Hillary's the one

By Infidel753 

Hillary Clinton is now officially in the 2016 Presidential race, and will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. And we're lucky to have her. She can do the job, she can do the job right -- and, critically, she can get the job. She can beat the Republicans.

[I mean no disrespect by adopting the common habit of referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name. Given that Bill Clinton remains a prominent figure, just calling her "Clinton" would be ambiguous, and her own campaign is called "Hillary for America".]

Here's Charles Pierce (found via Progressive Eruptions) explaining what's at stake: 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will accept the science of anthropogenic climate change and treat it as a crisis. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she unequivocally will support marriage equality, and oppose discrimination against our fellow citizens based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This cannot be said of any of the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, she will not destroy the Affordable Care Act, an article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential. 

If she is elected, and despite her closeness to certain Wall Street interests, she will not destroy the Dodd-Frank reforms, another article of faith among all the Republican candidates, real or potential.

[...] 

To get elected, she does not have to wink at state's rights, up to and including incidents of armed resistance. 

To get elected, she does not have to equivocate on the science behind the theory of evolution as does any Republican candidate who seeks the votes of Republicans in Iowa. 

To get elected, she does not have to peddle the snake oil of supply-side economics, nor does she have to peddle scare stories about the oncoming caliphate, nor does she have to create bogeymen about jackboots coming to steal your guns.

That is to say, Hillary thinks and functions in the real world as opposed to being committed to dangerously-delusional policies. I'd add that she won't put any more theocratic nutcases like Scalia on the Supreme Court. And she will build on the progress Obama and Rouhani have made on bringing Iran out of isolation to the point where it has a stake in the international system, and will continue working with amenable Middle Eastern groups and governments to fight violent extremism, as opposed to the Republican strategy of "when in doubt, bomb and invade and hope for the best."

Read more »

2016: Too early to say anything, but we'll say it anyway

By Richard K. Barry

Jeb Bush leads the Republican field for the 2016 presidential nomination, but Hillary Clinton has a significant advantage over Bush and all other potential GOP candidates in a hypothetical head-to head contest according to a new Washington Post-ABC poll:

At this early stage in the 2016 competition, the prospective candidates suffer from image weaknesses, but the Republicans have a more acute problem. Most Republicans are not well known, but at this point, not a single one of six Republicans included in the survey has a favourability rating that is net positive.

Bush — by far the best known among those running for the GOP nomination — is viewed favorably by just 33 percent of the public, while 53 percent say they view him unfavorably. Only Clinton among all those included in the poll has a net positive rating, but by the slender margin of three percentage points (49-46 percent). Her favourability rating has dropped nine points in the past year and 18 points since she left the State Department in 2013.

I suppose the conventional wisdom is that Hillary can't lose, but I'm not so sure. If the Republicans weren't so screwed up and could be certain of offering up a relatively undamaged moderate, she'd be toast, and of that I am sure.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Obama's bad bet on Republicans

By Frank Moraes

Last weekend, Jane Mayer wrote about "Torture and the Truth." I know that many people are thinking, "Torture! Again?! That's so last week!" Actually, this article is not about torture. But the truth of the matter is that, for me, torture will never be so last whatever. It's not that I ever thought that the United States was lily white, but I was appalled when Cheney started talking about the "dark side" and people began to discuss when torture might be okay. From grammar school on, I always thought that the willingness to torture was the prime thing that separated the "good guys" from the "bad guys." So I'm never getting over this. But that's not what I'm going to discuss here.

In Mayer's article, she discussed how Obama blew the response to this issue. By leaving it for so long to be dealt with by the Senate, he allowed it to become just another partisan issue. She quoted political science professor Darius Rejali: "It's becoming a lot like the death penalty." (I find this terrifying; I really do think that the Republicans have devolved into nothing short of fascism.) But it isn't like the issue was off the table. Mayer explained that in early 2009, pretty much all of Obama's advisers were in favor of "the formation of an independent commission." It wasn't done. "Obama, however, said that he didn't want to seem to be taking punitive measures against his predecessor, apparently because he still hoped to reach bipartisan agreement on issues such as closing Guantánamo."

I recently quoted Garry Wills's "The Problem With Obama." In it, Wills said that Obama is so keen to maintain continuity that he often (usually?) does the wrong thing. I think that is at work here. But there is a political aspect here as well — one that gets to the heart of why Obama was exactly the wrong president for this period. He was so eager to placate to stop people from attacking him as a foreign radical. And what he got for that was absolutely nothing. And that will continue going forward.

Can anyone doubt that if Ted Cruz is elected president in 2016 he will prosecute the previous administration for any actual scandal that turns up? The Republicans — almost twenty years ago when they were a hell of lot more reasonable than they are now — impeached a president because he lied about an affair with an intern. I'm not even convinced that if the Republicans control all of Washington in 2017 they won't continue on with their Benghazi and IRS fake scandal-mongering.

As I mention a whole lot around here, I'm not that ideological. I'm a pragmatist. That's why I gave the Democrats a pass on the CRomnibus. But there is a huge difference between knowing what is possible and pretending that you live in a world of fairies and elves where you can have all the candy you want. And that was certainly the world that Obama used to live in. And to a significant, but reduced, degree, I think he still does.

Politics is about power. Smart power. It isn't about rubbing your opponent's nose in his defeat. In fact, providing face-saving concessions to your enemies is a big part of correcting wielding power. (This is something that the United States is famously bad at internationally.) But it is not about cajoling. All Obama's efforts to entice and prove that he is a moderate (by our far-right-skewing system) have only hurt his efforts to get things done. If he had called for a single-payer health-care system, he would have been called a socialist. So he didn't call for a single-payer health-care system, and he was called a socialist.

Well played, Mr. President!

Afterword

For the record, I know that the reason we couldn't have a single-payer health-care system is because of all those Blue Dog Democrats — like Obama himself! I should point out, however, that the vast majority of those conservative Democrats were swept out of office in 2010, so I don't really know what they thought they were buying. And that was as predictable as anything in politics. Conservative Democrats get elected in nominally red districts. Outside of a wave, Democrats won't get elected there, so they are sure to lose the next time. So they might as well stand up for liberal policy.

(This is assuming that they believe in liberal policy. And I have to admit that I just don't know anymore.)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Rand Paul is wrong about himself, Democrats, the Republican Party, and 2016

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rand Paul, riding a wave of egomaniacal hubris given his current position at or near the top of national Republican politics, thinks that Democrats are scared of him:

"I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am and that those people, like Hillary Clinton, who — she fought her own war, 'Hillary's war,' you know?" Paul said in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And I think that's what scares the Democrats the most — is that in a general election, were I to run, there's going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, ‘You know what? We are tired of war. We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she's so gung-ho.’"

Uh, no, not so much. There are some progressives to the left of the Clintonian Democratic center who don't much care for Hillary, and who certainly object to the warmongering aspects of the Democratic foreign policy elite, but in the end they wouldn't abandon her and the party (even if they voted for a progressive alternative in the primaries). Furthermore, while Americans are, by and large, tired of -- and generally opposed to -- the sorts of military misadventures that Bush and Cheney led the country into, isolationism (or at least non-interventionism) as represented by Paul just doesn't have the level of public support he apparently thinks it does. Besides, Hillary, like Obama, isn't "gung-ho." If you want "gung-ho," just look at Paul's own party, and therein lie the deeper problems for him.

Read more »

Democrats are always black presidents

By Frank Moraes 

For a long time, I've puzzled over something. Why has the conservative treatment of Obama been almost exactly the same as the treatment of Bill Clinton. Yes, there have been little differences. For example, no one ever claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified to be president because he wasn't born in America. And that is a bit of overt racism that should have embarrassed the conservative movement far more than it did. I think the reason that it didn't cause more of a stir was that the media are loath to admit anything quite so disturbing as the fact that one of the major political parties in the United States owes most of its appeal to racism. And the white majority mostly wants to compartmentalize racism as nothing more than people who use the n-word. But other than this bit of clearly racist behavior, Obama and Clinton were treated the same.

What I mean by this is that both men were treated as though they were treated as though they were invalid. And conservatives seem to believe that either men are capable of anything. There are stories about how Obama is secretly gay married and of course who can forget that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. What's more, during both presidencies, the conservatives have kept going with supposed scandals that not only don't come to anything, but don't even seem to be about anything. What was Whitewater about? What is Benghazi! about? It isn't just that I don't know. The people pushing these scandals don't seem to know either.

But leave it to Ta-Nehisi Coates to straighten out my thinking on this issue, "Bill Clinton Was Racialized, Too." He pointed out that the issue isn't so much who is leading the Democratic Party. The issue is that to the racists, the Democratic Party itself is the black party. It's the part that looks after the interests of "those people." He explained it:

Even Bill Clinton did not exist in a bubble of neutralized racism. He was a product of American politics in the post-civil-rights era, and thus had to cope with all the requisite forces. Racism does not merely concern itself with individual enmity, but with group interests. The men who killed [white civil rights activist] Andrew Goodman did not merely hate him individually, they hated what he represented. By the time Bill Clinton came to prominence, his party was closely associated with black interests.

Then he linked this to the very long history of white Americans seeing black Americans as invalid -- not "real" Americans. I was especially amazed to read that people argued that Frederick Douglass didn't actually write Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass because he was just an ignorant black man. This goes right along with claims that Obama didn't write Dreams from My Father. How far we've come! But the point is that anyone but white Europeans are not just The Other, but are beings who just can't be anything but unworthy outsiders.

So any Democratic president is going to be treated as an interloper. It doesn't matter if they get 90% of the vote. And as we saw after the 2008 election, a certain segment of the conservative movement doesn't accept voting. This is why ACORN was such a prime target for them. These people will never believe that the nation is changing. Instead, we get "black presidents" because ACORN and other nefarious groups are stealing elections. This is also why conservatives have embraced voter-identification laws. It isn't about winning future elections (for the base). It is about making sure that elections are honest because they just know that real America (white America) could never have a president who cared about those non-white aliens.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Failed state: Kansas's experiment with conservative economic policy

By Mustang Bobby 

The state of Kansas was supposed to be the laboratory of the conservative prosperity theory: cut taxes to the bone and the free market will take off: hey presto, Emerald City!

So how's that working out?

In Kansas, Republicans dominate the state government. They have the Governorship (Former Senator Sam Brownback), the State House (92-33 for the GOP), and the State Senate (32-8 for the GOP). Democrats don't have a say in this blood red state that went 60%-37% for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Brownback and his buddies have enacted all manner of conservative economic policy in the state. Cutting taxes, et cetera. What is the result? Guess.

Citing a sluggish recovery from the recession, risk inherent in the governor's tax plan and uncertainty over the Legislature's ability to keep cutting spending, one of the nation's two major debt rating agencies downgraded Kansas' credit rating Thursday.

Moody's Investors Service dropped Kansas from its second-highest bond rating, Aa1, to its third highest, Aa2. The Kansas Department of Transportation also took the same downgrade.

As Businessweek explained, "the immediate effect has been to blow a hole in the state's finances without noticeable economic growth."

I have a soft spot in my heart for Kansas thanks to my annual pilgrimage to the William Inge Theatre Festival in Independence. It's your typical Midwestern small town in the prairie with nice people. They're not hard-core wingnuts... at least the ones who show up to support theater and the legacy of one of their hometown boys even if he was gay. They are conservative, but not so crazy that they couldn't elect a Democrat as governor in 2002 and again in 2006: Kathleen Sebelius, before she was Secretary of Health and Human Services.

So it's really painful to see the results of this failed experiment happen to people I like. But they brought it on themselves; they can't blame this on the liberals and the Democrats.

If it's any consolation, Gov. Brownback is about as popular there as a tornado in a trailer park — he's polling in the low 30s and is trailing his Democratic opponent — and maybe the voters will decide that they've had enough of this right-wing paradise and boot him and his fellow True Believers out.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Liberals ♥ Democracy

By Frank Moraes 

Jonathan Bernstein has written a really interesting article, "Democrats' Electoral College Edge." Who'd a thunk it? I've generally thought of the Electoral College as being something that benefited Republicans because of the tiny red states that get more than their fair share of electoral oomph. But that is no longer true. Political scientist Ben Highton looked at it and, indeed, the Electoral College is good for the Democrats. Very good.

Now what does this mean? If the popular vote comes out evenly divided, the Democrats would win the presidency 80% of the time. And the reason is very interesting. Blue states are getting bluer, so that pushes against Democrats getting an advantage from the Electoral College. But this is more than compensated for by the fact that Red states are getting redder at an even faster pace. To give you an example, the most heavily Obama-voting states were Hawaii and Vermont with 70.55% and 66.57% of the vote. Compare this to the most heavily Romney-voting states of Utah and Wyoming with 72.79% and 68.64%. Admittedly, Utah was hotter for Romney because he was a Mormon, but if you look at 2008, Utah's still number three for the Republican.

What I find fascinating about this is how what is happening to the Republicans on the federal level has long been happening to Democrats on the state level. While it's true that gerrymandering greatly harmed the Democratic Party after 2010, at least as big a problem is that Democrats are clustered in urban areas. So even when congressional districts are reasonably drawn, there is a tendency for the Democratic districts to be very Democratic. Now that same thing is happening on the federal level because increasingly, the hatred of the conservative movement is relegated to little states no one especially wants to visit: Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, Kansas. (For the record: I know there are a lot of fine people in those states.)

Read more »

Obamacare is now a losing issue for Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

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

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

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

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

*****

Republicans were visibly exasperated...

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

**********

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

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

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

Read more »

Jay Rockefeller speaks the truth about Obama and Republican racism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller unloaded on lawmakers Tuesday, accusing some of blocking efforts to solve urgent problems during Barack Obama's presidency "because he's the wrong color."

Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who will retire at the end of the year, made his comments during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on transportation funding, saying he's confounded by the "lack of will to keep ourselves from dropping into rivers and rolling over bridges that are no longer there."

"It's an American characteristic that you don't do anything which displeases the voters, because you always have to get reelected here," he added. "I understand part of it. It has to do with — for some, it's just we don't want anything good to happen under this president, because he's the wrong color."

Yup.

Don't get me wrong, Republicans would still oppose him ferociously were he white. But basically, if Obama were white, he'd be seen as a mostly centrist, establishmentarian Democrat (champion of market-based health-care reform, generally supportive of Wall Street and Big Business, aggressive on national security, etc.) with occasional (and always measured) forays into progressivism (belated support for marriage equality, concerned about race/racism, cautious environmentalism, etc.) As a black man, though, he's basically seen as the Other, the Enemy, a Communist, a Terrorist, anything and everything that is anti-American from a right-wing perspective.

Rockefeller's statement is something of an exaggeration, I admit. Mitch McConnell's obstructionism in the Senate and House Republicans' general opposition to anything and everything associated with Obama would have the Republican approach if Hillary had won in 2008, and one can expect them to deal with any Democratic president in a similar manner. But certainly Obama's race has aroused an ugly strain of conservatism that had previously been somewhat dormant, or at least quieter: racism and nativism. And it certainly seems to be the case that the virulence of Republican opposition to Obama is very much rooted in that strain.

Louisiana aims to punish the homeless by making it illegal to beg

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, you're a homeless person? Well, fuck you.

That's not me saying that, it's the State of Louisiana, which is about to punish those who live on the streets, among others:

If you are poor, live in Louisiana, and have the audacity ask someone else for help, be prepared to spend up to six months in jail.

A new bill to outlaw panhandling is quickly moving its way through the Louisiana legislature. HB 1158 would criminalize solicitation, making it a misdemeanor punishable with a maximum fine of $200 and up to six months in jail. The bill is targeted not just at panhandlers, but hitchhikers and those engaged in prostitution as well. 

The bill passed the Louisiana House last week by a vote of 89-0. There was no floor debate. It is now being taken up by the Senate, where it will be acted on Tuesday.

The bill's author, State Rep. Austin Badon (D), told Post TV that he hoped that banning begging will somehow lead to fewer poor people on the streets. He doubted that many were in actual need, saying, "they're paying their cell phone bills, they're paying their computer bills. It's a racket."

Yes, that's a "D" after his name. While Republicans dominate the world of ignorance and injustice, they do not quite have a monopoly over it. (And this Badon asshole is our Worst Democrat of the Day.)

Badon is echoing a familiar trope — that panhandlers are living large from others' charity. But it's not based on any actual research. In fact, a major study of panhandlers in San Francisco last year found just the opposite: the vast majority make $25 a day ($9,125 per year) or less. That meager income is largely used to eat.

It is simply insane to think that the homeless are voluntarily homeless or otherwise aren't in desperate need of help. Many are are severely mentally ill and most certainly suffer from mental illness of some kind. By and large these are people who have been abused not just in their own lives but by a society that in many ways resembles the Hobbesian state of nature in its preference for brutality over dignity. Sure, many of them use drugs, but that's because they're addicts in need of help. It's hardly a choice, and really what options do they have?

And of course with Louisiana we're talking about a place with warm weather (that attracts those who have no other place to go but the streets), a terrible education system, poor health care generally, and various other social problems, not to mention a Republican governor (Bobby Jindal) and basically an entire political establishment that sees homelessness not just as a nuisance but as a criminal "racket," as a problem to be criminalized instead of one that should arouse compassionate public policy to deal not just with homelessness itself but with the conditions that cause it.

Most of these assholes supposedly being Christian, I suppose we can ask that stupid question of the Christianist ideology, what would Jesus do? Well, from what we're told, he'd help the homeless, for he had nothing but compassion for the poor, and then call out the injustice all the around him. And in Louisiana, as in so many other places throughout our rich and prosperous land (for the few, as in his own time), he'd have an awful lot of it to call out.

Behind the Ad: How not to make an attack ad

By Richard K. Barry

Who: House Majority PAC (Democratic super-PAC), in support of Rep. Nick Rahall.

Where: West Virginia's 3rd Congressional District.

What's going on: Nick Rahall was first elected to the House in 1976, and while it's always hard to unseat a long-term incumbent, this is going to be a real race. In fact, The Hill calls him one of the most vulnerable incumbents. Evan Jenkins (R), a well-connected state senator who can raise a lot of money, is the challenger.

The ad attacks Jenkins, claiming that he tried to "delay a water safety bill meant to prevent a chemical spill similar to the one that recently devastated parts of the state":

The spot goes on to tie Jenkins to the billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and David, who have poured millions into competitive House and Senate races — including hundreds of thousands into Rahall's district — hammering vulnerable Democrats.

It says that Freedom Industries, which caused the spill, is a "corporate partner" of the Koch brothers and suggests after Jenkins opposed the water safety bill, his Koch support increased.

Recently there was quite a bit of back-and-forthing that Rahall was contemplating retirement due, apparently, to attacks by the right, including from the Koch brothers. The story, reported by CNN's John King, included the claim that Rahall agreed to stay in the race on the basis of increased support from the Democratic national leadership. Rahall has denied he was thinking about walking away, but that's what you would expect him to say.

A recent poll has Rahall trailing Jenkins by a margin of 54 to 40 percent (conducted March 3-5). That'd depress me. A nasty race is expected:

"It's going to be quite ugly," said Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of The Rothenberg Political Report — a national non-partisan political publication that currently lists the state's Third District as one of seven "toss up" Congressional districts across the country.

"The Congressman is facing a reelection race like he's never faced before," said Gonzales who characterized the campaign between the likely nominees, Rahall and state Senator Evan Jenkins (R-5, Cabell), as a "race to bottom," with the opposing candidates – and the groups that support them – spending a lot of money to tell voters why the other guy is a bad choice. 

Grade: Much as I dislike the Koch brothers, the logic of this ad is strained. Something about the Republican candidate "delaying" aid money after an environmental disaster - and having ties to the Koch brothers who had something to do with, I think,  some other environmental disaster. And they have given him lots of money to run in campaigns, suggesting that they are buying his support to do things that harm West Virginians. 

In a sense, it doesn't matter. The Koch brothers are the bad guys, and connecting them to bad things that happen to ordinary people is going to be a major part of the Democrats campaign in the midterms. I like the approach, but not this ad, which seems dishonest to me, and might well appear that way to others. The bad guys are bad enough. Don't help them by making them objects of sympathy. By the way, I'm not saying there's no case here, just that the ad doesn't make it. D+

Behind the Ad: Former Mass. Sen. Scott Brown comes to New Hampshire (and not for a vacay)

By Richard K. Barry

Who: End Spending Action Fund

Where: New Hampshire (on WMUR TV and cable sports networks).

What's going on: The End Spending Action Fund is a group backed by billionaire Joe Ricketts, which, as the name suggests, is a Republican advocacy group. This ad is in support of former Massachusetts GOP Sen. Scott Brown, who has been toying with the idea of running for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. Now comes word via the Boston Globe that he will in fact take the plunge, and make his intentions clear this Thursday.

The incumbent is Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, who was first elected in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, defeating then-GOP Sen. John Sununu. As you will recall, 2008 was a particularly good year for Democrats, which is likely why Brown is thinking he can poach the seat in this year's midterm, when Republicans have done well more recently.

Scott Brown won, I'm sure you'll remember, an upset special election in 2010 in Massachusetts to fill the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, but was than unseated in 2012 by Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

As for polling in New Hampshire, HuffPollster's trend line has Shaheen ahead of Brown by a margin of 49.8 percent to 40.3 percent, though this was done before it was clear he was running. The most recent poll (March 13-16) has Shaheen up 50 percent to 38 percent. Still, if Democrats
want reason to worry, they can direct themselves to President Obama's job approval rating in the state. Just 31 percent say they like the job he is doing, while 56 percent disapprove.

As we've seen in the past, all bets seem to be off in the midterms.

The ad in question features a clip of Brown criticizing Obamacare in his victory speech after the 2010 special election in Massachusetts. “It will raise taxes; it will hurt Medicare; it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper into debt,” he states. And then the announcer intones: “Scott Brown was right on ObamaCare then. He’s right for New Hampshire now.”

Grade: While Republicans running hard against ObamaCare makes sense now, it is hard to tell how the issue will play in November. Maybe it will still work. Maybe not. In a state where Obama's favourability is seriously underwater, health care reform has to be a part of that. The funny thing about Brown is that he campaigned in Massachusetts as a moderate, as you would expect, but became a Tea Party favourite as they dreamed of swiping Ted Kennedy's seat. It will be interesting to see how he plays his candidacy in New Hampshire, especially as outside money designs a message that may not be very moderate at all. The ad is effective for now, to the extent that ObamaCare is a negative proxy for President Obama, but that may change. In fact, the more popular ObamaCare becomes, the more likely Republicans are to start calling it the Affordable Care Act. B

Behind the Ad: Michelle Nunn is the devil, apparently

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The End-Spending-Action-Fund (a GOP-affiliated Super PAC).

Where: Georgia

What's going on: Georgia is a very red state: the governorship; both chambers of the state legislature; both U.S. Senate seats; and 8 of 13 congressional districts are held by Republicans. It seems,  though, that they are not feeling as confident as you might think about holding the U.S. Senate seat Saxby Chambliss (R) will be vacating when he retires this year.

Exhibit A is the first attack ad aimed at the presumptive Democratic nominee Michelle Nunn, which, no great surprise, accuses her of supporting ObamaCare and higher taxes. Ho-hum.

As The Hill writes:

Nunn has been posting huge fundraising totals so far and has been neck-and-neck with her potential GOP rivals in the polls. Republicans are worried a crowded primary field could produce a flawed candidate, giving her a better chance to win in the GOP-leaning state.

Because it's a crowded field for the GOP nomination, the thinking is that a tough primary could damage the ultimate Republican nominee, or that a nominee could emerge for the general election way too conservative for the state.

With that in mind, Charlie Cook is calling it a toss-up and a potential good-news story for Democrats.

Grade: This ad is so boring and the claim that the big bad IRS is going to get you if they don't like what you choose to do with your health care is confusing at best. Maybe the point is just to put the IRS, higher taxes, and Obamacare in the same sentence.  I suppose it's a marker of sorts for later on, but I doubt it will have much of an impact. C-

Getting to like it

By Mustang Bobby

A Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that Americans are getting to like Obamacare.

Support among Democrats jumped from 65 percent in January to 76 percent in the new poll. Independents (44 percent support; 54 percent oppose; and Republicans (20 percent support; 78 percent) was more stable, according to the poll. Surprisingly, the poll found a significant shift in support for the law among conservatives, with 36 percent of them backing it now compared to 17 percent in November.

This is despite the glitches, the labored roll-out, and the natural hesitancy of the American public to like anything new. Oh, and this is also in spite of the relentless attacks from the GOP and their mouthpiece Fox News.

Count on them to tell us that the polls are skewed, that the books have been cooked on the numbers, and that John Boehner will announce that the American people don’t want it. Blather, rinse, repeat.

So why the shift? Well, I’m no pollster but I would think it has something to do with the fact that people can now afford to get health insurance when they couldn’t before because of not being employed full-time, having a pre-existing condition, or just couldn’t afford it. They like that, and that’s a lot of people.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Senate Democrats shamefully abandon President Obama over outstanding surgeon general nominee

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's one thing for right-wing ideologues and NRA stooges like Rand Paul to oppose President Obama's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy. Dr. Murthy, after all, has said that gun violence represents a serious public health threat, which of course it does, and reality-denying pro-gun absolutists live in a fetishistic fantasy world where guns save lives.

It's another thing, though, for Democrats, even Republican-leaning conservative Democrats, to oppose a Democratic president's nominee and for their opposition be enough, with Republican opposition, to derail that nominee's confirmation to a post for what he is supremely qualified: 

Facing a possible defeat in the Senate, the White House is considering delaying a vote on President Obama's choice for surgeon general or withdrawing the nomination altogether, an acknowledgment of its fraying relationship with Senate Democrats.

The nominee, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, an internist and political ally of the president's, has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, and opposition from the gun-rights group has grown so intense that it has placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot.

Senate aides said Friday that as many as 10 Democrats are believed to be considering a vote against Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits.

I get that some of these Democrats are generally pro-gun and that some of them are facing tough re-election challenges this year. But it takes extreme ignorance and/or willful stupidity not to see America's plague of gun violence as a public health threat, and, what's more, it's not like Murthy's confirmation would suddenly mean the end of gun "rights."

But beyond that, these are Democrats undermining a fellow Democrat who could certainly use the support right now. I get that politicians are about self-preservation and that supporting the president isn't exactly a major vote-winner at the moment (though of course Congress's approval rating is way lower than Obama's). But these Democrats should a) do what's right for the country, b) support the president's, any president's, nominees unless something truly egregious is uncovered, and c) back up their president even if doing so might subject them to some (but probably not much) criticism back home.

But these Democrats aren't just looking at re-election, they're basically just siding with the NRA and the rest of the gun nuts against sensible gun policy, as well as sensible public health policy. They're NRA stooges just like Rand Paul is, and in opposing President Obama's extremely qualified nominee they're displaying not so much sensible political sensitivity but abject moral cowardice. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves, just as all Democrats should be ashamed that their party can't even remain united in support of their president for what is, for all intents and purposes, an easy call.

Same old lesson for Dems in FL-13

By Frank Moraes 

David Weigel continues to be essential reading every day, but "bleeding heart libertarianism" seems to have morphed into old fashioned non-crazy conservatism these days. That's not too surprising, given that libertarians are, regardless of the number of holes in their hearts, conservatives. It is all based upon the conceit of their personal power and the delusion that they aren't entirely dependent upon their communities. See, for example, Weigel's total whitewash of Paul Ryan's recent racist remarks, "Paul Ryan Accused of Racism for Suggesting That There's Endemic Poverty in Inner Cities." So I wasn't shocked when Weigel seemed to take a certain delight in Alex Sink's defeat to David Jolly in the Florida 13th District special election.

But that doesn't mean that he isn't as insightful as ever. Yesterday, he wrote, "Hey, Democrats! This Election Will Make You Feel Less Sad About FL-13." Actually, the article itself is a confused jumble. But his point is clear enough: it's the turnout, stupid. As he noted:

I should admit that smart analysts predicted the result with one number. Two-hundred thousand. If that many ballots showed up in FL-13, Democrats were hitting their turnout models and winning the race. If fewer, they were losing. There were about 180,000 votes cast in the race, and the Democrats lost.

And then he goes on to document a number of elections (not one!) where the Democrats invested in turnout and won. We liberals have long known this. In fact, I have long argued that turnout is the only thing that matters and that Democrats should stop going after what are mostly mythical "swing" voters.

What did strike me in the article, however, was the tone that Weigel set in talking about this. And this is largely the reason for my tone here. For example, he wrote, "They won... But barely." It's a though he is trying to make a larger point that his Republican friends aren't that unpopular. But they are.

What's more, he seems to be implying that that Democrats aren't aware that they have an difficult task getting out their voters in off year and special elections. I would say that the Democrats are doing well when they even make such races competitive. (Weigel pooh-poohs this idea as it relates to the FL-13 election.) All I can think is that Weigel is falling for the recent libertarian rhetoric coming out of the Republican Party these days. And all I can say is, "Good luck with that!" Libertarian rhetoric leads to old fashioned anti-individual conservatism.

But the bottom line is clear enough. The Democrats have to spend a lot more money on turnout. That is the key to Democratic electoral success. And that should be clear to everyone, even libertarians. Because when I was a libertarian, I was painfully aware just how unpopular my philosophy was. It's nice to now have a political philosophy where I cheer for more people to vote.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Newt Gingrich: always good for a yuk

By Richard K. Barry

This is a lightbulb, signifying a good idea --
something I have never had.

When it came time for professional sleezebag Newt Gingrich to address the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he used part of his time to paint Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee,  as an "obstacle to economic progress," saying that to frame her in this way was a "key to winning the White House":

If this is a fight between the future and the past and we truly represent for the average American a better future and they truly represent for the average American those forces blocking that future, we will win decisively.

As proof, Gingrich went on about how Democrats want to slow down the number of smart-phone apps we will be able to get, pointing to the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed regulating health-related smart-phone apps. Oh, horrors. 

If you are wondering what is this hideous debasement of our freedom of which he speaks, this is from a Sept. 2013 FDA press release:

Mobile medical apps currently on the market can, for example, diagnose abnormal heart rhythms, transform smart phones into a mobile ultrasound device, or function as the "central command" for a glucose meter used by a person with insulin-dependent diabetes.

"Some mobile apps carry minimal risks to consumer or patients, but others can carry significant risks if they do not operate correctly. The FDA's tailored policy protects patients while encouraging innovation," said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

This, he says, is "a fight where we can be on the side of younger Americans and the left is hopeless."

I can't say what particular bug is up Newt's ass on what seems a reasonable regulatory approach, but if he thinks the GOP is going to turn itself into the party of techno-cool by appealing to young people's concerns about mobile medical apps, good luck with that.

If Republicans really want to appeal to young people, perhaps they should get on the right side of marriage equality, legalized marijuana, an increased minimum wage, good paying jobs generally, or education affordability. 

That's a thought, although the medical app thing could work too. 

When Democrats and Republicans alike prefer protecting the Pentagon to dealing with the plague of sexual assault in the military

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yes, once again, the Senate has acted shamefully:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand came up short Thursday in her yearlong campaign to overhaul military sexual-assault policies, falling five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

The New York Democrat's bill, which would have removed the chain of command from prosecuting sexual assaults and other major military crimes, was derailed in the Senate on a 55-45 vote, closing out one chapter in a debate that divided the Senate but not along typical partisan lines.

Ten Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2016 presidential hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, backed Gillibrand's controversial chain-of-command bill. But that wasn't enough to overcome 10 Democratic votes against her, including prominent defense hawks like Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also opposed the bill.

Things to note here:

1) This was a procedural vote, not an actual vote on the bill. But Gillibrand still got a majority of senators to support her effort, which is admirable. If the Senate were actually a functioning legislative body instead of a stage for partisan and ideological grandstanding, where all it takes is one member to shut things down with a filibuster, that is, if democracy actually mattered, the outcome would have been different.

2) Yes, this is one area where President Obama does need to show a good deal more leadership. His active involvement, as opposed to merely supporting Gillibrand in principle and hoping for the best, could have been the difference.

3) There is indeed an argument to be made for the military to be able to mange its own affairs, but it's a stupid argument that essentially holds that the military is off-limits to civilian oversight beyond the bare minimum and that the whole culture of the military is special and different and so not subject to the normal rules of society in any regard. This was basically the Republican position.

Read more »

Debo Adegbile deserved full Democratic support and Senate confirmation to top civil rights post

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Debo Adegbile is supremely qualified to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division. He was, after all, the director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, working for that organization in different legal capacities from 2001 to now. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court and is, needless to say, an expert in a wide range of civil rights matters.

But as director of litigation at the NAACP he worked -- among many other things -- on the defense team for Mumia Abu-Jamal, who had been sentenced to death for killing a Philadelphia policeman. And not in the original trial phase but only in the death penalty phase, where -- as I'll get to shortly -- there were serious constitutional problems that needed addressing. But no matter. Apparently it's not appropriate to do such things -- to defend a black man facing death on a civil rights violation (just as apparently certain people don't deserve their constitutional rights to defend themselves in court, and those who defend them are somehow doing something wrong) -- and that was enough to turn enough Democrats against him to join with the anti-Obama Republican mob to block his nomination in the Senate. He was rejected 52-47.

One expects Republicans to oppose a supremely qualified Obama nominee for the top civil rights job in the federal government, especially a black man from the NAACP, but what's up with Dems voting against him? Well, they're the barely Democratic, Republican-leaning Democrats from purple and red states you might expect them to be -- Bob Casey (PA), Chris Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR) and John Walsh (MT). All that was needed was a simple majority, but these cowards stood with the Republican obstructionists, and worse, to vote down a great nominee.

Read more »

On marriage equality, federal judge rules that Texas must be pulled out of the medieval shithole it inhabits

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its same-sex marriage ban, thanks to a sweeping decision holding that its current prohibition has no "legitimate governmental purpose."

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take effect immediately: Its enforcement has been stayed while the case works its way through the appeal process, meaning same-sex couples in Texas cannot get married for the time being.

Still, gay rights supporters and activists believe the judgment -- because of what it says, how it follows similar rulings in other states and where it happened, in one of the most conservative states in the country -- has special significance.

Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Wednesday "a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas," while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's head predicted the ruling "hastens the day when all loving couples who simply want the ability to share the benefits and responsibilities of marriage can."

For all the courageous progressives who are there, fighting to make their home better, Texas is one of those retrograde states where the adoption of marriage equality will take time and meet an enormous backlash from the Republicans who run things.

For now, public opinion in Texas is generally against marriage equality. That may change, and likely will, over time, but rights are rights regardless of public opinion and that's where, like it or not, these rulings are necessary, the federal judiciary stepping in to strike down discriminatory state laws, just as was necessary during the civil rights era when both legislatures and public opinion were resistant, to say the least, to change.

I'm not sure just how "historic" yesterday was for Texas, but this ruling, coming in one of the reddest of red states, is certainly a huge step in the right direction.