“Modern conservatives ... have tended to discount the moral value of the average person, focusing instead on extolling the moral superiority of the great”

...................................................................................................................................................................
A Darker Kind of Politics
By Reihan Salam, March 31, 2014

Last week, I write a short post in which I gave Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) credit for her new EITC expansion proposal. And though I didn’t endorse the proposal, I’ve noticed that some of Murray’s allies were pleased to see a conservative take her proposal seriously. That’s fair enough. My intention was to give credit where credit is due, and Murray deserves credit for devising an attractive, work-friendly policy that addresses the marriage penalty for low-income households.

The Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne also praised Murray’s proposal, and he added some thoughts on the political right:

Writing earlier this year in National Affairs magazine, Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was more biting. “Modern conservatives,” he argued, “have tended to discount the moral value of the average person, focusing instead on extolling the moral superiority of the great.” 

Two other conservative thinkers, Reihan Salam and Rich Lowry, say the antidote is for Republicans to become “the party of work.” As they see it, work “stands for a constellation of values and, like education, is universally honored.” The GOP, they said, “should extol work and demand it.” 

Yes, that last phrase — “demand it” — could lead to a darker kind of politics involving the demonization of those who simply can’t find jobs. Thus did Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., get into trouble for mourning “this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working.” 

No matter what Ryan was trying to say, he seemed to be emphasizing the flaws of the unemployed themselves rather than the cost of economic injustice. My Post colleague Eugene Robinson captured this well: “Blaming poverty on the mysterious influence of ‘culture’ is a convenient excuse for doing nothing to address the problem.”

One way of reading this last paragraph is that it really doesn’t matter what Ryan was trying to say as long as it seemed, to someone somewhere, that he was blaming the unemployed, despite the fact that blaming the unemployed was plainly not his intention. Ryan went so far as to say that he had been “inarticulate” in his remarks. Yet that is immaterial. The first priority of Ryan’s critics is not to engage with his thinking, but rather to delegitimate it. And when Rich Lowry and I argue that public policy ought to have a strong pro-work bias, Dionne states that we point towards “a darker kind of politics.” Keep in mind that we’ve explicitly called for policies designed to fight entrenched poverty and the cultural isolation that comes with it, both in the article in question and in various other articles we’ve written over the years. Moreover, Dionne is convinced that conservatives who oppose imposing the same statutory minimum wage in Connecticut and Mississippi are unserious:

In making their case, Salam and Lowry quoted Abraham Lincoln on the need “to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man.” If conservatives are serious about this (and about the honest, laboring woman, too) they’ll join Murray in raising the minimum wage and in seeking a tax code more in harmony with the dignity of work.

But what if, in the interests of protecting the least of us, Lowry and I take seriously the prospect that a higher statutory minimum might shut people with limited skills and experience out of the formal labor market, or that it will have a negative impact on net job growth? What if we believe that the best antidote for entrenched poverty is not an increase in anti-poverty spending as such but rather a broader effort to combat economic and cultural isolation, which will include an effort to reform labor market measures that expand rather than shrink the ranks of the marginalized and excluded, like occupational licensing requirements and employer taxes that raise the fixed costs of employment? I don’t make a habit of suggesting that those who disagree with me on various public policy questions are unserious, as I am keenly aware of my limitations. I’d be delighted if this attitude became somewhat more widespread.
...................................................................................................................................................................

OKCupid says Chrome is a better browser anyway so why continue to use Firefox, enriching its CEO who allegedly opposes equal rights for gay couples

...................................................................................................................................................................
OkCupid Is Boycotting Firefox Over Its New CEO's Anti-Gay Politics
By John Boone, March 31, 2014

Honestly, we didn't know people used OkCupid on a real Internet browser, and not just on their smart phone at 3:00 a.m. when they're drunk and there's no one left at the bar, and they can't go home and cuddle a pizza...again.

But apparently people do? And OkCupid users who try to access the site on Firefox are now greeted with this message: "Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience," it says. "Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid." 

The rest of the letter reads:

Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there's a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we're asserting ourselves today. This is why: we've devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we've worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it's professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure. 

If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site. However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid.

OkCupid's problem with Eich goes back to a $1,000 donation he made in support of Prop 8, the bill that attempted to ban gay marriage in California. His donation, made under his name and as an employee of Mozilla, is public record (sidebar: Shoutout to Jonathan Dicarlo at Mozilla, who donated the same amount in opposition of Prop 8. Good job, Jonathan Dicarlo!)

"Granted, his contribution is now six years in the past, and people can change," OkCupid writes. "But Mr. Eich's boilerplate statements in the time since make it seem like he has the same views now as he did then. Mozilla recently promoted him to CEO, hence the issue only now coming to our attention."

They continue, "His donation was known to Mozilla at the time of his promotion, and...CEOs are rewarded based on their company's performance. The CEO is the visionary for a company and its products. We are sad to think that any OkCupid page loads would even indirectly contribute towards the success of an individual who supported Prop 8—and who for all we know would support it again. We wish Mozilla's institutional commitment to freedom and openness were better reflected by their choice of leadership."

OkCupid isn't the only one speaking out against Eich. Some of his employees at Mozilla have called for him to step down as CEO, with one saying the company "stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way." 

Eich responded in a blog post, writing, "I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla...I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion."

He gives what could be described as one of those sorry-if-you're-offended apologies, but continues, "I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to ‘show, not tell'; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."

So, now we wait and watch. And OkCupid users will have to switch over to Chrome to troll for their hookups. Which you should be doing anyway. Aside from anything having to do with marriage equality, it's just a better browser.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Republicans are trying to walk a tightrope

...................................................................................................................................................................
5 key insights into the GOP's political strategy
By Taegan Goddard, March 31, 2014

We had a fascinating discussion on the Political Wire podcast about GOP legislative and political strategy in 2014 and beyond with Washington Post political reporter Robert Costa, who has arguably followed Republicans on Capitol Hill more closely than any other reporter.

Here are five takeaways:

1. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's strategy ahead of the midterm elections: Sound more moderate without being too moderate. Cantor, a Virginia Republican, is trying to expand his party's majority in the House this November and "to do that he has to sound a little more centrist" in how he guides the party, Costa said. That may be particularly important because after last October's government shutdown, the GOP took a beating in the polls and became increasingly viewed by the public as ideologically rigid. At the same time, Cantor can't come off as too moderate, or he'll rankle staunch conservatives and Tea Party members in his caucus. Cantor, in trying to strike the right balance, has sought to soften his tone on issues like immigration and health research funding without drastically straying from conservative principles, Costa said. "That's the Cantor dilemma, that's the Cantor challenge: How do you sound more moderate without becoming more moderate?" Cantor has suggested the need for at least some small steps on immigration reform, and has promoted a pediatric research measure.

2. Seeing their Senate-control hopes rising, Republicans are trying to play it safe legislatively ahead of November. Despite Cantor's new center-right overtures, don't expect the GOP to put out huge or innovative policy proposals this year, Costa said. Republicans may not bring anything on immigration reform to the House floor this year, even though Cantor himself has suggested the need for a DREAM Act-like measure. Meanwhile, any ObamaCare alternatives that Republicans do bring up will include safe, non-sweeping provisions involving health-insurance purchases across state lines or health savings accounts. "There's a sense in Republican ranks that because the math is looking better, play it safe in Congress — just focus on an anti-White House, pro-jobs, pro-growth message, and see where the chips fall."

3. The Tea Party's influence in Congress has decreased a fair amount. The 2013 government shutdown, brought on with the help of Tea Party Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), inflicted significant damage on the GOP's political brand. The party has since seen its 2014 midterm prospects brighten, but Republicans may be wary of squandering this advantage by taking political risks like the ones they took last fall. "Because the shutdown caused so much political pain, inside Congress I think the political capital of Cruz and his allies in the House has slightly diminished over the past few months," Costa said. But one place to find the Tea Party-versus-establishment battle alive and well is outside Congress, particularly in primaries where Tea Party-oriented and small-government outside groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are spending money and going on the air.

4. Don't rule out Scott Brown in New Hampshire. Although opponents of the GOP former senator from Massachusetts may be quick to call him a carpetbagger, he's still worth watching in the Granite State, Costa argued. Brown is politically talented, and his blue-collar roots and centrist stances could appeal in New Hampshire, which is far more moderate than the state that Brown once represented in the Senate. "I think Scott Brown presents the New Hampshire GOP, even though he's from out of state, with a very electable, high-name-ID candidate," Costa said. The main problem for Brown: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) remains popular in the state: "She's no pushover."

5. Sen. Rand Paul has a legitimate shot to get the level of Republican support that long eluded his father — and widen the GOP's tent. "He's trying not only to expand the GOP's reach, but you see Rand Paul signaling to the Republican establishment that he wants to be taken seriously, that he can expand the party's coalition, and that he can build a network beyond what they may dismiss as his old crew," Costa said. The Kentucky Republican's relatively libertarian views on certain social issues, namely marijuana, may be more in touch with views of the rising Republican electorate, as well as with U.S. public opinion more generally. And his fiscally conservative and states' rights-oriented views should resonate with most other Republicans, Costa said. Paul's main dilemma: "How does he show that he's a national force and not get marginalized at the same time? I think there's going to be a real push against him on foreign policy." Paul is trying to walk a fine line between non-interventionism and the hawkishness of the GOP's old guard.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"With dubious “facts” and over-the-top charges, the Wisconsin chapter of the Koch Brothers-backed group is pouring money into the county..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
How to Vote Against the Koch Brothers
By John Nichols, March 31, 2014

The Koch Brothers don't actually run for office—at least not since David Koch's amusingly ambitious 1980 bid for the vice presidency on a Libertarian Party ticket that proposed the gutting of corporate taxes, the minimum wage, occupational health and safety oversight, environmental protections and Social Security.

That project, while exceptionally well-funded for a third-party campaign, secured just 1.06 percent of the vote. The Kochs determined it would be easier to fund conservative campaigns than to pitch the program openly. Initially, the project was hampered by what passed for campaign-finance rules and regulations, to the frustration of David Koch, who once told The New Yorker, "We'd like to abolish the Federal Elections Commission and all the limits on campaign spending anyway."

The FEC still exists. But the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v FEC and the general diminution of campaign finance rules and regulations has cleared the way for David Koch and his brother Charles to play politics as they choose. And they are playing hard—especially in Wisconsin, a state where they have made supporting and sustaining the governorship of Scott Walker a personal priority.

Two years ago, David Koch said of Walker: "We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at this over the years. We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more." The Palm Beach Post interview in which that quote appeared explained, "By 'we' he says he means Americans for Prosperity," the group the Kochs have used as one of their prime vehicles for political engagement in the states.

AFP and its affiliates are expanding their reach this year, entering into fights at the local level where their big money can go far—and where the Koch Brothers can influence the process from the ground up.

As Walker prepares to seek a second term. AFP is clearing the way in supposedly nonpartisan county board and school board races that will occur Tuesday.

Consider the case of Iron County. Elections in the northern Wisconsin county have always been down-home affairs: an ad in the Iron County Miner newspaper, some leaflets dropped at the door, maybe a hand-painted yard sign.

This year, however, that’s changed. Determined to promote a controversial mining project—and, presumably, to advance Walker’s agenda—AFP has waded into Tuesday’s competition for control of the Iron County Board.

With dubious “facts” and over-the-top charges, the Wisconsin chapter of the Koch Brothers-backed group is pouring money into the county—where voter turnout in spring elections rarely tops 1,500—for one of the nastiest campaigns the region has ever seen. Small-business owners, farmers and retirees who have asked sensible questions about the impact of major developments on pristine lakes, rivers, waterfalls and tourism are being attacked as “anti-mining radicals” who “just want to shut the mines down, no matter what.”

Iron County is debating whether to allow new mining, not whether to shut mines down. And many of the candidates that AFP is ripping into have simply said they want to hear from all sides.

But those details don’t matter in the new world of Big Money politics ushered in by US Supreme Court rulings that have cleared the way for billionaires and corporations to buy elections.

Most of the attention to money in politics focuses on national and state races. But the best bargains for billionaires are found at the local level—where expenditures in the thousands can overwhelm the pocket-change campaigns of citizens who run for county boards, city councils and school boards out of a genuine desire to serve and protect their community.

That’s why it is important to pay attention to Tuesday’s voting in Iron County—and in communities such as Kenosha, where the group has waded into local school board races. The Kenosha contest goes to the core issues of recent struggles over collective-bargaining rights in Wisconsin, pitting candidates who are willing to work with teachers and their union in a historically pro-labor town versus contenders who are being aided by the Koch Brothers contingent in Wisconsin.

But it is equally important to pay attention to the efforts by citizens, working at the local level, to upend the big money and to restore politics of, by and for the people.

The month of March started with a grassroots rebellion in New Hampshire, where dozens of towns called on their elected representatives to work to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court's Citizens United decision.

On Tuesday, the same day the Kochs are meddling in local elections in the state, communities across the state will vote to get money out of politics.

Clean-politics advisory referendums are on ballots across Wisconsin. Belleville, DeForest, Delavan, Edgerton, Elkhorn, Lake Mills, Shorewood, Waterloo, Waukesha, Waunakee, Wauwatosa, Whitefish Bay and Windsor will have an opportunity to urge their elected representatives to support an amendment to restore the authority of local, state and national officials to establish campaign finance rules ensuring that votes matter more than dollars. The initiative is backed by groups like Move to Amend and United Wisconsin. “The unlimited election spending by special-interest groups, allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, has drowned out the voices of ordinary people,” says United Wisconsin Executive Director Lisa Subeck. “Urgent action is needed to restore our democracy to the hands of the people.”

That urgency is especially real in rural communities—places like Iron County. That's why the Wisconsin Farmers Union is calling for a “yes” vote. “Citizens of all political stripes—Republicans, Democrats and independents—agree that we need to curb the corrupting influence of money in politics,” says WFU Executive Director Tom Quinn. “Voting yes…will send a clear message that we the people are ready to take back our democracy.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... this case could backfire on the GOP." Let's hope so!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Hobby Lobby politics
By Rick Holmes, March 30, 2014

Putting aside the constitutional issues (which won’t be easy for some of us here), and the impact on the Affordable Care Act (another irresistible topic), think about the way hard cases – which often involve extremes – can define the politics of the moment once people choose sides. 

Hobby Lobby puts contraception at the center of contention. In the broadest, and most emotional terms, the conservatives want birth control to be less freely available, while the liberals want it to be more available.

People have been genuinely split over abortion since Roe v. Wade, and polls show the numbers haven’t changed much.  But on birth control, a lot more people are in favor of a woman’s choice on birth control than favor restrictions imposed by government – or employers. 

Who feels most strongly about access to birth control? Women – especially single women of child-bearing age – and young people who tend to be sexually active and economically insecure.  Those are two of the demographic groups that heavily favor Democrats.  If they decided the cheerleaders for Hobby Lobby are a threat to their personal lives, this case could backfire on the GOP. 
...................................................................................................................................................................

Christie: "Does this show he’s fit for the Oval Office?" No, we don't think so.....

...................................................................................................................................................................
Christie's Bridgegate defense is hardly presidential: Editorial
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board, March 30, 2014

Gov. Chris Christie stood in front of news reporters for the first time in nearly three months Friday, and told them a story that was flatly unbelievable.

It wasn’t even his own story. It was pieced together for him by a team of lawyers, who did exactly what they were hired to do: present an entirely one-sided view of events, for the purpose of protecting their client. And it was paid for by us, the taxpayers of New Jersey — at a cost of 1 million bucks.

So forget the reasons Christie ostensibly summoned the media that day. It was obvious that Port Authority Chairman David Samson had to go, and that the agency is in need of reform.

What this was really about is the governor’s credibility. Christie is hoping this internal investigation, the results of which were released Thursday, will rebuild his reputation — that everyone will forget the details of Bridgegate, and trust him on this.

But there are so many holes in his story, it’s hard to know where to begin.

Why not start with the governor’s core argument: Not only has Christie denied any involvement in the decision to close the access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in September, he initially said he had no idea these entry lanes even existed — at all! — until the accusations surfaced.

Except now we hear that David Wildstein, who engineered the havoc in Fort Lee, says he told the governor about the lane closures on Sept. 11, while they were still underway.

Christie hasn’t denied that. All he’ll say is that he doesn’t remember.

Granted, we don’t know how much the governor was told by Wildstein, who closed the lanes as part of a sham "traffic study." But given all the hubbub in the weeks and months that followed, Christie’s claim that he knew nothing simply isn't credible.

Then there’s that phantom traffic study — a cover-up hatched by a political operative, not a traffic expert. It was hidden from Patrick Foye, the executive director of the Port Authority, as well as Fort Lee officials, local police and emergency responders. The Port Authority has yet to produce a paper trail to prove it ever existed.

Yet what did Christie repeat once again Friday? "It appears that there was a traffic study."

His blindness on this is willful. The fact that Christie has embraced this cover-up shows he was never interested in getting to the truth.

So does his treatment of Bridget Anne Kelly, Wildstein’s co-conspirator. In the sexist report by Christie’s lawyers, for which they did not interview Kelly, she is smeared as a jilted woman in the grips of some form of hysteria, who took her emotions out on Fort Lee commuters.

But maybe we’d know more about the actual motive behind the lane closures, instead of her rumored love life, if Christie had actually sat his former aide down and asked what happened before he fired her.

He’s said he didn’t do so because he didn’t want to interfere with any future investigation. Yet now his lawyers release a parallel report before the feds move, after sending intimidating letters to witnesses?

Give us a break. Christie’s questioning of Kelly didn’t have to be private. He could have invited third-party observers. No, the real reason he didn’t ask her is because he didn’t want to know.

So even if you give Christie every possible benefit of the doubt, and are gullible enough to believe his lawyers’ every word, this 360-page report makes him out to be clueless.

This is the crux of his defense. He wants us to trust him with the presidency — but ask yourself: Does this show he’s fit for the Oval Office?
...................................................................................................................................................................

Democratic fund-raising emails that criticize the Koch brothers can triple the haul

...................................................................................................................................................................
I can vouch for this.  Readership of posts about the Kochs really spikes above posts about normal political activities.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Facts & Figures: The Koch Brothers
By The Editors, March 24, 2014

Slate’s David Weigel looked at fundraising emails from a Democratic campaign and, based on a non-scientific sample, found that criticizing the Koch brothers can triple the haul.

I’ve seen some numbers from fundraising emails from one campaign that were sent from roughly mid-January to mid-March, pretty bad news cycles for the party. Nineteen emails didn’t mention the Kochs. They raised, in total, $48,146.30, for an average of $2,534.02 per message. 

But five emails mentioned, in at least some way, the Koch brothers. Those asks raised $32,668.72, an average of $6,533.74 per email.

...................................................................................................................................................................

Right-wing GOP strong-arm politics, Kansas style

...................................................................................................................................................................
Parties and Politicians: Seeking Advantage
By Burdett Loomis, March 30, 2014

“Politics ain’t beanbag,” wrote that eminent political philosopher and New York state senator, George Washington Plunkitt, who wryly observed politics from his perch in the Democrats’ Tammany Hall near the turn of the 20th Century. His tart statement was true then, and it’s true now.

Writing a hundred years after Plunkitt’s 1905 memoir, political scientist John Aldrich asked a simple question in his book titled Why Parties? It’s an elegant volume, mixing theory and history, but in the end Aldrich arrives at an answer that Plunkitt would have understood in a second. Aldrich concludes that parties are creations of ambitious politicians, who want predictability and control in the inherently unpredictable world of politics. Thus, the wisdom of both the scholar and the pol can help us understand a host of recent power plays in Kansas’s electoral politics.

Since 2012, in the pursuit of alleged reform or simplicity or fairness, Kansas Republicans have enacted or proposed a raft of bills that have or would change the way we conduct our elections.

To be sure, subject to court challenges, these various pieces of legislation are perfectly legal, but their sum effect will provide further advantages to the right wing of the majority party in this oh-so-red state.

We’re all familiar with Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s campaign to free Kansas from (non-existent) voting fraud, to the point of restricting registration and voting access through the requirements for photo identification at the polls and proof of citizenship at the time of registration. As of a recent federal court decision, many Kansans will be prevented from voting in 2014 and still more may be discouraged from casting a ballot.

Just this past week, Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that would increase the deadline for switching party registration from two weeks before the August primary election to June 1. At least in this case Republican state legislators were reacting to an actual problem. Well, a problem from the perspective of right-wing Republicans, in that Sen. Vicki Schmidt (R-Shawnee) beat back a conservative challenge in 2012 with the help of a few hundred votes from Democrats who switched parties. God forbid that Kansans be free to choose whom they want to represent them, especially when the primary winner is a prohibitive favorite in the general election.

The beat goes on. Republican legislators have proposed moving local elections for city and county commissions and school boards away from their traditional spring dates and folding them into the fall federal election schedule. This would save money and increase turnout, the proponents argue. That’s true on the surface, but there are many good reasons for separating local elections and their particular issues from national contests.

Initially, the proposal called for making these non-partisan elections into partisan ones, with party labels serving as “guides” to voters. Such a transparent partisan power grab was rejected, but the proposal to change the dates remains alive. This means that the electorate would be far more partisan than in stand-alone spring elections, which is exactly the point.

Finally, in an arcane bit of party-based finagling, the Kansas Senate will likely enact a bill that will require a Senate leadership Political Action Committee, organized by moderate GOP senators, to disband. This is pure strong-arm politics, carried out by the right-wing GOP majority.

As a political scientist, I’m not at all surprised by such actions, large and small, which systematically seek partisan advantage. But let’s be clear. These are completely partisan maneuvers, designed to reduce the power of the overall Kansas electorate and, with the registration/voting restrictions, shape the nature of our voting population for years to come. Moreover, none of them addresses a serious problem.

George Washington Plunkitt would be proud. In his machine-politics era, the only reason for a party to exist was to sustain itself. And that is just what the governing right-wing faction of the Republican Party is doing in 21st Century Kansas.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... encouraging girls to play sports" is "one way to start equalizing male and female political ambition."

...................................................................................................................................................................
For Women, Being A Jock May Also Signal Political Ambition
By Alexandra Starr, March 29, 2014

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York tries to play tennis a couple of times a week. Sports have been part of her life for a long time, going back to high school when she played tennis and soccer.

Later, at Dartmouth in the late 1980s, Gillibrand served as co-captain of the squash team. What the future senator did not do in college was participate in student government. "I'd gone to one or two young Democratic events, and interestingly, it was almost all male — and all of the men were very aggressive," she says. "And so I didn't really feel like I fit in."

Obviously, running for office in college makes it much more likely the student will get into public life after graduating. But doing competitive sports may also be a good indicator of political ambition.

For a study, Professor Jennifer Lawless at American University asked 2,100 college students if they would consider a career in politics.

"The effect was quite substantial," Lawless says. "Women who played sports and were competitive playing sports were about 25 percent more likely to express an interest in running for office later in life."

There's a boost for men, too, but it's not as big. Serious male athletes are about 15 percent more likely to think about getting into politics. Thing is, men across the board are already much more disposed than women to run. So Lawless sees encouraging girls to play sports as one way to start equalizing male and female political ambition.

"It's clearly a way that we can generate more interest among women and get them to think about running for office," she says.

Now, casually participating in sports isn't enough to have an impact on political ambition. It's the athletes who say they really care about winning who are more likely to consider running. Lawless says there are a couple of skills they pick up playing sports that transfer well to politics.

"The first is the ability to compete and the willingness to lose," she says. "In most cases, if you like sports and you're competitive, although you probably prefer to win, you've gained some familiarity with losing, and you know it's not the end of the world."

That squares with Gillibrand's experience. She says it was a squash match she lost in college that proved most formative. "I played one tough match I remember at Yale. I was so over my head, I got crushed," she says.

She says it was painful at the time, but it also helped prepare her for the contact sport of politics later in life. "I think it takes a level of fear out of something like running for office and putting yourself out there in a competitive contest and letting people choose," she says.

Gillibrand is far from the only female athlete serving on Capitol Hill. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire was a competitive skier in college. She and Gillibrand are in their 40s. They are among the youngest members of the U.S. Senate.

And in the House, Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is a 32-year-old surfer who's also participated in a lot of martial arts training.

Jessica Grounds, co-founder of the group Running Start, an organization that encourages women to run for office, points out that politicians like Gillibrand and Ayotte came of age after the passage of Title IX in 1972. That's the legislation that mandated girls and women have equal access to playing sports.

"We see strong correlations between women who played sports and are now successful CEOs of companies and are not only running for office but successful in their leadership positions," Grounds says.

Since Title IX passed, the number of girls and women participating in school sports went from about 300,000 to more than 3 million. That has implications beyond high school playing fields. It seems it could also make a difference in women's representation in company boardrooms and Congress as well.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... are religious conservatives confusing the pain of finding oneself 'suddenly' in the minority with actually being a victim?" Well, yes, obviously!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Christians, You’re Not Victims
By Gene Robinson, March 30, 2014

From what I read and hear, conservative evangelical Christians are feeling victimized by developments in American culture and in the ways they are being treated under new anti-discrimination laws. In ever greater numbers, they are appealing to the courts to grant them “relief” from regulations that they feel violates their freedom of religion.  “Religious liberty” has become the rallying cry for a legal “remedy” to the violation of what they see as their freedom to practice their religion.

It is understandable that religious conservatives would feel uncomfortable and unsettled by recent developments in the church and in the culture. But are they victims? Is there, as many would claim, a “war on religion?”

This is especially obvious in the changing understanding about homosexuality. In ever-greater numbers, and across every religious and cultural demographic, acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is increasing. In American religious communities, across every denominational demographic, support for equal rights for LGBT people, and particularly support for marriage equality for gay couples, is on the rise. In most denominations, that rise has resulted in majority support even when the denominational hierarchy disagrees.

Why have we seen such a sea change? Twenty years ago, most Americans would have told you they didn’t know anyone who was gay. They may have been suspicious about certain family members or co-workers, but it was not something openly talked about or acknowledged. Now, is there anyone left in America who does not know some family member, former classmate, neighbor, or co-worker to be gay?

And the result of knowing someone gay is that most people are now unwilling to believe or accept all the negative things said about us. The sky has not fallen, nor have church roofs caved in, just because gay marriage is legal in 17 states, plus the District of Columbia. Life goes on pretty much as normal, and in fact, people are seeing that marriage equality strengthens the institution of marriage, rather than undermining it.

For those religious conservatives who see something sinister and immoral in gay and lesbian couples having the right to marry, it must feel as if the moral universe has gone awry. The reaction to this development has engendered a fear that cultural morality is veering out of control. Nothing is as it should be. And it must feel to them that if such a proposition as marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is accepted, nothing will now stop the world from careening out of moral control. That would be a pretty scary place for a religious person to live.

Then, as if to confirm their worst fears, photographers are being compelled to offer their services for gay couples’ weddings (New Mexico), bakers are being made to provide wedding cakes for gay wedding receptions (Colorado), and florists must provide flower arrangements to beautify gay wedding celebrations (Washington). It is important to point out that this is only true for weddings in states where a non-discrimination law is in effect to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation—which, by the way, is only in 21 of the 50 states.

Appeals to the courts are being made for “relief” for this violation of the service providers’ “freedom of religion” and “religious liberty,” claiming that forced compliance with such anti-discrimination laws is a violation of the providers’ free practice of their religion. Indeed, the language used in defiance of these anti-discrimination laws takes on the language of victimization. These providers feel as though they are victims of discrimination themselves based on their religious beliefs.

But I have to ask: are religious conservatives confusing the pain of finding oneself “suddenly” in the minority with actually being a victim? Both feel uncomfortable, even painful, and are fraught with anxiety. But they’re very different.

Here’s what victimization looks like: every day, especially in some places, LGBT people face the real possibility of violence because of their orientation or gender identity. Young people jump off bridges or hang themselves on playground swing sets because of the bullying and discrimination they face. In 29 states, one can be fired from one’s job simply for being gay, with no recourse to the courts. In most places, we cannot legally marry the one we love. Some of us have been kicked out of the house when we come out to our parents, and many young LGBT people find themselves homeless and on the streets because of the attitudes of their religious parents toward their LGBT children. And did I mention the everyday threat of violence?

Compare that to the very painful realization that one’s view of something like homosexuality is in the minority after countless centuries of being in the majority. It may feel like victimization to hang a shingle out to sell something or provide some service to the public, only to find that the “public” includes people one disagrees with or finds immoral in some way. It may feel like it has happened practically overnight, when it has actually been changing over a period of decades. Being pressed to conform to such a change in majority opinion must feel like victimization. But as a society, we would do well to distinguish between real victimization and the also-very-real discouragement felt by those who now find themselves in the minority.

I do not mean to brush aside as inconsequential the feelings of those who find themselves in the minority, whether it be around the topic of gender, race, or sexual orientation. But I do mean to question characterizing such feelings as discrimination, violation of religious freedom, and victimization. It’s time we called out our religious brothers and sisters for misunderstanding their recently-acquired status as members of a shrinking minority as victims.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The Kochs aren't just involved in politics-- their AFP also has its tentacles buried deeply in Big Business

...................................................................................................................................................................
Behind the American oligarchy
By Gene Lyons, March 28, 2014

Let’s put it this way: If the Koch Brothers were Russians, we’d call them oligarchs: grasping barbarians exercising crude political power.

But this is America, where tycoons can buy respectability by throwing money at their wives’ favorite ballet companies and museums. Also by funding “think tanks” staffed by “resident scholars” keen to enhance the boss’s fondest delusion: that great wealth invariably conveys great wisdom.

Hence “Americans for Prosperity,” the group funded by billionaire brothers David H. and Charles G. Koch that’s spending untold millions in 2014 on TV commercials attacking the Affordable Care Act as a government boondoggle that “just doesn’t work.”

The deeper strategy, AFP president Tim Phillips told the New York Times, is to present the law as “a broader cautionary tale” crafted “to change the way voters think about the role of government for years to come.”

Or as the sloganeering sheep in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” might have put it, “Big government bad, big business good!”

Elsewhere, however, big business hasn’t been looking entirely benign of late. Consider three episodes currently in the news: General Motors, the Toyota Motor Corporation, and Duke Energy, the nation’s largest electrical utility.

As so often happens with corporate malfeasance, the details can be hard to believe. Documents turned over to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by General Motors show that company engineers knew about problems with an ignition switch in Chevy Cobalts as long ago as 2001.

That it could be a fatal flaw wasn’t immediately recognized.

The problem appears to have been a defective part manufactured by a GM supplier. Sometimes triggered by a too-heavy keychain swinging from the ignition, it caused the engine to shut off while driving -- resulting in immediate loss of power steering, power brakes, and the failure of the vehicle’s air bags to deploy.

By 2009, however, engineers concluded that the faulty switch played a causal role in several fatal accidents -- although some drivers had been drinking, texting or otherwise distracted -- and that while Cobalts were going out of production, hundreds of thousands were still rolling.

Nevertheless, GM did nothing, while company lawyers fought off or stonewalled lawsuits alleging product liability.

Twenty-three fatal accidents and 26 deaths later, GM finally issued a recall notice for 1.6 million vehicles last month. The company’s recently appointed CEO Mary Barra has been doing public penance and vowing to do everything possible to restore consumer confidence in the GM brand, which will definitely take some doing.

Published accounts of how separate divisions of GM’s giant bureaucracy communicate badly or not at all read like episodes of “Catch-22.” Customer complaints and warranty claims aren’t shared with safety engineers, who in turn have no communication with company lawyers. Meanwhile, nobody was talking to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal agency that belatedly promises a criminal investigation.

Meanwhile, the auto industry press contrasts GM’s “unusually proactive and candid approach” to Toyota’s, which last week admitted criminal guilt and paid a $1.2 billion fine -- the largest against an automaker in U.S. history.

Announcing a settlement, Attorney General Eric Holder said the company had “intentionally concealed information and misled the public” and shamefully showed “blatant disregard for systems and laws.”

At issue were faulty accelerator pedals that caused the cars to rocket out of control. Toyota has recalled as many as 10 million vehicles worldwide, and has been forced to pay tens of millions in fines and lawsuit settlements. Hundreds more civil lawsuits await litigation. What the settlement makes clear is that Toyota’s top management deliberately lied to government investigators both about the mechanical issue and their knowledge of it.

Which brings us to the Tea Party paradise of North Carolina and Duke Energy’s massive coal ash spill into the Dan River -- spreading as many as 82,000 tons of toxic sludge along 70 miles of scenic river bottom. According to the Associated Press, “coal ash contains arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals highly toxic to humans and wildlife.”

In addition to the “accidental” spill, caused by a collapsed corrugated pipe seemingly uninspected since 1986, environmental activists photographed Duke employees pumping an estimated 61 million gallons of coal ash-contaminated water into the Cape Fear River further east.

The resulting uproar has persuaded GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, a 29-year Duke Energy employee (and recipient of some $1.1 million in Duke-sponsored campaign donations), to change his mind about burdensome federal regulation. His state’s toothless regulators will now “partner” with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to pursue joint enforcement against the utility.

Previously, McCrory had scorned the Feds as an impediment to efficient business practices, and made a great show of turning down EPA grant money. Meanwhile, arguing strenuously against stricter regulation of coal ash has been an industry front group called ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) financed by -- you guessed it -- those well-known philanthropists David and Charles Koch.

Americans for Prosperity, indeed.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Democratic ad in Michigan points out that the Koch-backed AFP ads are designed to "... support of an anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda that benefits the bottom lines of AFP’s wealthy backers"

...................................................................................................................................................................
New Dem ad: Koch brothers would take your health care rights away
By Greg Sargent, March 28, 2014

Michigan has emerged as a central front in the Obamacare wars. The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity has bludgeoned Dem Senate candidate Gary Peters with millions in ads featuring a cancer victim and a mom worried about high costs under the law. That has prompted hand-wringing among Dems — and tough questions from reporters — about whether Dems, by getting badly outspent, are letting Republicans successfully broaden the map onto relatively blue-ish territory.

Here’s the answer from Dems. A new ad from the Dem-allied Senate Majority PAC — part of a $3 million ad offensive in five states — takes aim at GOP candidate Terri Lynn Land’s support for repeal, a spot that’s backed by a $500,000 buy in most major Michigan markets:



The ad fuses two Dem strategies — the move to tie Republicans to the Koch brothers, and the attack on Republicans for threatening to take Obamacare’s benefits away from people. If Land is elected, the ad says, “insurance companies will be able to deny you coverage when you get sick.  Women’s access to preventive health care would be cut, while their costs would increase.” The ad says that this is the agenda of the “billionaires” who are “paying for Terri Lynn Land’s Senate seat.”

Interestingly, the ad is in line with advice offered by Paul Begala and David Axelrod: To flip the script on Obamacare by leading with an attack on Republicans for threatening to take away your medical rights, rather than by defensively claiming Dems will fix the law. But, by tying repeal to the Kochs, it also sheds more light on the real purpose of the Dem “Koch addiction” strategy. The goal: To dramatize the GOP policy agenda as a blockade against efforts to increase economic mobility and protect working and middle class Americans from economic harm, maintaining an economic status quo that is rigged against them and for the one percent.

Or, as Alex Seitz-Wald details, this is really about drawing a “contrast by communicating what Republicans stand for in an emotionally salient way.”

The New York Times has spelled out as explicitly as you could want that AFP’s ads feature emotional victims of Obamacare for a deliberate purpose: to delegitimize government as an agent of positive economic change, in support of an anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda that benefits the bottom lines of AFP’s wealthy backers. The message is: Obamacare = the president, the #OBUMMER economy, and all the ways Big Government is making everything worse, so get rid of Obamacare’s enablers, and everything will get better for you.

The Dem response, essentially, is to point out why AFP is running these ads. Today’s Senate Majority PAC response ad features the same sort of emotional footage, only the victims this time are those who are at risk of losing Obamacare’s protections if AFP gets its way. My sense is the main intended audience is independent and moderate women, who are expected to be a key swing constituency in this race.

This new spot doesn’t mention Obamacare — underscoring again that the overall law remains unpopular — only naming popular provisions repeal would take away. It’s unclear whether this will work: the gamble is that people will instinctually know the provisions mentioned would be taken away by GOP repeal of the health law.

More broadly, as I’ve noted before, I have no idea if the Dem “Koch addiction” strategy will succeed. The underlying situation Dems face may be so dire that nothing can sufficiently mitigate built-in GOP advantages, and it’s perfectly possible voters won’t receive the message from it Dems want them to. Still, there’s no harm in understanding what the Dem strategy is actually designed to accomplish.
...................................................................................................................................................................

We need more women in Congress, especially women of color, because "... on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors, and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts"

...................................................................................................................................................................
Nation suffers because of underrepresentation of Black women in politics
By Jazelle Hunt, March 25, 2014

The gaping underrepresentation of women of color on the political stage deeply undermines the American ideal of democratic representation.

That’s a conclusion reached by the Center for American Progress and detailed in an article titled, “Why We Need a Political Leadership Pipeline for Women of Color.”

The article, part of the Center’s Women in Leadership project, was unveiled during a panel event featuring prominent women of color scholars, organizers, and professionals.

“The relative lack of women of color serving in elected office raises grave concerns regarding democratic legitimacy and the fundamental issues of political representation,” the article states. “Lack of representation, of course, can mean a lack of attention to and advocacy for issues important to communities of color. And…translates into a major missed opportunity for the empowerment of underserved communities.”

Today, there are 14 African American women in Congress, less than 3 percent of that body. There is only one woman of color in the Senate, an Asian American. And both delegates to Congress – elected representatives who do not have the right to vote except in committees – are Black women.

The picture is the same at the state level. Black women hold about 3 percent of the country’s 7,383 state legislative seats, across 40 states. Among the 100 largest cities, Baltimore is the only one currently led by a Black woman mayor.

“What I’ve experienced over these years is that if it’s something that’s beyond Black, then it isn’t necessarily obviously seen that a Black woman could be the lead of it,” said panelist Melanie L. Campbell, president and CEO of the Black Women’s Roundtable. “Because it’s a multi-racial or multi-ethnic, so therefore – ‘No, we’ll get to your issue later.’ There’s the reality that, in a broad women’s movement, for Black women and [other] women of color, are we all equal in that opportunity for leadership?”

According to the article, lack of representation in politics results in a lack of attention to issues that affect women and people of color more. Moreover, males and females behave differently in politics.

A 2009 report from now defunct The White House Project notes that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors, and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts.

Even in high-stress professions, women can more than hold their own.

For example, Val Demings, the keynote speaker at the Women in Leadership panel, is the first woman to serve as police chief of Orlando, Florida. In her four-year term, violent crime dropped 40 percent.

A 2006 study in the Journal of Women, Politics & Policy found that Latina representatives in four southwestern states were more likely than their male counterparts to prioritize the needs of African Americans and Asians, as well as women and families.

But women need to be represented in more than token numbers, Demings said.

“I can only speak as a Black woman…but if you don’t see a whole lot of folks who look like you doing what you’re thinking about doing, it’s tough to believe that you can do it,” she said in her keynote address.

After she retired as police chief, the mayor urged her to consider running for Congress.

“I was meeting with a member of Congress and he said to me that women have to be asked about seven times to run for public office before they’ll even consider it,” Demings recalls. “I was floored. I felt like I was a pretty assertive, bold, going-into-places-where-others-would-dare-not-go type of person – but I was on my seventh ask.”

IS SHE RUNNING?

In a 2012 study, American University researchers found that women are both less likely than men to have anyone suggest they run for office, and twice as likely as men to consider themselves “not at all qualified” for the job. Consequently, fewer women – especially women of color – decide to run for office.

“The barriers holding back women of color are undoubtedly much the same as those shown to limit the political ambitions of all women in general: lack of financial resources, weaker social networks, lack of familiarity with the political process, a greater level of responsibility for children and household tasks, and a greater tendency to be more risk-averse than potential male candidates,” the article explains. “The lack of economic support is perhaps one of the greatest barriers for women of color, as they are often the primary or sole caregivers of their children and their elders, earn less, and have considerably less wealth than men of color and white men and women.”

But there is some encouraging news.

According to the Center for American Progress, women of color are increasingly showing up to the polls; African American women voter turnout rose from nearly 60 percent to nearly 70 percent between 2004 and 2008 (Latinas and Asian American women made 20, and 17 percent gains, respectively, in the same time period). This is higher than the 2008 national voting average of 58.2 percent.

If all eligible women of color voted, that would mean more than 41.8 million votes – or, the equivalent of 62.5 percent of President Barack Obama’s 2008 votes, and 71.7 percent of John McCain’s.

“As I worked through voting rights issues, and working in civic engagement…[I was] focusing on what to do to really deal with the power of the sistah vote,” said Campbell. “I say that as an affirmation, because we have not met that yet. We have the numbers, we turn out, people say we’re the most progressive vote, but we have yet to benefit from that power.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

The contempt Republican leaders have for the "Gohmert gang" but also the fear mainstream conservatives have of voting against the gang-- is the Gohmert gang running the House?

...................................................................................................................................................................
The House Republican Mess
By Jonathan Bernstein, March 28, 2014

Did you see what happened yesterday in the House of Representatives? Yup, another example of a dysfunctional Republican Party.

Every year, Congress has to pass a “doc fix” because Medicare reform back in the 1990s set the reimbursement rate for doctors too low. The House this year had been working on a permanent fix, but failed to find budget offsets that Republicans could agree on. Then it failed to find offsets even to pay for a one-year fix. So Speaker John Boehner and the Republican leadership held an unannounced voice vote on a one-year fix -- with no means of paying for it. Under House rules, it doesn’t take many people to demand a recorded vote, but opponents either weren’t on the floor or didn’t notice, so the bill passed.

This procedure -- a vote without prior notice to interested members – was correctly characterized as “sneaky” and “tricky." It’s certainly unusual. Republican Louie Gohmert pledged to monitor the House floor so that it can never happen again.

So what do we learn from it?

First, it’s highly unlikely that Republican leaders would have taken this step without the (unspoken) support of the overwhelming majority of their conference. There’s a reason leaders almost always alert members to what will happen on the floor; it’s one of their most basic tasks. The fact that the leadership proceeded without warning suggests that most Republicans were perfectly happy not to be on record on this vote.

Second, it demonstrates both the contempt Republican leaders have for the Gohmert gang (perhaps a couple dozen Republicans who consider themselves pure conservatives and often refuse to join their party) and the fear mainstream conservatives have of voting against the gang. Most mainstream conservative Republicans behave as if they are forever one vote or one accusation away from being labeled a moderate or RINO. This fear gives the least responsible folks in the Republican conference enormous leverage, especially when “must-pass” legislation comes up. Gohmert and friends simply establish impossible conditions for getting their votes, then every other Republican is forced either to reject this “true conservative” position or risk failure on the House floor.

The dysfunction leads to efforts to rig votes so that most of the conference achieves what it wants without appearing to break with “true conservatives.” Thus yesterday’s trickiness.

Everyone seems to win. Boehner and the leadership stay popular with members, mainstream conservatives avoid a tough vote without angering powerful constituencies (doctors in this case) and the Crazy Caucus earns another grievance badge. There's just one small problem: This dynamic makes developing responsible policy pretty much impossible.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The right-wing Super PACs will say whatever they need to say and spend whatever they need to spend to win against Democratic Senate candidates Weiland and Braley

...................................................................................................................................................................
Elizabeth Warren Steps Up for Populist Politics
By John Nichols, March 27, 2014

Democratic insiders have been slow to embrace the populist campaign of South Dakota Senate candidate Rick Weiland. As we noted this week on TheNation.com Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has dismissed the Democratic candidate for South Dakota's open US Senate seat as "not my choice." Washington observers point out that "the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee routinely leaves off its competitive list, the seat of retiring Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD." And there will not be a lot of corporate cash flowing to Weiland, who says his first act as a senator will be to propose a constitutional amendment declaring “that the votes of all, rather than the wealth of a few, shall direct the course of the Republic, Congress shall have the power to limit the raising and spending of money with respect to federal elections.”

But Weiland, a veteran congressional aide and advocate who formerly headed the South Dakota branch of the American Association of Retired People, has mounted a high-energy campaign that has already seen the candidate visit more than 300 of the state's 311 towns with an old-school populist message. “I was born here. I grew up on this land. It was ours because our democracy kept it that way," he says. "Today our democracy is being bought by big money and turned against us. To feed their profits we lose our jobs, our homes and our farms, our kids’ education, even our health, and the Congress they have bought looks the other way, or worse."

Democrats who "get" that their party must embrace a people-centered grassroots politics if it is to be viable in 2014 and beyond are starting to take notice.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, has given Weiland a strong endorsement—hailing him as a "smart, experienced, bold progressive." She's urging support for his campaign today as part of a national appeal circulated by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, with which the senator has worked closely. "Rick led South Dakota’s AARP and federal emergency management in his state, and he worked as a top Senate aide," says Warren, whose own populist campaign of 2012 dislodged Republican Senator Scott Brown. "He is campaigning actively on campaign finance reform and taking back government for hard-working everyday people."

The Weiland endorsement is coupled with support for Congressman Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who is running for the seat of retiring Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. The Iowa Senate candidate has his own populist credentials; indeed, Warren notes, "Bruce Braley led the Populist Caucus in the House of Representatives—and is focused on economic fairness, investing in education and addressing our retirement crisis."

While Braley (who is taking hits this week for referring to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as "a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school") has received substantial support from national Democrats, Weiland has in the words of Washington's The Hill newspaper been "getting [the] cold shoulder."

Warren's endorsement rejects the narrow calculus of DC Democratic insiders, arguing that both Braley and Weiland deserve strong support—and that, with such support, both can be contenders in November.

"I know we can count on Bruce and Rick to be strong voices in our fight to level the playing field for working families—whether it’s protecting Social Security for our seniors, making college more affordable for our kids, or holding powerful interests accountable," explains Warren. "That’s precisely why the right-wing Super PACs are already lining up to stop Bruce and Rick from going to the Senate. With two new Senate pickups on the line, they’ll say whatever they need to say and spend whatever they need to spend to win."

The message is clear. Victories for Braley and Weiland could certainly help in the effort to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate. But they would, as well, add members to the Senate caucus of what PCCC activists proudly refer to as "The Elizabeth Warren Wing of the Democratic Party."
...................................................................................................................................................................

The one-sided screaming match by Jennifer Stefano, the Koch Brothers operative, against MSNBC's Chris Hayes

...................................................................................................................................................................
How a Koch brothers operative played the sexism card against MSNBC
By Robin Abcarian, March 28, 2014

Ladies, if you’re wondering how to use that sexism card you swore off in the 1970s after you got liberated, I suggest you take a look at the masterful performance of one Jennifer Stefano, a regional director of the Obamacare-hating, Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity.

She appeared as a guest on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC program "All In" Wednesday night to talk, ostensibly, about AFP’s objection to the two-week Obamacare deadline extension.

The conversation quickly devolved into a one-sided screaming match, with Stefano working herself into the kind of tizzy any parent of a teenager would recognize as phony. Let’s put it this way: Any interview about health policy that ends with the guest demanding “How dare you?” has the ring of a set-up.

And Hayes, who could have handled himself better, walked right into the buzz saw.

He made the rookie interviewer error of patronizing his guest in the introduction (which starts at the 4:25 mark of the video below): “She’s one of these people who I really think genuinely wakes up every day and thinks about how to destroy Obamacare,” he said, giving her her first opening.

“The thing I wake up and think about every morning is my children,” she harrumphed, before telling Hayes that Obamacare is removing the choices that 85 million American mothers would like to be able to make for their children. (Because there are 85 million mothers total in America? That was never explained. But they all hate Obamacare, she said.)

“Why does extending a deadline for two weeks take away the choices you have for your children?” asked Hayes, who was having trouble penetrating Stefano's wall of sound.

“Because it continues to not allow people to go back and change this law,” said Stefano. Making it easier for people to sign up, in other words, will ensure Obamacare's survival ....

Video:

The pair went back and forth about the healthcare law’s Medicaid expansion, and who qualifies for subsidies under federal poverty standards. Stefano claimed that allowing people earning 133% of the poverty level in states like Pennsylvania would mean that families earning $94,000 would qualify for Medicaid.

“I have a real problem when you talk about raising the poverty level, that’s people making $94,000 a year,” Stefano said at about the 7:48 mark. “They’re not poor. That is taking resources from the poor. The expansion of Medicaid is a moral issue, not an economic one. It is not right and not fair.”

Hayes, as any normal person would be, was flummoxed: “That’s a math trick.”

Not really. It’s more of a flat-out lie.

As reporter Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner noted in a tweet just after the program, a household would have to contain more than 15 people for an income of $94,000 to be considered 133% of the federal poverty level. Klein, who describes himself as an Obamacare opponent, linked to this Health and Human Services chart.

Stefano’s tour de force was her final attack on Hayes (at the 9:15 mark), who tried to insist that Stefano and Americans for Prosperity don’t really care about poor people, but have suddenly become their champions as a matter of tactics in the fight against Obamacare.

“Jennifer Stefano from Americans for Prosperity was not doing anything to get people health insurance, was not concerned about the plight of people on Medicaid, was not sponsoring bills before Congress,” said Hayes. “It’s not like you care about people on Medicaid, or that’s the thing that made you go into politics. And I don't understand, why not just be honest about it?”

Whether that was true is beside the point. And certainly, Stefano was not about to answer the question. Instead, she whipped out the sexism card and threw it in his face.

“You know nothing about me,” Stefano said. “You don’t know what I wake up and fight for and believe in .... You know nothing about my family. You don’t know if I was born and raised in a trailer park. You don't know what I did. And how dare you, like Harry Reid, try to undercut the voice of a woman simply because she disagrees with you. Now you may not like where I am coming from on public policy, but you have no right to undercut my voice.”

Hayes, befuddled: “I put you on my TV show!”

Stefano: “You are undercutting my voice because you're making it personal .... Stick to the facts …. Talk about facts, logic and reason. How dare you personally attack me and what I believe in."

Well played, Ms. Stefano.

Hayes seemed to grasp what happened. By the end, he was chuckling.
...................................................................................................................................................................

While you're at it, Gov. Walker, why don't you put your foot on voters' necks, too?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin's New Law Only Allows Voting While Most People Are Working
By Abby Ohlheiser, March 27, 2014

With Gov. Scott Walker's signature, Wisconsin has a new law on the books prohibiting early voting in the state on the weekends and weekdays after 7 p.m., otherwise known as when most people aren't at work. The measure was opposed by Democratic legislators in the state, especially because turnout for early voting is high in cities like Milwaukee and Madison. Those cities tend to vote for Democrats.

The new law goes against the recent recommendations of the Commission on Election Administration, a bipartisan panel that released a lengthy report on voter access in January. The panel recommended that states expand, not restrict "alternative ways of voting, such as mail balloting and in-person early voting" in order to avoid hours-long lines at the polls on election day. A majority of states allow for some form of early voting — either by mail or in person — and the commission noted that voters want more, not fewer, early voting options available to them. 

Walker's administration cited the need to create "uniform" hours across the state for early voting as his reason for signing the bill. Previously, Wisconsin allowed clerks to set their own hours, including on the weekends. That's a familiar argument. Ohio used it recently when it eliminated Sunday early voting hours there, prompting criticism from Democrats who said that the hours made it more difficult for minorities and blue collar workers to vote. The lack of Sunday hours also eliminates the possibility of a repeat of 2012's "Souls to the Polls" in the state. "Souls to the Polls" was a get-out-the-vote initiative organized by a coalition of black churches to drive the faithful from the pews to the voting booths during early voting hours on Sundays.

Walker did veto a few portions of the bill, including a provision that would have allowed for no more than 45 hours total of early voting in a jurisdiction. He also vetoed a part of the bill that would have let the state reimburse jurisdictions for early voting costs.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Sic 'em, Jon!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Jon Stewart Reveals the Absurdity of Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court Case
By Ben Cosman, March 27, 2014

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the case in which a craft store chain is claiming the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate violates its religious beliefs. You may be thinking that a private corporation suing over its religious beliefs sounds asinine. Jon Stewart explained last night that, well, indeed it is.

Not only is it the silliest sounding Supreme Court case, as Stewart said, "since 1950's Brown v. Board of Titty Farts," but Hobby Lobby's lawsuit is a thinly veiled attack on Obama's healthcare law as a whole, disguised as an assertion of religious rights. See, the craft store claims it is a corporation founded on biblical principles. You know, like that one time Jesus took up knitting.

Hobby Lobby believes that as a private company, it deserves the same religious freedom as a church or individual, and that the ACA's demand it provide contraception coverage to its employees violates that freedom. Because Hobby Lobby is an exceptionally pious corporation. "There would never be a case emanating from that other craft store, Michaels," Stewart said. "For god's sake, that place is a godless fuck palace with yarn." 

The kicker about this whole case is that the government must accept Hobby Lobby's views on birth control at face-value, with no mind for accuracy. Stewart explained: "So let me get this straight, corporations aren't just people, they're ill-informed people, whose factually incorrect beliefs must be upheld because they sincerely believe them."

"What would a biblically-based insurance plan even cover?" Stewart asked.

Senior Legal Analyst Jordan Klepper had the answer: Along with leprosy, a plan would cover "stoning-related injury, flood damage. It's a great pre-modern medicine, first-century, biblically-based health plan that covers you from birth through your elderly years, which I believe is up to 36 years on this plan."

Jon Stewart on Hobby Lobby (Video)
...................................................................................................................................................................

Christie doesn't take "responsibility. For anything. Ever."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Chris Christie’s Problem With Personal Responsibility
By Rob Tornoe, March 28, 2014

Earlier this month, Chris Christie appeared at CPAC, the notorious get together of gun-wielding conservatives angry about Democrats and their do-gooder progressive policies. Amidst the fully expected, tried-and true rhythm of bashing unions and lambasting women’s rights, Christie billed himself as the “Leader in Chief” of a liberal state tamed by his conservative policies.

“Governors are about getting things done,” Christie said.

Unfortunately, Christie’s ethos of personal responsibility is proving to be as fictionalized as the notion of a traffic study happening on the George Washington Bridge.

Let’s look at the so-called Bridgegate scandal, which has become the defying moment of Christie’s political career. The New York Times has reported that an investigation ordered by Christie himself (conducted by a law firm with close political ties) found that – gasp – Christie had no involvement in the decision to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge.

The internal investigation, which amazingly supports the exact narrative Christie has tried to spin for months, skipped over key figures in the scandal, including Christie’s former deputy chief of staff, Christie’s two top appointees at the Port Authority and Christie’s former campaign manager.

Turns out the buck stops with Christie’s staff. But remind me – is claiming you were completely in the dark about a highly-publicized scheme concocted by your top aides and advisors really the pitch you want to make to voters about why you should be the country’s next president?

I’d say Christie at least showed leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the $1 million of taxpayer money spent so far on his “comprehensive and exhaustive,” Bridgegate review would seem to speak against that. Considering the fact he spent $12-24 million so he wouldn’t face Cory Booker on a ballot and $25 million to appear in tourism ads during his re-election, being a responsible steward of the people’s money doesn’t seem to fall on Christie’s leadership radar, either.

Neither does taking responsibility. For anything. Ever.

Christie takes every chance he gets in front of his pro-Republican town hall audiences to blame the delay in Hurricane Sandy aid on Obama and Washington. He did it again just this week, blaming the delay on an “ever expanding federal government.” Oddly, going unmentioned was the firing of Hammerman and Gainer, the politically connected contractor hired by Christie to handle the bulk of the state’s Sandy reconstruction work.

In fact, a Rutgers report blasted Christie’s administration when it comes to Sandy aid, noting that the state’s stunning lack of oversight of contractors, like Hammerman and Gainer, was causing the state to fail in “duty of protecting vulnerable citizens from poor service and taxpayers from wasted funds.”

But since it doesn’t fit the narrative, don’t expect to hear about it from Christie’s lips anytime soon.

In another example of Christie’s stunning inability to lead, under directions of his administration, the Motor Vehicle Commission unilaterally banned electric car startup Tesla from selling cars to its customers. Succumbing to the power of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Christie managed to anger just about everyone, from tree-hugging progressives to free-market conservatives. Christie’s defense? It’s the legislature’s fault for not handing this issue in the assembly, not the $60,000 in donations made to Christie.

Speaking about the environment, a state appeals court ruled this week that Christie’s administration broke the law after it told power plants not to worry about rules governing carbon dioxide emissions. Christie’s bold leadership gave a victory to fossil fuel lobbyists back in 2011, when Christie unilaterally decided to pull New Jersey out of a Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative supported by nine other states.

By doing so, he left a large chunk of money on the table – money that could’ve been used to invest in renewable energy sources like solar power and wind, and could’ve been used to expand efficiency programs. But you’re talking about the governor who has stolen nearly $1 billion earmarked for homeowner assistance over the last two years and used it to balance his budget. I don’t think leadership on energy and the environment is how Christie rolls.

And on and on. He cuts promised payments into the pension system, then blames unions for unsustainable benefits. Why are schools bad? Not because of bungled leadership leading to the firing of the state’s schools chief – it’s because of dirty, rotten teachers unions. Plummeting poll numbers? It’s not because of his inability to deliver on his campaign promises – it’s the liberal media looking to take down a Republican (you know, the same guy they’ve propped up for years).

Unfortunately for Christie, volume does not equal leadership, especially when so many New Jerseyans seem to be pressing the mute button.
...................................................................................................................................................................

The Koch brothers' AFP is embedding "staff members in a community, giving conservative advocacy a permanent local voice"

...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch brothers’ money is making its way to hyperlocal races
By Niraj Chokshi, March 24, 2014

The Koch brothers seem to have taken the famous adage to heart: if all politics is local, that’s where their money will go.

The Wisconsin chapter of the Americans for Prosperity, the group founded by the brothers and chaired by David Koch, distributed flyers to voters in Iron County ahead of next Tuesday’s election for the county board, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The flyers describe the seven candidates challenging incumbents as “anti-mining radicals” and claim the county is “being targeted by wealthy environmental groups from outside Wisconsin,” the newspaper reported. David Fladeboe, director of AFP’s Wisconsin chapter, told the paper that his group sent about 1,000 brochures in the county, which is home to just under 5,000 voting-age residents.

But the group’s advocacy in Wisconsin is just the latest example of how its state chapters are increasingly focused on state and local issues. AFP has more than 200 full-time paid staffers in offices in at least 32 states, The New York Times reported last week.

“The idea is to embed staff members in a community, giving conservative advocacy a permanent local voice through field workers who live in the neighborhood year-round and appreciate the nuances of the local issues,” the paper reported.

AFP has spent tens of millions on Senate races so far this year and last week released what appears to be its first 2014 TV spot affecting a governor’s race, National Journal reported. It’s been involved in a mayoral race in Iowa and property tax fights in Kansas, Ohio and Texas and, in Arkansas, the group succeeded in turning the state legislature red for the first time since post-Civil War Reconstruction. That chapter has so far spent $1.4 million in ad buys, our colleague Jaime Fuller reported last week:

It’s gotten even harder to notice their grassroots presence, since they’ve mostly given up on rallies and bus tours in favor of canvassing and phone banks. But without their “grassroots army,” they say all that spending would be for nothing. “Without the strength of our on-the-ground activists, we wouldn’t have achieved what we have achieved,” says [AFP-Arkansas director Jason] Cline.

The group’s chapters have also ramped up efforts to discredit the president’s health-care law, not only campaigning against federal lawmakers who supported it, but also urging state policymakers to oppose Medicaid expansion. Last month, the Louisiana AFP chapter began distributing letters to state lawmakers urging them to sign pledges to oppose the expansion of Medicaid in the state under the Affordable Care Act.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Whether there is a lesser, equal or greater population of black politicians involved in corruption has nothing to do with their skin color"

...................................................................................................................................................................
Corruption doesn’t discriminate in politics
By Taylor Quinn, March 27, 2014

Another politician was allegedly caught being corrupt Wednesday. Patrick Cannon, the now former mayor of Charlotte, N.C., faces federal theft and bribery charges. ABC News reported Cannon “solicited and accepted more than $48,000 in cash, airline tickets, a hotel room and the use of a luxury apartment as bribes, according to a criminal complaint.”

If convicted, Cannon would face 20 years in prison and more than $1 million in fines, according to ABC News.

A politician being corrupt? Say it ain’t so! 

It seems as though being corrupt is part of the job description of “politician,” so this story comes as no shock. What is shocking, though, is that the comments under the ABC article, and under almost all of the other articles regarding this subject, had to do with the fact that Cannon is black.

One would think that as a country, we would be civilized enough to not use skin color as either a reason why someone is guilty or using it as a reason why someone was framed. 

“Hmmm.. an african american [sic] democrat politician involved in corruption...boy am I surprised!” said OrionElectra in the comments section of the ABC News article.

Whether there is a lesser, equal or greater population of black politicians involved in corruption has nothing to do with their skin color. 

MontrellJ commented, “The white man set the mayor up—im tired of this—he need to get some money from african american leaders to fight this racism—white people do this all the time and dont get caught—the mayor framed [sic].”

But white politicians do get caught: Former Arizona State Rep. Richard Miranda, former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, former California State Sen. Roy Ashburn, former Colorado State Rep. Douglas Bruce and former Connecticut State Sen. Thomas Gaffey are all white politicians who have been caught in corruption scandals.

Besides the fact that these two comments are ignorant and almost comical, they are simply sad.

When are people going to get it through their heads that color has absolutely nothing to do with how a person acts? Skin color is merely a piece of one’s appearance that we as a people somehow linked a meaning with. I doubt that anyone would say someone did or didn’t commit an illegal act because he or she has green eyes, so why should having dark skin have to do with anything?

And unfortunately, judging on the basis of skin color doesn’t just go for white and black people. All skin colors are stereotyped in some way or another, and these stereotypes have been used as a reason for proving innocence or guilt among American citizens. 

The bottom line is that if Cannon was being corrupt, he should have to suffer the consequences. Not because he is black. Not because his eyes are brown or his teeth are white, but because, if he accepted more than $1 million worth in bribes, he knew what he was doing and deserves to go to prison.
...................................................................................................................................................................