our culture; [...]

RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body pause in its deliberations to mourn the death of famed rapper and activist Adam "MCA" Yauch; and be it further RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted to the family of Adam Yauch.
Apparently, the Washington Post is venturing into snarky headlines:

Is Sarah Palin underrated?
No. (This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.)
What a charmer:

A Kansas middle school teacher has ignited a firestorm in the small rural Kansas community of Buhler after posting an anti-gay rant on Facebook in which he said same-sex marriage is akin to “murder, lying, stealing, or cheating.”
This is real.
Ben Stein says President Obama's no Richard Nixon. Which I guess is supposed to be an insult?

“I would say he’s a smart man,” Stein backtracked. “I mean, he’s not in the same league of presidential genius as Nixon, for example, but he’s smarter than the average bear, as they say.”
Condolences:

Donna Summer -- the Queen of Disco -- died this morning after a battle with cancer, TMZ has learned.
We're told Summer was in Florida at the time of her death. She was 63 years old.

Mitt Romney okay with Rick Scott on drug testing, but retreats from calling it an 'excellent idea'

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:52:35 UTC

Responding to a local reporter's question, Mitt Romney said Thursday that he doesn't oppose Florida Gov. Rick Scott's attempts to drug test state workers:

"The states have rights under their constitution to do what they think is best," Romney said. "The governor here is trying an idea, and I'm not going to disagree with Governor Scott. The idea of people being tested is something, which, we'll see what the results are."

Apparently, it makes no never mind to him what the courts have to say about this. They say it's unconstitutional.

Back in February, the all-but-crowned GOP presidential nominee wasn't so weasel-wordy about the drug testing of another group of Floridians, welfare recipients, as reported by Laura Clawson:

Jeff Hullinger: [Lawmakers] have bantered about the proposition that welfare recipients should be drug tested. How do you feel about that?
Mitt Romney: Well my own view is, it’s a great idea. People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they’re not using those benefits to pay for drugs. I think it’s an excellent idea.

Of course, it's a dreadful idea, as the courts noted in that instance as well. Either Romney is unaware of this or he just figured his audience was part of that cohort which thinks courts are illegitimate when making rulings not in lockstep with the latest authoritarian intrusion.

For once, however, you have to give him credit for not changing his mind from the time he starts a paragraph until the time he gets to the end. He's been favoring drug testing for at least the past 18 years, back to 1994 when he sought to unseat Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Mitt Romney: The next thing you know, President Obama is going to pin me down and cut my hair

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:05:00 UTC

Hair length beyond reproach

Mitt Romney whines:

In the campaign, instead of talking about our respective ideas, what's [Obama is] doing is trying to attack me on a personal basis.

And:

Character assassination has become the nature of [Obama's] campaign.

Even if this were true, even if the only thing Obama's campaign talked about was Mitt Romney's character ... well, boo-fucking-hoo. Mitt Romney has spent a good chunk of this campaign impugning the character not just of President Obama but also that of Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum. And you know what? That's politics. Character does count for something in a president, and it's fair game to talk about it ... when you're telling the truth.

For example, it's fair to say that Mitt Romney has demonstrated himself to be one of the most dishonest presidential candidates in history. But there's a reason for that: it's fair because it's true—and because being a liar is bad. And it's fair to say that Mitt Romney played by a different set of rules than everyone else when he ran Bain Capital—because it's true, and because playing by a different set of rules is bad.

But the core of President Obama's case for his reelection has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. He's running on his own merits. Moving the country forward has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Continuing the economic recovery from the Great Recession has nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Killing Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Ending the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Saving the auto industry had nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Hell, even Obamacare has nothing to do with Mitt Romney—although that's more a matter of Mitt's choice than anything else.

And to the extent President Obama's case does focus on Mitt Romney, it has more to do with Romney's ideas than his character. I'm not saying Romney's character—or lack thereof—doesn't matter. It does matter. A lot. But the fact that Romney would double down on the trickle-down economic policies of the Bush years matters even more.

So when Mitt Romney whines that it's hypocritical for people to criticize him for making character attacks, he doesn't understand the true nature of the criticism. People have a problem with Mitt Romney's attacks when he lies. And when he claims that President Obama doesn't love America, that's a lie.

Paul Ryan: No health plan from GOP this year, but they have a 'vision'

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:04:42 UTC

Beware Rep. Paul Ryan's "vision." (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

Republican wonder boy Rep. Paul Ryan, the guy who has a detailed plan to end Medicare, says there won't be any other health plan from the Republicans this year if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act.

In their 2010 “Pledge to America,” Republicans vowed to “repeal and replace” Obamacare if they gained power. Though the GOP-controlled House has voted to repeal the law since taking power in January 2011, it has not yet offered replacement legislation. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to strike down the law next month, Republicans would receive increased scrutiny about their lack of a plan to replace it.
“We do feel obligated to articulate our vision for replace,” Ryan said when asked about the matter during an editorial meeting with the Washington Examiner. “Now, we’ve got nine weeks of session left. Do we want to cram through our own 2,700 page vision? No, that’s what the country hated. But do we believe in patient-centered health care and market-based medicine? A lot of us have put time and effort into this, yeah.”

Wow, I sure hope vision pays medical bills. Particularly since his budget cuts Medicaid to the bone. And nice that Ryan at least feels an obligation to sort of make a nod to a campaign promise.

Ryan's position might be news to leadership, though, because POLITICO is reporting otherwise.

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.
If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place—like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

Is anybody actually in control of the House?

Billionaire Scott Walker donor's business paid no state income taxes

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:47:21 UTC

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's 2011 statement that going after collective bargaining for public workers was the first step in his plan to divide and conquer was made to billionaire roofing and siding wholesaler Diane Hendricks, who had asked him, "Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions and become a right-to-work? What can we do to help you?" While the things Hendricks has done to help Scott Walker personally include more than $500,000 in campaign contributions, she's apparently much less interested in helping Wisconsin by paying corporate taxes.

Despite annual sales of around $5 billion, Hendricks' company, ABC Supply, paid nothing in state corporate income tax between 2005 and 2008, the most recent years for which the information was available.

Given that a company as large as ABC Supply was paying nothing in state corporate income tax well before Walker took office, it's hard to imagine what corporate taxes were left to be cut or what loopholes businesses didn't already have access to, but Walker has passed $1.6 billion in corporate tax breaks over the next 10 years.

Mitt Romney tries to erase his Jeremiah Wright attack

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:11:27 UTC

Mitt Romney may have come off sounding like a robot, but in his most recent response to this morning's report about Joe Ricketts' plan to inject Jeremiah Wright into the 2012 campaign, he finally repudiated the Republican billionaire's plan:

I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they've described. [...] I think what we've seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. [...] I hope that isn't the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they're thinking about

Sure, Romney couldn't say it without whining about perceived character attacks from Obama's campaign, but he deserves some credit for eventually getting around to taking the high road, right? Well, maybe so ... but not until he repudiates (rather than Etch A Sketches) his own words, delivered in February when he went on the Sean Hannity radio show:

I think again that the president takes his philosophical leanings in this regard, not from those who are ardent believers in various faiths but instead from those who would like America to be more secular. And I’m not sure which is worse, him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we must be a less than Christian nation.

Apparently there are two Mitt Romneys: the one who thinks Jeremiah Wright should be off limits ... and the other one who thinks Jeremiah Wright is fair game. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which Mitt Romney guys like Joe Ricketts will ultimately listen to.

Oh, and by the way, President Obama never said America should be less than Christian. And if Mitt Romney really thinks the best way to learn about President Obama's views about America is to listen to what Jeremiah Wright says ... well, then he should just ask Osama bin Laden.

Obama campaign: Romney's tepid response shows lack of moral courage

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:30:36 UTC

Billionaire Joe Ricketts reportedly plans
to make Jeremiah Wright a 2012 issue

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina's statement on this morning's report that Republican billionaire Joe Ricketts is plotting ways to inject Jeremiah Wright into the 2012 campaign:

This morning's story revealed the appalling lengths to which Republican operatives and SuperPacs apparently are willing to go to tear down the President and elect Mitt Romney. The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics. Once again, Governor Romney has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership in standing up to the very extreme wing of his own party.

Earlier this morning, Mitt Romney dodged questions about the report. His campaign subsequently released a word salad repudiating Ricketts.

8:54 AM PT: And Mitt Romney finally tries to shut down the backlash:

I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they've described.

But if it's of a slightly different nature?

Mitt Romney's weird Clinton embrace

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:27:47 UTC

Bright idea, Mitt. Bright idea. (Darren Hauck/Reuters)

Turns out it wasn't a simply a one-time delusional blurt: Mitt Romney's attempt to embrace Bill Clinton—and drive a wedge between President Obama and the Clintons—actually reflects a serious strategy by the Romney campaign.

Seeking to attract Democrats and independents who supported the last Democratic president, Romney has taken to lavishing praise at every turn on Clinton’s boom-era ’90s policies while contrasting them unfavorably with President Barack Obama’s old-school, Big Government ways.
The tactic is designed to drive a wedge between the group of Democrats who supported Obama during the epic 2008 primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton: the white, working-class voters who hold the key to many swing states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

That's a pretty dumb strategy for a guy who is leading the party that impeached Clinton, who said as recently as January that he took "any chance [he] got to vote against Bill Clinton," and who opposes Clinton's fiscal and economic policy. But Romney and his advisers actually think it will work:

A senior Romney adviser said the campaign sought to use Clinton’s name to drive a wedge between centrist and liberal Democrats in the November general election.
“It’s useful to point out what people already believe about Obama,” Romney strategist Stuart Stevens told POLITICO. [...]

Romney can make the about-face on Clinton, GOP operative Rick Wilson said, because the combination of the primary’s end and Obama’s embrace of gay marriage have coalesced for him the conservative base.

What’s left to target is the political middle and voters who remember fondly the Clinton era.

That's so stupid I hardly know where to begin. Obviously one big problem is that Bill Clinton can speak for himself, and who are voters going to believe: what Bill Clinton says Bill Clinton believes, or what Mitt Romney says Bill Clinton believes. Clinton has been enthusiastic in his support of President Obama and on the major issues, there's no daylight between them.

Not only is Mitt Romney going to be unable to drive a wedge between them, he's going to stub his toe trying. The fact that he thinks such an obviously dumb strategy could work is a reminder of Mitt Romney's weird delusional streak—and that's not something that will play well in November.

Mitt Romney, RNC joint fundraising booms to $40.1 million in April

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:08:54 UTC

Mitt Romney's general election fundraising
is off to strong start and his Super PACs will
provide hundreds of millions more

Mitt Romney didn't become the presumptive Republican nominee—a status that enables him to coordinate fundraising with the Republican National Committee—until April 23, but he nonetheless had a very strong month:

Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee raised $40.1 million last month and finished April with $61.4 million on hand, a GOP source confirms to POLITICO.

President Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised $43.6 million during the month. We don't know their cash-on-hand, but they entered April with just over $100 million in the bank.

May is the first month in which both Romney and Obama are able to raise money on equal footing, so the fundraising reports we'll get one month from now will be the first apples-to-apples comparison of the two campaigns.

Keep in mind that Romney's fundraising isn't just limited to his campaign and the RNC: he also has a network of Super PACs backing him—and he's allowed to help them raise funds. Between his campaign and those Super PACs, Romney is in very strong position to dominate the spending battle. Yesterday, for example, Karl Rove's Super PAC announced it would match the Obama campaign's $25 million ad campaign with a $25 million ad campaign of its own.

There are also Super PACs aligned with President Obama, but they don't have nearly as much money as the Romney groups. Priorities USA just launched an ad campaign focused on Bain, but while the $4 million it is putting behind the campaign is real money, it still falls short of not just Rove's Super PAC but also the Romney-aligned Restore Our Future, American Future Fund, and Americans For Prosperity Super PACs and independent groups.

Billionaire may trot out Jeremiah Wright to convince voters who 'aren't ready to hate' Obama yet

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:14:27 UTC

Joe Ricketts

A slick, colorful, professionally bound, 54-page proposal for a $10 million attack on President Obama for his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright is being considered by Chicago billionaire Joe Ricketts, according to Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times. The funding would be funneled through the Super PAC Ending Spending Action Fund. The proposal, which apparently is one of several being looked at, is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.”

The strategists who put it together say it is designed to “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do.”

Lamenting that voters “still aren’t ready to hate this president,” the document concludes that the campaign should “explain how forces out of Obama’s control, that shaped the man, have made him completely the wrong choice as president in these days and times.”

Those forces, the Times says, center on the Rev. Wright, who was previously Obama's spiritual advisor and pastor of the Chicago church he attended. Accusations that Obama was in thrall to Wright's black liberation theology led to the famous and widely acclaimed speech on race that the candidate gave in Philadelphia in March 2008.

Ricketts is the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade and the patriarch of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs. The plan is the product of former McCain strategists who were frustrated by their candidate's unwillingness to attack Obama the way their plan proposes to do. The document includes the logo of Strategic Perception, the political advertising firm of Fred Davis who previously worked on the Republican presidential campaign of former Utah Gov. Jon M. Huntsman.

The proposal says, “The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way.” To get around charges of race-baiting, it suggests hiring an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can claim that Obama tricked Americans by presenting himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.” Larry Elder, a black radio host in Los Angeles, has been contacted.

The proposed "Ending Spending" Playbook

Should the plan proceed, it would run counter to the strategy being employed by Mitt Romney’s team, which has so far avoided such attacks. The Romney campaign has sought to focus attention on the economy, and has concluded that personal attacks on Mr. Obama, who is still well liked personally by most independent voters surveyed for polls, could backfire.
Mr. Ricketts has become an increasingly active player in Republican politics through several political action committees, including Ending Spending. He has a son, Pete, who is a member of the Republican National Committee from Nebraska and a daughter, Laura, who is a top contributor to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign. She has not been involved in her father’s political efforts.

The "Ending Spending" name of the Super PAC is apparently not meant to be taken literally. Ricketts sought tens of millions in tax subsidies to publicly finance renovations in Wrigley Field in 2010.

The strategists have also registered an ironic domain name for their proposed effort: "Character Matters."

Asked about whether it would be responding to the Times report, the Romney campaign offered a tangential answer. Mitt Romney himself said he hadn't yet read the papers.

Mark Fiore - Pray for Reign

rss@dailykos.com (Mark Fiore) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:50:04 UTC

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Democratic establishment rallies around Rick Nolan in MN-08

rss@dailykos.com (David Nir) — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:00:05 UTC

Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.

Leading Off:

• MN-08: The establishment is certainly rallying around ex-Rep. Rick Nolan, as he seeks an unlikely comeback to the House after retiring thirty (!) years ago. All six Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation—Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, and Reps. Collin Peterson, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and Tim Walz—were set to appear at a DC fundraiser for Nolan on Wednesday. So was ex-Rep. Jim Oberstar, the man who held this seat until he was shockingly upset in 2010 by Republican Chip Cravaack. Two other notable names also helped to host the event: Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and California Rep. George Miller who, like Nolan, were originally elected to the House in 1974, the year of the Watergate scandal. Trivia question: Who else first won office that year and is still serving in Congress?

Today in Congress: NDAA amendment-palooza, plus 'painless filibusters' on Fed Board governors

rss@dailykos.com (David Waldman) — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:00:04 UTC

Recapping yesterday's action:

The major business in the House yesterday was the passage of its horrible version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill. It only took Republicans an hour to destroy the thing, so they moved on after that to general debate on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Senate spent its day on six hours of debate for five supposedly non-debatable motions, each one a motion to proceed to a different fake, nonbinding, and as it turned out, unpopular "budget" for FY2013. Why fake? We went over it yesterday, if you want a refresher.

Suffice to say, none of the motions to proceed to any of the budgets succeeded. Some came closer than others, and some became laughingstocks. Republicans, of course, will point to what Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III (R-AL) offered under the claim that it was President Obama's budget, and which netted zero votes. But remember, it's the position of Senate Democrats that there are already binding spending caps in place, under the Budget Control Act that embodied the August debt ceiling and budget deal. So they're not really interested in voting for anything different, and there's no point in going on record in support of any budget that isn't going to pass, even the President's.

But that didn't stop Republicans, who joyfully went on record for budgets of varying levels of destructiveness, the worst of the bunch (Rand Paul's, of course) getting just 16 votes.

Looking ahead to today:

The House returns to consideration of the last big substantive item on its agenda for this week, the NDAA. So they're just about done, right? Wrong. There are 142 amendments made in order under the rule. That'll keep 'em busy for a while. But not too long. The schedule calls for last votes no later than 3 p.m. on Friday, and the House is, of course (say it with me!), taking another recess next week!

The Senate moves on to its next motion to proceed, which means Republicans are once again refusing to allow easy movement of bills to the floor, and the latest victim is S. 3187, a bill revising Food & Drug Administration user fees. I don't think seeing Republicans make procedural trouble on that is really a surprise to anyone.

That motion will be interrupted for executive session, and the consideration of two nominations for members of the Federal Reserve board. It looks like there's some objection to these two nominees (as there would be to just about anything or anyone, at this point), because there's an agreement for a 60-vote requirement for their approval. Originally, cloture motions had been filed on these nominations, but they've been vitiated in favor of the 60-vote deal. That sets up the same barrier in terms of vote counts, but it's a lot faster to get through if the vote succeeds, since a successful vote on cloture means there can still be 30 additional hours of debate before a vote on the nomination itself. And with two nominations pending, that could mean up to 60 hours wasted. But it's Thursday, and Senators want to get out of town for the weekend. Hence the deal for the "painless filibuster."

Yes, they could have made a deal agreeing that if cloture was successfully invoked, post-cloture time would be yielded back and the nomination itself would be considered approved. But Republicans probably don't really want the number of cloture votes taken to be driven any higher than it has to be right now. Especially with the renewed interest in filibuster reform. So are there 60 votes? I don't know. We'll find out, and Senators will get to take the weekend off. Best of both worlds!

Today's floor and committee schedules appear below the fold.

Cheers and Jeers: Thursday

rss@dailykos.com (Bill in Portland Maine) — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:43:09 UTC

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

3 weeks 'til Netroots Nation!

Haircut? Check. Pet sitter? Check. Tuxedo tank top for formal events? Check. Name tag reading "Studly McAwesome"? Check!!! With the Netroots Nation convention only 21 days away, we hope your to-do list is getting pared down, too. Here's your weekly update:

New speakers have been announced! Sorry to say, Keith Olbermann had to bow out of the convention due to health issues, but there will be no shortage of luminaries in Providence, including enough senators and representatives to pass our own laws. (All we need is for President Obama to show up and sign them. Pretty please, sir? It's been five years since your Chicago visit and we miss you.) Just announced this week is a panel on the big stage that will address the Republican war on women. Participants are MA senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, WA congressional candidate Darcy Burner, HI congresswoman Mazie Hirono and moderator Amanda Terkel. Shall we all swoon together or do it in shifts?
The full list of panels is here. Please note that the time and place of the panel called Stealth Tactics: How to Infiltrate Rival Campaigns Without Being Seen or Heard has a new location and time. It's taking place five feet away from you right now.
"Enlighten us, but make it quick." That's the slogan of the worldwide geekster phenomenon known as Ignite, which will be at NN12. It's a speed presentation format where you talk for 5 minutes, accompanied by 20 slides, about an issue you care about. It gets recorded and uploaded for easy access. Sounds like fun---watch some examples here and you can submit your own idea here.
Cheers to the Round 3 scholarship winners! Among them is Jesse LaGreca, aka MinistryOfTruth, who lent such a strong voice to the fledgling Occupy movement and rocked right-wing interviewers back on their heels. The full list of winners is here. I want your autographs. All of you.
The block of discounted hotel rooms are all gone at the Westin and the Biltmore, but there may still be rooms available at the regular rate. Details here. You might try the Convention and Visitors Bureau site for other hotel options.
The Netroots for the Troops blogathon produced several A+++ worthy posts over the past week. Heartfelt thanks to everyone who donated to help make the annual care package assembly event at NN12 another success on June 9. I know this sounds crazy, but…can we knock out another quick grand today? Say, one hundred contributions of $10? The donation link is here.
Yikes! The RSVPs for the June 6 C&J dinner/meetup at the Union Station Brewery rolled in fast, and all the seats were spoken for within a day. But there is some "unofficial" seating that the brewery is making available to us in an adjacent section. If you'd like to join us, please RSVP to my partner, Michael, at cuckolds04103 [at] gmail.com ASAP. We gotta give 'em a final head count next week.
To register for the convention, click here.
To stay in the loop, get on the email list and follow NN12 on Facebook and twitter.

Oh, and if you live in Wisconsin (or thereabouts), there's a Netroots Wisconsin event in Chippewa Falls Sunday, including screenings of We Are Wisconsin and Koch Brothers Exposed, the latter of which I've been assured does not contain any nude Koch brother mud-wresting (although lord knows there's enough footage of that floating around to make a whole other movie). Click here for details.

Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!!]

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Honesty in punditry

rss@dailykos.com (DemFromCT) — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:52:40 UTC

_{Visual source: Newseum}

Today we have a little help in deconstructing the pundits.

This is Geoffrey Pullam, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, and taking apart George Will for lying:

The domain of language already provides plentiful evidence of barefaced nonhumorous lying that in other domains might get you ridiculed or jailed. Language Log has documented some staggering examples. The most striking is probably George Will’s repeated assertion that President Obama’s egotism is revealed in the extraordinarily high frequency of the first-person singular pronoun in his speeches. Mark Liberman has published about 17 Language Log posts on this topic since early June 2009 (this post includes a list up to 31 March 2012; Will’s latest and most extreme assertion is discussed here).
Counting occurrences of I, me, my, and myself in presidential speeches and news conferences, Liberman rapidly discovered that President Obama uses these pronouns far less than his predecessors. George W. Bush’s speeches used the first-person singular pronouns 60 to 70 percent more than Obama does; Bill Clinton used them about 50 percent more.

Yet pundit after pundit has repeated George Will’s lie. Professor Stanley Fish jumped on the wagon, building literary analysis on lies (Liberman analyzes Fish here).

John Sides does it for David Brooks and his misrepresentation of "fundamentals":

David Brooks’s recent column argued this:
Why is Obama even close? If you look at the fundamentals, the president should be getting crushed right now.

And thus this flight of fancy:

He has defined a version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.

This is “ESPN masculinity,” apparently. Ezra Klein responds:

But the premise of the column is wrong: If you look at the fundamentals right now, the president should not be getting crushed. In fact, he should be slightly ahead, which is pretty much where he is in most polls…

…Pundits take political situations that can be explained through the fundamentals and then attribute them, without any evidence, to the telegenic characteristics of individual politicians or the messaging decisions made by their campaigns.

What’s amazing about this episode is David Brooks did exactly the same thing in 2008. Except in 2008—it was August when he wrote—he was puzzled as to why Obama wasn’t crushing McCain. Instead of asking “Why is Obama even close?” he was asking “Where’s the Landslide?” As my reply made clear, the fundamentals at that point did not predict an Obama landslide. The average of the forecasting models was about 52%.

Closer to home, Chris "Both Ways" Shays is running against Linda McMahon to see who can lose to [D] Chris Murphy in the Joe Lieberman Replacement Derby. Hugh Bailey has a nice column on Shays' version of "forgive and forget the lying":

"Cut me a little slack," he said. Everyone got Iraq wrong. Why should Chris Shays take the blame?
The former congressman and current Senate candidate was talking to WNPR in Connecticut last week when he acknowledged that the Iraq war had not gone as planned, but that it really wasn't all his fault. "The CIA and others were totally wrong," he said. True enough.

And beyond that, he said he's learned some valuable lessons. ...

And he doesn't realize that he learned the wrong lessons. As the world has long known, the problem wasn't that people in power were wrong about Iraq. It's that people were lying.

[A reminder: Chris Murphy got it right all along.]

Gallup is flummoxed:

Fifty-six percent of Americans think Barack Obama will win the 2012 presidential election, compared with 36% who think Mitt Romney will win. Democrats are more likely to believe that Obama will win than Republicans are to believe Romney will. Independents are nearly twice as likely to think that Obama, rather than Romney, will prevail.

This, despite their own poll showing a close election. What's wrong with the public, anyway?

It is unclear why Americans are more inclined to predict an Obama than a Romney victory when the two are essentially tied in Gallup's latest election polling. It may be that Americans recognize the advantages Obama has as the incumbent and that historically, presidents seeking re-election usually win. For example, in March 2004, when President George W. Bush and John Kerry were about tied in voter preferences, more said Bush (52%) than Kerry (42%) would win. Or, Americans may expect in the months between now and the election that conditions in the U.S. will improve, which would make the incumbent's re-election more certain.
Americans are a bit more likely now to say Obama has a better chance of winning than they were at a similar point in 2008.

Nate Silver:

Put another way, if you are being very detail oriented, there is a case to be made that Mr. Romney’s odds of being elected have improved somewhat over the past six weeks. I suppose we can be even more detail oriented once we get the general election model up and running. If you just want the 30,000-foot view … well, it looks pretty close, as it did before.

Quinnipiac:

“New Jersey voters approved of same-sex marriage before President Barack Obama evolved, and they still do,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “That 4-1 support among young voters shows this is just a matter of time.
“New Jerseyans like Gov. Christopher Christie and are divided on whether his veto of the same-sex marriage bill was right or wrong. And they’re divided on whether the State Legislative should override the veto.

“But voters overwhelmingly endorse Christie’s idea of putting it up to a referendum.

“What was the political effect of President Obama’s decision? Little or none.”

The effect of most political stories is "little or none". Want an example? George W Bush has his drunk driving record come to light just before the 2000 election. Anyone still talking about it? Incumbency, the economy and presidential approval ratings. Those are the fundamentals, the rest matters (but generally is built into the approval ratings for an incumbent.)

As for what matters to the public about Romney, he's disliked (no surprise), but he is a major party alternative and starts with a floor of 45%. Nothing said or done by him or anyone else changes that. Everything else is about the 6% more it takes to get to 51.

Open thread for night owls: The newest birther conspiracy

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Thu, 17 May 2012 03:30:05 UTC

Talking Points Memo:

“Dreams From My Real Father,” a 97-minute film narrated by an Obama impersonator, weaves the narrative that Obama’s grandfather wasn’t a furniture salesman but an undercover CIA agent who convinced Barack Obama Sr. to marry his teenage daughter to hide the fact that she was impregnated by a 55-year-old communist named Frank Marshall Davis. [...]
The film has been favorably reviewed by WND’s Jerome R. Corsi, who wrote an entire book arguing that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake and that he was really born in Kenya and ineligible to be president of the United States.

Of course, both conspiracies cannot simultaneously be true (for that matter, not even one of them can be true, given the readily available evidence, but setting that aside for a moment, etc). It is a bit odd, however, that now "secret Muslim Kenyan" is no longer the go-to conspiracy theory for some people. No, "secret Muslim Kenyan" is what the government wants you to think. In reality, Barack Obama was the offspring of a communist, his grandpa was an undercover CIA agent and he was quickly shuttled off to Bill Ayers for proper indoctrination into how to someday be a secret communist president posing instead as a secret Muslim Kenyan president. Oh, and all of this took place so that, many decades later, children could stay on their parents' health insurance a bit longer. I think.

This does, however, nix the whole notion of Barack Obama not being a citizen, so not all birthers are as quick to endorse it as Jerome Corsi. Jerome Corsi, after all, would endorse the notion that Barack Obama was a space alien brought here to help Hitler take over France but that the time-traveling plotters involved got their timing wrong by 70 years or so, so long as it made Jerome Corsi a few bucks to say it. Orly Taitz, for one, is not amused:

WND and Corsi, wrote Taitz, are “trying to kill the case by making up an American citizen father for Obama.”

Conflicting conspiracy theories? Which one to believe? That one over there has America's Dumbest Sheriff endorsing it, but this one comes with a film narrated by an Obama impersonator. If that isn't evidence, what is?

On the other hand, why would you even go with the "Obama's father was really an elderly secret communist" angle? Is this a new schism between people who are more afraid of a black president and those who are more afraid of a communist one? Was the original conspiracy just getting too cluttered, just like any other long running franchise, so that a reboot was needed in order to wedge all the new, most fashionable ideas in? I have no idea. I had some previous notion that perhaps Corsi would, for his newest trick, announce that Barack Obama was in fact fathered by bad kerning, and as a typographical-American should be removed from office on that basis. It hardly matters what the conspiracy is, so long as you provide it with a decent narrator.

Hearing about things like this (and how very, very prevalent they are, when it comes to politics, science, or anything else that somebody, somewhere, finds personally objectionable), the only conclusion one can come to is that humankind is, for all our preening, made up of some damn stupid individuals—and that our ancestors are unbelievably damn lucky to have managed to form governments or civilizations at all, given what they had to work with.

I can't imagine how many of our primate ancestors made the very early discovery that fire equals good, only to have their heads caved in by fellow primates that were certain fire was a plot by the primate devil and/or the primate Illuminati. How many thousands of years went by before the whole "let's use fire to keep warm" or "hey, let's cook this damn meat to make it less putrid" thing took off to the point where the vaguely bipedal practitioners didn't just get torn to bits for suggesting the idea? That is impressive enough, but then to have gone on to develop bronze, or cement, or Nintendo systems—now that took some true miracles. No, the astonishing thing about civilization is that it can withstand such a very large percentage of crackpots, during any given era, who are bent on knocking down the whole thing because it conflicts with their own personal motivations or notions of which particular bogeymen are waiting behind which particular corners.

What was I talking about? Oh, I was saying how miraculous it was that human civilization can actually exist, given the omnipresence of such profound dunderheads as Jerome Corsi, Orly Taitz, et al. Yeah, that. I don't know why I can no longer hear the name "Jerome Corsi" without thinking of world-shattering, civilization-crumbling stupidity, but it just pops into my head, every single damn time.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:

Reading coverage of the presidential race, I think perhaps I may be the one of the few remaining people on the planet that remember that George W. Bush ran for the presidency, in 2000, on a theme of being a bipartisan who would "change the tone" in Washington.
This was dutifully reported by, well, everyone. We were told that George W. Bush was terribly bipartisan as governor of Texas. Republican cronies were marched up in front of the cameras to tell us that he was great at working across the aisle, blah blah blah.

Coupled with these constant assertions of bipartisanship and CEO acumen was the campaign theme of "compassionate" conservatism: conservatism tempered with sympathy for the poor, and the sick, and the elderly, and minorities, and schoolchildren, and all those other groups of Americans that conservatism normally couldn't be bothered with (after all, they own very little stock), so all his handlers and speechwriters needed to make up a new word for Bush's supposed new brand of conservatism, to sort of cram the notion of basic human empathy and decentness into it somewhere. This, too, was roundly applauded by reporters and pundits in spite of absolutely no actual evidence that anyone anywhere meant a word of it, and considerable evidence that they did not.

Tweet of the Day:

When Herman Cain's endorsement is worth more than the endorsement of the last Republican president, all you can do is sabotage the economy.
— @LOLGOP via TweetDeck

High Impact Posts. Top Comments. Overnight News Digest.

Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: Bizarro world as Democrats hail great poll from ... Fox News?!

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Thu, 17 May 2012 00:30:04 UTC

Welcome to ass-backwards Wednesday, where Republicans breathlessly flog a CBS poll, while Democrats turn to Fox News for a counterpoint.

No shit. It's been that kind of a week on the political data front. Democrats took a number of hits this week from less-than-encouraging polling (Wisconsin has been a particular disappointment, though there is still time left on the clock, and the margins remain quite close). And, then, out of nowhere, Fox News produces a poll that one feels confident will not get six seconds of airtime on their own network.

They'll probably flog the new Rasmussen polls, instead.

Here are the numbers:

PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TRIAL HEATS:

NATIONAL (Fox News): Obama d. Romney (46-39)
NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama tied with Romney (45-45)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (47-46)

NATIONAL (YouGov for the Economist): Obama d. Romney (46-42)

NEW JERSEY (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (49-39)

NORTH CAROLINA (PPP): Obama d. Romney (48-47)

NORTH CAROLINA (Rasmussen): Romney d. Obama (51-43)

WISCONSIN (Marquette Law): Obama tied with Romney (46-46)

DOWNBALLOT POLLING:

NH-GOV (PPP): Ovide Lamontagne (R) 40, Maggie Hassan (D) 39; Lamontagne 38, Jackie Cilley (D) 38; Hassan 37, Kevin Smith (R) 31; Cilley 37, Smith 32
NH-GOV—D (PPP): Maggie Hassan 23, Jackie Cilley 20

NH-GOV—R (PPP): Ovide Lamontagne 53, Kevin Smith 13

NJ-SEN (Quinnipiac): Sen. Robert Menendez (D) 45, Joseph Kyrillos (R) 35

RI-01—D (Fleming and Associates): Rep. David Cicilline 40, Anthony Gemma 36

WI-GOV (Marquette Law): Gov. Scott Walker (R) 50, Tom Barrett (D) 44

WI-LT GOV (Marquette Law): Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (R) 47, Mahlon Mitchell (D) 41

A few thoughts, as always, await you just past the jump...

Republican House candidate: 'Either way, people and stegosaurs were living at the same time'

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:52:14 UTC

Note: This did not actually happen
(Derek Chatwood)

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Crazy Town) has a new favorite candidate for the House, and he sure seems like an interesting fellow:

Allen Quist, a 67-year-old soybean farmer and onetime anti-sodomy crusader who believes that humans and dinosaurs may have coexisted in Southeast Asia as late as the 11th century. [...]
During his time as a state representative, Quist slammed a gay counseling clinic at Mankato State University by comparing it to the Ku Klux Klan (both would be breeding grounds for evil—AIDS, in this case) and went undercover at an adult bookstore and a gay bathhouse in an effort to prove to a local newspaper reporter that they had become a "haven for anal intercourse."

He "went undercover," eh? Is that what they're calling it now? Too bad Sen. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig didn't think of that one.

Quist doesn't just hate gays, though. He's not very fond of women either:

In one memorable interview, Quist told a British reporter he believed women were "genetically predisposed" to be subservient to men, pointing to, among other things, the behavior of wild animals.

It's easy to see why Michele Bachmann would consider Quist her intellectual soulmate:

"But the Lord says, 'Be submissive wives; you are to be submissive to your husbands.'"

Quist and Bachmann also share a particular fetus fetish:

Quist was a staunch pro-lifer who once argued that abortion should be classified as a first-degree homicide.

Quist, like Bachmann, has also devoted years to fighting against public education, including this contribution to an online curriculum supplemental:

One section asks this leading question: "Did dinosaurs and people live at the same time, and why do so many recently discovered ancient art works accurately picture dinosaurs?" The answer is a resounding "yes." "The only reasonable explanation for the stegosaurus carved in stone on the wall of the Cambodian temple is that the artist had either seen a stegosaur or had seen other art works of a stegosaur," Quist writes. "Either way, people and stegosaurs were living at the same time."

What's most striking about Quist, and his work with Bachmann, is that when they first found each other in the '90s and joined forces to "take down Minnesota's state curriculum standards, which they considered a gateway to a totalitarian society built on moral relativism," their brand of conservatism was considered, you know, extreme. When Quist launched a challenge to then-Gov. Arne Carlson (a Republican), even Republicans thought Quist was a nutjob:

"At one point," the St. Petersburg Times reported in 1994, "a Senate leader suggested he had an unhealthy preoccupation with sex, having devoted 30 hours to it in a single session." [...]
Mike Triggs, a former Carlson aide, told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Mr. and Mrs. Gopher are going to think [the Quists] are damn weird." He dismissed Quist supporters as "zombies." The governor himself played up his opponent's under-the-covers ops. "Instead of prowling through dirty bookstores, why didn't he go out and change state spending policy?" the governor asked the Associated Press.

But that was then, and now that the nutjobs have taken over the Republican Party, this once-radical Republican is now just another standard Republican on a mission to spread the gospel of stupid.

Oil companies want more federal leases to add to the ones they aren't using

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Tue, 15 May 2012 22:59:13 UTC

Stripper well in California's Central Valley.
(Rendering by navajo)

The U.S. Department of Interior has released its latest assessment of oil and gas leases on federal land. Two-thirds of the off-shore leased acreage and half the on-shore acreage in the 48 contiguous states is idle. The companies holding those leases are not actively exploring or otherwise developing them.

According to the report, more than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres currently under lease are inactive, neither producing nor currently subject to approved or pending exploration or development plans. Out of nearly 36 million acres leased offshore, only about 10 million acres are active—leaving nearly 72 percent of the offshore leased area idle.
In the lower 48 states, an additional 20.8 million acres, or 56 percent of onshore leased acres, remain idle.

In the long run, we need to wean the nation—and the rest of the world—off these fossil fuels insofar as they are burned for transportation, pumping massive gobs of CO₂ into the atmosphere and altering our climate in detrimental ways we can both foresee as well as only guess at.

There are some places, deep-water off-shore places, Arctic wilderness places, for instance, where oil and gas production should be more limited than it is now or prohibited outright. Some techniques, like hydraulic fracking, and some resources, like oil shale, should not be part of the mix now. But in the transition to non-fossil fuels, some exploration and production are going to continue for a considerable while. And if they are going to continue on public land, then, in the words of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, leases should be developed "in a timely and responsible manner and with a fair return to taxpayers."

The industry says the Obama administration is presenting an unfair picture of the situation. American Petroleum Institute Pres. Jack N. Gerard said the administration is trying to distract voters from what the industry considers bad policies standing in the way of more drilling:

“It’s absurd to contend the industry pays the government billions of dollars every year in bonus bids and rents to leave land idle,” he maintained. [The industry] develops leases as expeditiously as it can—often in the face of inordinate delays the administration’s own policies create. The administration is being willfully misleading when it identifies leases as idle when companies are seeking permits, doing exploratory drilling, or fighting lawsuits.”

Uh-huh. The administration has opened up tens of millions of acres of land for oil and gas leasing. It held a lease auction last year and it's holding another one this year. Drilling is now at its highest level since the Reagan administration. The industry was upset because the White House held back on leasing while BP was spewing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It's upset that it has to pay more to lease each acre. It's upset that some modest new restrictions have been placed on drilling. And no doubt it's upset about the shutting down of its cozy arrangement of partying and sleeping with employees of a now-extinct division of the Department of Interior charged with governing leases.

Currently, the industry has three Colorado Republican congressmen in its pocket pushing three outrageous pieces of legislation designed to cut the public out of the leasing review process:

H.R. 4383 creates a $5,000 fee for individuals who wish to participate in the decision-making process for oil and gas development on publicly owned lands. That includes families living near drilling sites who could be forced to live with the effects of drilling on their air and drinking water.
H.R. 4382 outlaws the right of public, local governments, and stakeholders to review lease sales, preventing new information from affecting leasing decisions. It also prevents the BLM from revising leasing plans.

H.R. 4381 gives oil companies first crack at all federal lands, rather than creating a level playing field between renewable energy and fossil fuels. It puts drilling über alles – making it the primary use of public lands above scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values.

If these bills manage somehow to clear Congress, President Obama should ink up that too-little used veto stamp and deep-six them with as much ceremony that is given to bills that get signed.

The fact of the matter is the oil-and-gas industry isn't being held back by onerous red tape on developing land it's leased. It's not using 7,000 already-approved drilling permits for federal and Indian lands. 7,000. Already got the lease. Already got the final permit to go ahead. So what's the problem again?

If Big Oil were producing energy from its own bullshit, we'd already be free of fossil fuel.

Safeway's general counsel tells hilarious sexist joke at annual shareholder meeting

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:21:05 UTC

Everyone knows that opening a meeting with a joke is a great icebreaker. And at the annual meeting of Safeway Inc.'s shareholders, Senior Vice President and General Counsel Robert Gordon opened with a real knee-slapper:

You know, this is the season when companies and other institutions are interested in enhancing their reputation and their image for the general public, and one of the institutions that's doing this is the Secret Service, particularly after the calamity in Colombia. And among the instructions given to the Secret Service agents was to try to agree with the president more and support his decisions. And that led to this exchange that took place last week, when the president flew into the White House lawn and an agent greeted him at the helicopter.
The president was carrying two pigs under his arms and the Secret Service agents said, "Nice pigs, sir."

And the president said, "These are not ordinary pigs, these are genuine Arkansas razorback hogs. I got one for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and one for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

And the Secret Service agent said, "Excellent trade, sir."

(Laughter)

Isn't that funny? Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are worth less than pigs! Ha!

If you can't see the humor in that joke, you obviously are a humorless feminist who refuses to see the inherent comedy in unfavorably comparing two of the most powerful women in the world to pigs. It's just a joke, after all. Lighten up. A senior executive of a major corporation would never engage in actual sexism, especially at a meeting that he knew would be recorded and posted to the internet. So obviously it was just some harmless, lighthearted fun. Right? And not one single person in that room who laughed at this "joke" would find humor in real sexism. After all, it's 2012. Women can vote and run for office and own property and everything! And just look at the huge advancements women have made in the boardroom. Why, even a whopping, record-breaking 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. (Even though they make only 69 percent of what male CEOs make.) And only 10 percent of those Fortune 500 companies (of which Safeway is number 63) have all-male boards of directors. Even Safeway has one. Just one. Progress!

And besides, Safeway has a strict Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which Steve Burd, Safeway's chairman, president and CEO, proudly claims is a hallmark of its "well-deserved reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing."

Because nothing says "integrity" like making jokes about powerful women who are worth less than pigs. Ha ha ha!

Of course, what's extraordinary about this "joke" is that it's not extraordinary. It's a blatantly sexist, disrespectful joke that a high-level executive at a major Fortune 500 corporation felt perfectly comfortable telling at a meeting that he knew was being recorded and webcast out to the world. Because it's just a joke. Who could possibly take offense? Certainly this kind of run-of-the-mill sexism garners laughs in boardrooms and executive offices all over America. This is just the way it works.

And that's the problem. It's this kind of casual sexism that contributes to a corporate culture in which women are still not especially welcome. Yes, things have changed and improved, but women are still woefully underrepresented—and underpaid—and it's not hard to see why, when corporate America is still so obviously a boys' club where women are merely the butt of a joke to warm up a crowd.

Until the highest echelons of corporate America no longer feel perfectly comfortable cracking "jokes" like this, women—even the 3.6 percent who now run Fortune 500 companies (at a reduced rate)—still have a long road ahead before we can achieve full equality.

Send an email to Safeway to let them know what you think of the general counsel's "joke."

Politico: Sunday talk shows don't want to appear partisan

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:41:22 UTC

Sunday talk show roster

Politico's Dylan Byers weighed in Wednesday morning with a theory about why the Sunday talk shows haven't booked Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. It's all because "none of these shows want to appear partisan."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

And, puhleez.

Prompted by Greg Sargent's commentary, I noted Tuesday that Mann and Ornstein's hotly discussed op-ed saying Republican extremism is behind government dysfunctionalism ought to be the topic of at least one of the Sunday talk shows. Their format is tailor-made for the kind of in-depth dissection that such a thesis deserves. And yet, the two men have not been invited on any of the shows to explain themselves.

Byers called CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC to ask why not and got what he called a "nearly unanimous" response: They don't comment on their booking practices. "Nearly unanimous" would suggest that one out of the four did explain why the two men hadn't been booked. But we aren't told what that one said. Instead:

Worth noting, too, that all of these shows have a pretty significant backlog of potential guests, and only an hour each week. But there's a fair chance the thesis is being overlooked because none of these shows want to appear partisan.

Apparently, Byers sleeps in on Sundays. I don't blame him. But as I documented by not sleeping in over a 16-month period, and others also have demonstrated here and here and here and here and here, the Sunday talk shows are relentlessly partisan. A partisanship that favors Republicans when Republicans are in power and out of power.

Perhaps, if they didn't dial up John McCain every Friday to see if he's available to discuss whatever they decide needs discussing, some headway could be made on that "backlog of potential guests."

Brian Schweitzer defeats Max Baucus in 2014 hypothetical Montana primary

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:07:11 UTC

Public Policy Polling (PDF). 4/26-29. Usual Democratic primary voters. MoE 5.4%

Max Baucus (D) 37
Brian Schweitzer (D) 48

As chair of the Senate finance committee, Sen. Max Baucus led the charge against even cursory exploration of a single-payer system (which could've been used, at worst, as a bargaining chip toward making the public option the default compromise), then hosted the so-called Gang of Six "negotiations" with Sens. Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley and arch-conservative Mike Enzi. For Baucus' troubles, those Republicans would later brag about how they used those pretend negotiations to delay consideration of any law through the end of 2009.

"If I hadn't been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care," [Sen. Mike Enzi] said. "It's not where I get them to compromise, it's what I get them to leave out."

In other words, if it wasn't for Baucus enabling Enzi and his friends, we could've avoided the long, protracted battle over the health care law that allowed conservatives to rally around the tea party and demonize the law, all the while demoralizing liberals into electoral-crushing apathy.

It's no secret that Baucus and Gov. Brian Schweitzer hate each other, and it's partly due to health care. Schweitzer has been aggressively pushing a single-payer health care system in Montana, while Baucus finds Schweitzer to be foolish and unrealistic in pushing for it.

If Schweitzer ran for Senate, it wouldn't be close. In fact, expect Baucus to retire in that eventuality. However, Schweitzer has been coy about his political future. One factor potentially at play—he'll be far less likely to pull the trigger on a 2014 Senate bid if he has designs on a 2016 White House bid. Don't discount the latter.

John Boehner's debt ceiling line in the sand stops short at the Paul Ryan budget

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:06:10 UTC

Speaker John Boehner (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

House Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling hostage-taking threats include the requirement that any increase to the debt limit has be matched "dollar-for-dollar" by other cuts and "reforms."

Tough stance he's taking there, and a selective one, too, since the House-approved Paul Ryan budget would actually increase the deficit by $5 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Boehner's debt ceiling demand doesn't extend to that $5 trillion increase, and he's unbothered by the inconsistency.

CNN’s Erin Burnett, interviewing Boehner Tuesday after his speech, confronted him about the contradiction.
“Yeah, the big bad House Republican budget that would just gut everything under the sun, according to my friends across the aisle, would still require a $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling over the next 10 years,” Boehner said. “Why? Because of the great big demographic bubble—baby boomers like me, that are going to retire and continue to retire for the next 20-25 years. It’s a big challenge.”
In fact, the Ryan budget includes large tax cuts that would bring about a $4.6 trillion reduction in federal revenues, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Do the Republicans care about the deficit? Of course not. They care about keeping tax cuts for rich people, exploding the defense budget, and undoing every good thing government does for the American people. It's not about the deficit. It's never been about the deficit.

The Chronicles of Mitt: May 16, 2012

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Wed, 16 May 2012 23:30:05 UTC

Hello, human diary. It is I again, Mitt Romney, your better.

We are in Florida today. Never have I seen a state in which the trees were so obviously of the wrong height. As president, one of my first actions would be to order the removal of every tree in this state. Whether it be trees, hair, or workforces, nothing irritates me as much as things that are of the wrong dimension.

Today we instituted a new campaign policy in which reporter units are no longer permitted to ask questions or, for that matter, approach me closely. Eric F. is for some reason of the opinion that this will limit the number of gaffes within the campaign. It will also allow me more time to bond with the local commoners, which I believe I am getting more practiced at. I now think of it as algorithmically similar to water-skiing. If I am doing well, it is because of my skill. If I am not doing well, it is because the water is the wrong height. (I also have inquiries out as to which local food Florida might be most known for, so that I may praise it and assert my satisfaction with it.)

We have now received the endorsement of my old debate opponent, Herman Cain. We have been doing fairly well recently in gathering the endorsements of washed-up or discredited Republican units. I have instructed the campaign to also seek out endorsements from competent Republicans, but they have informed me that this will be problematic for various reasons.

James O'Keefe's 'dead' North Carolina voter not dead yet

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:20:16 UTC

James O'Keefe, trying out a disguise as a smart person. (@Steffikeith/twitpic)

James O'Keefe's criminal sloppiness in his "journalistic" efforts to prove that voter fraud is real is becoming legion. His antics in North Carolina aren't helping his case. Fact checkers have already found out that a voter he said wasn't a citizen actually is a citizen, and more than qualified to vote.

And now we find out that a tactic that bit him in the ass in New Hampshire—attempting to obtain a ballot in the name of a dead person who turned out not to be dead at all—got him again in North Carolina.

Here's what O'Keefe proclaims on the latest Project Veritas video from North Carolina:

O'KEEFE: We found ballots being offered out in the name of the dead. One man, Michael Bolton, had died April 23, but apparently the Board of Elections didn't get the memo, and his ballot was offered to us on May 8.

Here's what the raw footage O'Keefe's minions took shows:

In the ensuing video clip, an O'Keefe operative at a polling place tells a poll worker, "The name is Michael G. Bolton." There is then a jump cut, and in the next clip the poll worker is telling the operative to sign or make an mark in the pollbook to affirm his identity. The operative then says he would feel more comfortable if he could show his photo ID, and leaves.
Something very important happens during that jump cut. As the raw video reveals, the poll worker says, "You must be a junior? ... Michael G. Bolton, Jr.?" to which O'Keefe's operative responds: "That would be correct."

Yes, as multiple obituaries for Bolton note, he was survived by, among others, his son Michael Gordon Bolton, Jr. Public records searches using the Nexis database confirm that Bolton Jr. was registered to vote at the same address given to the poll worker by the O'Keefe operative.

Gee, who'd have guessed O'Keefe would have heavily edited his video to further a big lie? His researchers had to have read the obituary they used to know that he was dead (that's how they get their list of dead voters to try to get ballots for) and have seen, oh yeah, his son has the same name. But they don't really care about nailing down the details like that, because they can always just edit away anything that's inconvenient for them.

But you'd think at this point he'd have been burned enough to either do his homework better, or leave out the stuff that it's so easy to catch him lying about. Of course, if he were actually committed to telling the truth, I guess there wouldn't be anything to put in any of his videos. Because, outside of his stunts, voter fraud doesn't really happen.

Mitt Romney finally responds to Bain attacks ... by blaming Obama for destroying the auto industry

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:52:13 UTC

Sorry, Mitt: Under President Obama, the auto industry is doing quite well
(Chart: Total auto industry employment. Source: BLS.gov.)

My God, Mitt Romney is delusional. I mean, he really is. It's almost getting to the point where Sarah Palin ain't got nothing on him. Check out the latest, via the Washington Post's Philip Rucker:

“The most recent attacks are really off target and I think they know,” Romney said. “They said, ‘Oh, gosh, Governor Romney at Bain Capital closed down a steel factory.’ But their problem, of course, is that the steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital. I was no longer there, so that’s hardly something which is on my watch.”
Then Romney tried to lay blame for auto job losses on Obama.

“We were able to help create over 100,000 jobs,” Romney said of his tenure at Bain, the venture capital and corporate buyout firm he founded. “On the president’s watch, about 100,000 jobs were lost in the auto industry and auto dealers and auto manufacturers, so he’s hardly one to point a finger.”

Romney was talking with a conservative blogger, which explains why he was willing to talk about Bain—he's unwilling to touch the subject with anyone who isn't firmly in his camp. And it's a good thing (for him) that he was talking to an ally, because if he made that comment to any decent reporter (yeah, I know, fat chance), he'd have gotten himself in trouble.

First of all, on Romney's claim that he had left Bain by the time GST Steel went bankrupt, he had "full, sole ownership" of Bain when GST Steel went under. Yes, he was running the Olympics at the time, but Bain was still his company—and it was (and is) where he got his paycheck from. More importantly, he was the CEO of Bain when the company was bought in 1993 and he was CEO of Bain when it was loaded up with debt. Romney was there for all the decisions that led to the bankruptcy.

Second, his claim of creating 100,000 jobs is totally absurd (which explains why he only uses it in front of friendly audiences). Neither Romney nor Bain have ever opened their books to verify anything about the claims made by Romney, but given that he claimed to have created 10,000 jobs in 1994, any sort of defense of the 100,000 number would carry past 1999 ... even though he says he can't be held accountable for anything that happened after 1999. But again, Romney has never explained that number, so there's no way for anyone to assess it's veracity.

Third, Mitt Romney is lying when he says President Obama destroyed 100,000 jobs in the auto industry. In fact, the auto industry as a whole has gained nearly 75,000 jobs since January 2009 and is up by nearly 140,000 jobs since June 2009. Contrast that exploding growth with 255,000 jobs that were lost in the industry in the year before Obama took office—and consider the fact that the industry would have disappeared had Obama not taken action, destroying hundreds of thousands more jobs.

The bottom line is that those numbers show why Mitt Romney tried to claim credit for saving the auto industry last week even though he said he wanted it to go bankrupt. President Obama saved the auto industry and he a took a big political risk in doing so. Unlike Mitt Romney, President Obama had nothing at stake financially. He was just trying to do the right thing.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, put thousands of workers' jobs on the line by loading their companies up with debt and paying himself with borrowed money. Many of those companies survived, but when they failed, it was the workers (and sometimes taxpayers) who paid the price—not Mitt Romney. He still made money. Heads he won, tails they lost. Either way, he came out ahead. Mitt Romney calls that free enterprise, but I think most Americans would call it playing by a different set of rules.

Republicans in Senate vote overwhelmingly for Paul Ryan's extreme budget

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:46:17 UTC

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Jim Young/Reuters)

Today, except for a couple of hypocrites worried about reelection, Senate Republicans joined their House brethren and voted to end Medicare as we know it. The only really interesting vote was on Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, the one that the House passed and that Mitt Romney has endorsed. It failed 58-41.

Five Republicans (Scott Brown [MA], Susan Collins [ME], Dean Heller [NV], Rand Paul [KY] and Olympia Snowe [ME]) rejected that bill. For his part, Heller (in a tight reelection race with Rep. Shelley Berkley) said:

“Today’s votes were not a serious effort to pass a budget. After this charade, our nation is no closer to economic prosperity or addressing our massive national debt. I have voted on Republican budgets in the past. It’s no secret where I stand, but every measure brought up for a vote today was meant to fail. It is past time Members of Congress hold themselves accountable and do the job they were elected to do, not hold meaningless votes designed for nothing more than campaign press releases. The biggest problem is both sides of the aisle are at fault. [...]"

As with Brown, Heller's no vote likely had a lot more to do with reelection than with principle. Neither of them wants anything to do with ending Medicare as we know it, and giving their Democratic opponents this ammunition.

Which makes you wonder why 41 Republicans were so anxious to embrace it. Embrace it they did, much to Democrats' delight. The Ryan budget will be no more popular this year than it was last year. Which makes this not a totally useless day in the Senate. Just a mostly useless one.

How they lost $2 billion

rss@dailykos.com (BrianMcFadden) — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:50:04 UTC

Click to enlarge.

Follow @DailyKosComics to know the instant a new comic pops up!

Weakened, flawed, Republican Violence Against Women Act passes House

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:31:37 UTC

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) fought to improve the
House Violence Against Women Act. (Official photo)

The House passed the Republican version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization by a vote of 222 to 205, with six Democrats voting yes and 22 Republicans voting no, after an Orwellian afternoon debating the bill, with members from both parties extolling the importance of cracking down on violence against women even as they disagreed bitterly on the bill in question. The Orwellian flavor stemmed from the fact that the Republican bill excludes or weakens protections for LGBT, immigrant and Native American victims of violence—a Republican manager's amendment purported to address some Democratic concerns, but that did not adequately do so. House Republicans argued that passing this bill is very important and should be done in a bipartisan fashion, even as they refused to consider the Senate's actually bipartisan Violence Against Women Act—coauthored by a Republican and passed with 15 Republican votes.

Republicans repeatedly emphasized the bipartisan support for VAWA without acknowledging that their bill does not enjoy bipartisan support and that they have rejected a truly bipartisan bill. They also repeatedly insisted that their bill protects and supports victims, ignoring the opposition of a wide swath of domestic violence organizations, law enforcement groups and faith-based groups.

Democrats first opposed a rule prohibiting amendments, then offered a motion to recommit in an attempt to keep confidentiality protections from being gutted, with Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin detailing how as the victim of a violent rape in the 1970s, she felt put on trial as a single mother who must have invited her rape. Republicans, while rejecting bipartisanship and claiming that immigrant women use fraudulent allegations of abuse to get citizenship, wailed extensively about Democrats allegedly playing politics.

This vote sets up what David Waldman describes as "a potential procedural nightmare in the Senate." Additionally, President Obama has indicated he would veto this bill.

George Bush's 'endorsement' doesn't bring joy to Romney like Ted Nugent's and Donald Trump's did

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:21:35 UTC

There was a time long, long ago when Mitt Romney
was happy to have George W. Bush on stage with him.
(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

It's wasn't an endorsement the length of a book chapter like Rick Santorum's. It didn't include the scrubbing of any websites like Newt Gingrich's. It wasn't announced the same day as a joint campaign appearance like Michele Bachmann's. It was just four words by George W. Bush spoken to a reporter as the elevator doors closed: "I'm for Mitt Romney."

But that wasn't as half-hearted as the response from the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee. No tweet came from Team Romney as was the case when Rick Perry finally gave up on Newt Gingrich after Gingrich gave up on himself: "Great to have @GovernorPerry's support. Looking forward to working with him -- a lot to be done before November." No invitation was issued for Bush to join the governor for a day or two on the campaign trail.

Indeed, initially there was silence from the Romney camp in the hopes that if they didn't say anything nobody would notice. But then it was apparently decided that the silence was being too much noticed and they had to say something. So spokeswoman Andrea Saul was trotted out for a pro forma “We welcome the president’s support, as we welcomed his father’s.” The sigh of relief was almost palpable as she noted that Bush had taken readily to the private life and had "made clear when he left office that he was not going to engage in political campaigns ..."

Quite a world when the all-but-official Republican nominee trembles at the thought of support from a two-term president of his own party but eagerly stands on stage in Las Vegas to accept the endorsement of the frequently bankrupt, misogynist, narcissist self-parody Donald Trump and then recruits him to do robocalls for the campaign in Michigan.

And while Romney was apparently hoping that Bush would keep his lips zipped for the duration so he could simply refer to him always as "the predecessor" of President Obama—as if merely saying the Texan's name could cost him votes—he had no such reservations about accepting the endorsement of Ted Nugent. Indeed, if Nugent is to be believed, Romney sought him out and promised that he wouldn't mess with gun owners' rights if the incendiary, ultra-right, has-been rock star endorsed him. "It's been fun getting to know Ted Nugent," Romney said.

True to form, the oh-so-fun, oh-so-likable Nugent was soon afterward spewing sewage about Obama and hinting darkly at the National Rifle Association's confab that if the president were reelected, he, Nugent, would be either dead or in jail "by this time next year." The Secret Service had a chat with Nugent. Romney made a milquetoast objection to his "divisive" comments. So, unlike The Donald, Nugent will probably not get asked to do any robocalls.

But, if it came down to a choice of being required to have either George or Ted working for the campaign, Romney would probably flip a coin.

Mike Huckabee raises money for Citizens United to battle Obama's 'political whores'

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:41:58 UTC

Symptoms of early onset Limbaughtis include hallucinations involving liberals,
reduced pot/kettle awareness, and the irresistible urge to call people whores.

The question before us today: Has former governor and common Republican fantasy presidential candidate Mike Huckabee lost his ever loving mind? BuzzFeed got hold of a fundraising letter from Huckabee sent to "supporters of Citizens United," bringing us all a taste of what the top echelons of conservatism are up to these days, when they're talking among themselves. Some excerpts:

Look, you're a conservative and so am I. We can agree, the day that Barack Obama was sworn into office as our 44th President, was the day the country started going to pot.

Things were peachy before then, apparently, which raises the question of just how f-d up the economy would have had to have gotten before Mike Huckabee and other "conservatives" thought maybe there was a goddamn problem somewhere.

Listen, you're a person of faith and so am I. In his administration and now on his re-election campaign, President Obama has surrounded himself with morally repugnant political whores with misshapen values and gutter level ethics.

I guess when you're a "person of faith," you can call anyone you want a whore. People of faith like to hang out with upstanding lads like Karl Rove, lunchmeat of liberty, and his multimillion dollar anonymously-donated war chest with which to smear candidates while skirting campaign laws. You know, as opposed to morally repugnant whores!

Thank goodness, my good friend David Bossie and Citizens United is stepping into the gap.
David Bossie led the Congressional investigation into the Clintons in the 90's...so you know he knows how to take on the liberals.

Sweet merciful crap. "And while we are talking about whores, let me introduce my fine friend here ..."

I love America too much to sit idly by while the Obama agenda destroys it. Our freedom and our future depend on a fair election and I've been around enough Washington-knows-best Liberals to know they don't fight fair. They never have and they never will. [...] Let's face it: the liberal media loves President Obama and his ultra-liberal agenda so much it sends shivers up their legs. In their eyes, glazed over with utter adoration, he can do no wrong.
I'm not buying that malarkey for a second.

Hey, remember when Mike Huckabee was being propped up as the moderate one, the guy who was serious and full of Jesus and who independents would like because he was just so damn moderate and likable? Yeah, I remember that. Good times. I guess it's saying words like "malarkey" that make someone seem homespun and not-at-all crawling-up-the-walls batshit crazy. The entire world is doomed unless we stop the evil liberal conspiracy that has consumed all of Washington and the media, but we won't stand for that malarkey, will we? Not us, not a crooked old Clinton conspiracy theorist who was so unethical that he managed to get himself canned by the Newt-era House Republicans, not his Citizens United organization dedicated to peddling whatever conspiracy horseshit they can get on the airwaves, all with the new blessings of the Roberts court, not anybody! Malarkey!

There are a number of possibilities here. One: Mike Huckabee has, in fact, always been a rather batshit-insane fellow who learned how to write from studying unpublished newspaper op-eds submitted to the editors on things like socks and luncheon meat. His previous persona was merely a facade enabled by press advisers and heavy doses of Vicodin. Two: Some idiot intern sent this out on Mike Huckabee stationery, and Mike Huckabee is hunting him down even now for making him look like a barely literate, frothy tool in front of the entire nation. Three: Minister Mike Huckabee is practicing for his radio role as the new Rush Limbaugh, and needs to work things like "you're a whore, you whore" into as many conversations as possible. Four: Mike Huckabee has, as hypothesized earlier, completely lost his effing mind.

In any event, it's quite the look inside conservative direct-mail efforts. This is what the biggest names in the party look like, unfiltered by any need to kowtow to those damned swing voters. It's nothing but vitriol and conspiracy theories, all the way down.

2:35 PM PT: Well, that was quick. It looks like we'll be going with Option Two:

"This was a complete surprise to me," Gov. Huckabee said in a statement to POLITICO, sent via a spokesperson. "I most certainly did not approve such language and would never have used that kind of repulsive rhetoric. I repudiate that language, find it offensive to me, and have ordered that it be pulled immediately." [...] Jeff Marschner, a spokesman for Citizens United, "categorically denies" the letter was sent by his organization.

3:10 PM PT: A modified Option Two, it looks like:

How about that: Citizens United retracts its denial that it mailed the Huckabee letter, now sys it was a "test" http://t.co/...

— @BuzzFeedBen via TweetDeck

Ah, the old overzealous-intern-and/or-wasn't-meant-to-be-seen bit. I love that one.

GOP Madness, Sour 16, match 3

rss@dailykos.com (kos) — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:00:04 UTC

We are in the second round. The bracket is here. So far, our first two second-round matches haven't been very close. Will today present more of a challenge?

1. MITT ROMNEY WIELDS AN ETCH-A-SKETCH

John Fugelsang: Good morning, sir. It's fair to say that John McCain was considerably a more moderate candidate than the ones that Governor Romney faces now. Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to attach so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
Eric Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.

Original write up here.

We already knew that Mitt Romney doesn't have a single principled bone in his body. It was just refreshing to hear his campaign admit it. It was the gift that will keep on giving all the way to November.

2. RICK SANTORUM OPPOSES WELFARE FOR "BLAH" PEOPLE

I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.

Original write up here.

1. Santorum doesn't want to give black people "other" (read: white) people's money, because as every conservative thinks, that's all they do—suck up welfare dollars.

2. Next day, in damage control mode, Santorum claims he had black people on his mind because he had just seen Waiting for "Superman."

3. That didn't make much sense, so a short while later, he had a new explanation: "In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn't say ‘black.’ I started to say a word and sort of mumbled it and changed my thought." Again, that makes no sense. Listen to the audio or read the quote above—it's a coherent sentence and thought, there's no change mid-stream.

4. Finally, he decided that he had said "blah people" all along, because there's a real epidemic of blahs wasting taxpayer dollars!

Bain vanishes from Mitt Romney's resume

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Wed, 16 May 2012 18:25:23 UTC

Mitt Romney didn't play by the same rules as everyone else

It wasn't too long ago that Mitt Romney was so eager to tout his experience as CEO of Bain Capital that he didn't even mention that he had once been governor of Massachusetts. Romney talked about Bain as if it were the only thing on his resume. And on Monday after the Obama campaign released its anti-Bain ad, the Romney campaign responded with a video touting a Bain success story.

However, 48 hours later, Romney's Bain record is still under attack ... but he has suddenly gone silent. According to Politico, not only did Romney fail to respond to those attacks in a speech earlier today ... he didn't even mention the word Bain.

He delivered a 22-minute standard stump speech and didn't make a single mention of it. He didn't even repeat his standard line about knowing how the economy works and how to create jobs because of his time in the private sector.

So not only did Romney fail to mention Bain ... he didn't make a generic plug about having private sector experience, something he does in virtually every speech. Apparently, he's so afraid to talk about Bain that he won't even say one word in his own defense. And if he won't even defend himself, then doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?