In which Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) decides that homeless veterans do not deserve federal funds. Hat tip to Steve Benen.

Steve Benen writes the defense post that I've been considering for the last few days. He's asking, so where are those responsible Republican fiscal hawks who believe "smaller government is better government" when the defense budget comes up for discussions? Answer - they never really existed.

It's a reminder that when Republicans block domestic spending on areas like extended unemployment insurance, what we're seeing is a reflection of priorities -- the already-enormous Pentagon budget is important (even if it means funding programs the Defense Department doesn't want) and struggling families aren't.

It's also a reminder that Republican talk about fiscal responsibility is a shallow scam. Putting aside the fact that GOP interest in the issue is quite new -- these are, after all, the same Republican officials who added $5 trillion to the debt in just eight years -- it's also incredibly narrow. They want to reduce the deficit, but if you raise the prospect of tax increases, now that tax rates are at their lowest rates since the days of Harry Truman, they balk. They want to get spending under control, but if you even mention modest cuts to the breathtaking Pentagon budget, the GOP looks for a fainting couch.

Meanwhile, with European countries embracing austerity measures, what's on the chopping block? Their defense budgets, of course. Prominent conservative voices like to say that we should do what Greece and others in Europe are doing, and look to scale back dramatically, but they're apparently hoping we don't pay too close attention to the kind of measures getting cut.

Continuing the discussion in Bruce Bartlett's post, there's a good thread of comments making the point that cutting defense does not automatically equate to reducing national security interests. There's no question that we could cut back on acquisition projects, eliminate more bases, consolidate military logistics, medical and transportation functions, let the State Dept do nation-building and partner coalition efforts. There's no forcing mechanism right now, because Congress has no appetite suppressant. But we knew that.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (877)

PLAYS: (3133)

Embed

Steve Benen draws our attention to a speech given by Sarah Palin last Friday in Kentucky to an evangelical women's group called Women of Joy, one in which she appears to deny the existence of church-state separation:

I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.

As Greg Sargent observes, this is historical nonsense; many of the Founders were practicing Deists who ardently believed in separating religion from the conduct of secular politics:

There was a time when this sort of thing would provoke widespread media mockery and perhaps even be seen as a potential disqualifier for the presidency.

Ah, but we live in an age where a cable-TV network is doing the presidential qualifying for us.

What was perhaps most noteworthy -- and disturbing -- about Palin's speech, though, was how she publicly called out and thanked the "Prayer Warriors" who were out there on her side:

Palin: Given the chaos these days, just kind of standing up and speaking out for common sense has kind of become a full-time job. And it's keeping me pretty busy. And some days are kind of crazy. And my faith, my family -- they are what keep me grounded, keep me going.

Prayer Warriors all across the country -- and I know some of you are here tonight -- your prayer shield allows me and others to go forth. You give out strength, providing a prayer shield. That is the only way to put one foot in front of the other, and get through some of these days with joy.

I don't know how any politician could, or would want to do this, without knowing that there were prayer warriors out there, holding you up and seeking strength and wisdom for you. ... I am so appreciative of their efforts.

Thanks largely to the reportage of Max Blumenthal, we've known for some time that Palin was religiously affiliated with the "Prayer Warriors," but this is perhaps her first open public acknowledgment of it.

Who are the "Prayer Warriors"? Funny you should ask that: Bill Berkowitz explored that question for AlterNet:

Imagine a religious movement that makes geographic maps of where demons reside and claims among its adherents the Republican Party's most recent vice presidential nominee and whose leaders have presided over prayer sessions (one aimed at putting the kibosh on health-care reform) with a host of leading GOP figures.

It's a movement whose followers played a significant role in the battle over Proposition 8, California's anti-same-sex marriage initiative, and Uganda's infamous proposed Anti-Homosexuality Law, more commonly associated with the Family, a religious network of elites drawn from the ranks of business and government throughout the world. But the movement we're imagining encompasses the humble and the elite alike, supporting a network of "prayer warriors” in all 50 states, within the ranks of the U.S. military, and at the far reaches of the globe -- all guided by an entire genre of books, texts, videos and other media.

Imagine that, and you've just dreamed up the New Apostolic Reformation, the largest religious movement you've never heard of.

Continue reading »

Dan Hicks And His Hot Licks - How Can I Miss You When You Won't Go Away?

If it's Sunday, you know that it's time for John McCain to show up on one of the bobblehead shows. According to Benen, McCain amazingly didn't show up on a single Sunday show through the month of March. However, that's not to say he hasn't been highly visible. Since Obama's inauguration, today's Fox News Sunday appearance marks his 21st on the Sunday shows. And how many times have we seen Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer or any other congressional Democrat? Yeah, that's what I thought. McCain has been on the Sunday show circuit more than any other public official. The question for the media is WHY???

I do want to share a tête-à-tête I had on Saturday. One of my Twitter/Facebook "friends" is Jake Tapper, interim host of This Week. Yesterday, he was pimping his interview with former president Bill Clinton, saying that Clinton would address the violent and hateful rhetoric from the left. Well, that just wasn't going to fly with me, and I scolded him for falling for the media's false equivalencies once again. He in turn told me that I needed to chill out, watch the interview and to save my outrage. Don't you love the patronizing attitude? When I tried to explain to him that the very framing was objectionable, he repeated that I needed to watch the interview. So, you, my dear C&Lers, please watch Tapper interview Clinton. But pay attention to the framing of the questions--and you tell me, is Tapper setting up another false equivalency? If he is, I'm going to call him on it and invite him to respond here on the blog.

ABC's "This Week" - Former President Bill Clinton.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Gov. Ed Rendell, D-Pa.; Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Joe Klein, Kathleen Parker, Norah O'Donnell, John Heilemann. Topics: All The New Rage: How Dangerous Is The Current Anti-Washington Anger? Would the GOP Recapture The House With A Gingrich-LikeContract With America? Meter Questions: Should Republicans Issue A New Contract With America? YES: 11 NO: 1; Will President Obama Win Comprehensive Middle East Peace? YES: 3 No: 9.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - First, we have an exclusive conversation with the Foreign Minister of Poland, one of the few leaders who was not on that plane -- he'll talk about how Poland goes on after such a staggering tragedy. Plus, we talk to the man who effectively oversees the global financial system and we have a lively debate over what appears to be the Obama administration's bold new approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Gen. Ray Odierno, top American commander in Iraq.

So what's catching your eye this morning?

Hat tip to Steve Benen.

Following up on self-acclaimed "nuclear expert" Rudy Giuliani's opinions on Obama's Nuclear Posture Review, we have this quote by Mackenzie Eaglen (Heritage Foundation):

The Nuclear Posture Review unnecessarily takes sovereign U.S. options off the table when responding to various types of chemical or biological attacks.

Americans intuitively understand the flaw in this approach. Special agent Jack Bauer of "24" had to thwart terrorists attempting to steal nerve gas. If this had actually occurred, the President should not tie one hand behind the nation's back when evaluating the appropriate response to defend American citizens.

The mind reels. Really? We're supposed to build national strategy based on fictional action dramas? Well, I suppose it's not unprecedented.

World Net Daily's latest cover (h/t FreakOutNation)

To paraphrase my buddy Steve Benen, it's illuminating to hear what Republicans say when they don't think anyone's listening:

Ben Smith had this major scoop yesterday:

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on "fear" of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and "tchochkes."[..]

The party's fundraising presentation suggests the Republican National Committee thinks its own supporters are idiots. All the party has to do is exploit contributors' "fears," and expect the checks to come rolling in.

And to stoke those fears, the RNC's message to these dupes includes telling them that contributions to Republicans will help "save the country from trending toward socialism!" One slide in the presentation refers to U.S. leaders as "the Evil Empire," with a picture of the president as the Joker from Batman, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.

How did such a document reach the media? It wasn't leaked: "The 72-page document was provided to POLITICO by a Democrat, who said a hard copy had been left in the hotel hosting the $2,500-a-head retreat, the Gasparilla Inn & Club."

Oops.

Oops, indeed. Maybe the RNC leadership is about as smart as the donors they sneer at.

While I don't relish the ugliness that is sure to come--and the inevitable lies and distortions--I see this as the last desperate grasps of a party that sees a whole lot more hurt in front of them come Election Day than the media will ever acknowledge.

As we've been witnessing, the democratic process is broken in America and movement conservatism has corrupted our ability to govern. In any party there usually are different factions within that party. Some might be more moderate than others, but when a party wins a mandate in a general election they are usually allowed to govern.

That doesn't apply when Republicans are out of power. Yes, we have terrible politicians manning the Democratic Congress, but it's almost unprecedented when one party just votes no, so that even if you have a strong majority in the Senate, one Senator from the other side has the power to stop all legislation. So even if you're in a huge minority, the filibuster can sink legislation or hold up personal appointments every time.

The media are feckless and ineffective. They love the fight game and are more interested in ratings and clashing personalities than they are in actually reporting the news. So they allow a minority party that was soundly trounced in two elections (2006,2008) to maintain their defiance to the American people. And then they blame it on the party differences within the Democratic Party.

And we can't forget the conservative media that drives their narratives to millions of people a day. Fox News and AM talk radio do have a huge influence on the American people and the politicians in Congress, and they should never be ignored.

Our old pal Steve Benen writes a nice lengthy post on this, and his solutions are ideas that the blogosphere has been touting the entire time to break the logjam.

* Start using the phrase "up-or-down vote" all the time.

* Take advantage of every opportunity. Using reconciliation as much as humanly possible should be a no-brainer. The "nuclear option" should be put on the table, too. Endorse Harkin/Shaheen. Scour the rules and procedural minutiae and figure out if Republicans who want to filibuster can't be forced to literally do so. Search for GOP statesmen -- Lugar? -- and ask if they're really willing to destroy the workings of the United States Senate.

* Go on the offensive. Organize rallies in Maine and explain that Olympia Snowe, by endorsing her party's obstructionism, is single-handedly responsible for the fact that Congress can't function, and it's within her power to put things right and let key bills get up-or-down votes.

* Give voters who elected Democrats something to be excited about. Voters will be impressed with accomplishments, so maybe it'd be wise to give them some. Dems can start by passing the damn health care reform package.

It's not too late. Finish health care. Pass a jobs bill. Go after irresponsible banks. Bring some safeguards to Wall Street. Fix student loans. Pass an energy bill. Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This not a fanciful wish-list; it's all entirely feasible.

Digby posts an idea from one of here commenters:

A reader writes in to Talking Points Memo with this observation:

Why do you think Congressional Democrats have had such a hard time dealing with Republican obstructionism? It's been apparent for months that Republicans are unwilling to compromise on legislative initiatives, unless by compromise you mean that they will allow Democrats to agree with their proposals. In such an environment, it is pointless for Democratic lawmakers to ask themselves whether there is a way they can craft legislation so that some Republicans will be willing to vote for their proposal - there is simply no provision that Democrats can add or remove from a bill that will make Republicans want to vote for a Democratic proposal. And yet we keep seeing efforts - like the Baucus jobs bill - in which leading Democrats tinker with or even gut their own proposals in a fruitless effort to get Republicans to sign on to the legislation.

If Democrats in Congress behaved like the Republicans have after being trounced for the last four years, the media and the Village would be screaming bloody murder at them. The Washington Post led by David Broder would be lashing out every day: 'How dare they be such obstructionists," Broder would say, and all of his colleagues would follow suit.

And like clockwork, the Dems would be afraid of a backlash from voters and would once again pass legislation like Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the bankruptcy bill, to name a few.

They must pass health care to get the ball rolling on their side. You want a commission? I got one. They should put together a Procedure Commission to investigate every nook and cranny that is available to them to pass legislation.

A Tiny Revolution: Paddy Chayefsky and the Supreme Corporate's idiotic decision.

Washington Monthly: Steve Benen's strategy memo on health care reform.

Pam's House Blend: Homosexuality is like... anorexia?

Lance Mannion: Tax credits? Tax credits?

Satirical Political Report: Massachusetts lesson learned.

Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck and the tea bag crowd don't know much about history, but it's International Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Guest post by Batocchio. Temporarily e-mail tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com.

DOWNLOADS: (669)

PLAYS: (1719)

Embed

(h/t Heather.)

Here's Steve Benen with a roundup on Monday's biggest story in healthcare reform:

The story of the day is not Ben Nelson introducing a Senate version of the Stupak language -- the smart money is on it failing (I'd put the over/under at 43) -- but rather a "sweetener" for the left, to make another public option compromise more palatable.

Sam Stein, Ezra Klein, and Brian Beutler are all reporting the same thing: an expansion of Medicare eligibility is on the table.

Senate Democrats are discussing the idea of expanding Medicare by lowering the age at which the elderly could enter the government-run insurance program, Democratic sources on the Hill tell the Huffington Post.

The proposal would lower the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 55, though an age limit of 60 has also been suggested. Crucial details -- such as the timing of the implementation of such a reform -- were not provided due to the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the deliberations. A high-ranking Democratic source off the Hill confirmed that such discussions are taking place.

Lowering the floor for Medicare is one of several ideas being discussed as a way to pacify progressives upset over the potential elimination of a public option for insurance coverage, one of the sources added.

As you'll remember, I've been talking about this for a while as their Hail Mary pass, and Howard Dean suggested the same thing. After all, if they don't give people something before the midterm elections, they're in real trouble.

And this is also to pacify the crotchety old liberals who've made life so very unpleasant for the Congressional handmaidens of the insurance industry. And while I wouldn't mind having this, it still doesn't solve the real problem: Namely, no competition for the insurance industry.

And it doesn't do a damned thing for people like my uninsured son, who will still be forced to buy crappy, overpriced insurance. I'm not willing to throw young people under the bus. (And I hope my kids remember that when it comes time to "reform" Social Security.)

Stay tuned. It's gonna be a hell of a fight.

Via Steve Benen, some pretty interesting news that probably will not shock you. So we're not the only ones feeling less than enthusiastic about Democratic performance, huh:

The latest Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos included the usual question on the generic congressional ballot, with Dems still enjoying a modest edge over Republicans, 37% to 32%, with 31% unsure. Democratic numbers were strongest in the Northeast (53% Dems, 7% GOP), and Republican numbers were strongest in the South (51% GOP, 21% Dems).

But this poll added a new question to the mix to measure voter enthusiasm: "In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?" The overall results aren't nearly as interesting as the partisan breakdown.

Among self-identified Republican voters, 81% are either "definitely" voting next year or "probably" voting, while 14% are "not likely" to vote or will "definitely" not vote.

Among self-identified Independent voters, 65% are either "definitely" voting next year or "probably" voting, while 23% are "not likely" to vote or will "definitely" not vote.

And among self-identified Democratic voters, 56% are either "definitely" voting next year or "probably" voting, while 40% are "not likely" to vote or will "definitely" not vote.

Markos, who called the results "shocking," explained:

Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will "definitely not vote" in 2010 than are Republicans.

This enormous enthusiasm gap ... seems to make passing legitimate health care reform an absolute political necessity for Democrats. This polling data certainly should be something for Congressional leadership to consider, as they move along the legislative path.

The notion of an enthusiasm gap this year is not exactly new, but we haven't seen numbers quite this stark until now.