................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * They just think that being denied the privilege of discriminating against people is the same as being persecuted for your beliefs. Want persecution in the US? Try being Muslim, Wiccan, Buddhist, etc. * I'm not sure if I would prefer Christian Sharia Law or Islamic Sharia Law. Considering the constitution seperates religion and government, it's a shame the GOP has to milk this new found issue for all they can rather than talk about the real issues that face this country. You have to admit. It's a good way to keep the conservative base distracted from the GOP's efforts to make their lives more miserable. * It plays well to the Permanently Aggrieved Born Again Christians, living under siege for thirty years and counting, never mind how many churches have not been burned down. * Persecuted people gather in small groups and whisper among themselves, afraid of being noticed. Evangelical Christians are loud, pushy, bossy, shrill, nosy, irritating, egotistical, etc., etc., etc. They are anything but persecuted. * I saw Maher's piece on HBO. It was not only hilarious, but informative. He goes down a very long list of people: celebrities, athletes, media, Democrats, and other politicians, etc. looking for ANY of them who have slammed Christianity - and there were NONE to be found. * Every one of the people Maher mentioned is mistaking the loss of christian privilege with persecution. The things that are causing them to complain are people trying to make sure that the first amendment is observed. Unfortunately, they got so comfortable with trampling on the rights of those from minority religions, or without religion, that when those people complain christians see it as persecution. [snipped]
................................................................................................................................................................... Bill Maher Slams Conservatives, GOP For Playing Persecuted Christian Card
By Itay Hod, June 6, 2015
Bill Maher had some choice words for conservatives and Republicans complaining about Christians being persecuted in America.
During his “New Rules” segment on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night, the comedian took the right wing to task for decrying Christian persecution or attacks against the conservatives.
“Conservatives who constantly whine that Christianity is under attack from liberals have to explain why there are over 3,000 churches in the U.S. but only 400 Whole Foods,” Maher said. “Clearly your side is winning.”
Maher then quoted some of 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls in an effort to shed make his point.
“Mike Huckabee says, “We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity.’ Ted Cruz says, “There is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic party.’ What?” Maher asked. “Eighty percent of Democrats in Congress are Christian and 78 percent of Democratic governors. You can look this sh-t up, you know.”
Watch the Maher’s New Rules segment here(same as above).
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * Don't know which worse the House Speaker who follows the nonexistant Hastert rule, according to the old pedophile himself and thus is to incompetent to pass meaning legislation that doesn't die in the Senate or the Senate majority leader following the nonexistant Thurman rule out of sheer partisan malevolence. OK, I'll pick the turtle man just because he is so openly vile toward his would be one term President is our no. one priority statement at the beginning. Though they have both broken the system under their joint leadership. It went from disfunctional to nonfuntional. * McConnell and Boehner are only part of the total obstruction and revolution from the extreme right toward the federal government. They have refused to confirm hundreds of President Obama's appointees. They refuse to allow the FEC or Federal Election Commission to enforce election laws so they can cheat. The red states, thanks to their cohorts on ALEC and SCOTUS, are run on laws they wrote that help fossil fuel pollution, secret trade agreements and selling out America for USINC. They are all corrupt. * There needs to be a law requiring a vote on all nominees within a 120 day of nomination, and even shorter for critical nominations. No party or person should be able to hold up a nomination out of spite! * I think this is the best response I have read all night. Will it happen? I doubt it, but I am glad there are some people who come up with good, reasonable ideas. After all, it is difficult to have a good court system when so their are so many judicial vacancies. * I'm sorry but it is NOT his job or any of congress to block anything. either you approve or you don;t.... But to play games with this country's future has got to come to a stop... * So much for upholding the constitution......I think McConnell should be brought up on charges of TREASON or at the minimum impeached.
................................................................................................................................................................... Majority Leader McConnell Calls For Extraordinary Blockade Of Obama’s Judges And Justices
By Ian Millhiser, June 5, 2015
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) indicated in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that no federal appeals court judges — or, for that matter, Supreme Court justices — will be confirmed in the coming year. In response to a question about judicial confirmations, McConnell told Hewitt that “so far, the only judges we’ve confirmed have been federal district judges that have been signed off on by Republican Senators” (district judges are the lowest rank of federal judges under Article III of the Constitution). When Hewitt followed up by asking if McConnell believes this pattern will continue for “the balance of the session,” the majority leader replied “I think that’s highly likely, yeah.”
The term “session” refers to a one-year period of congressional business.
If McConnell carries out his threat to confirm no appellate judges in the next year, that would be an extraordinary departure from prior practice. According to the Federal Judicial Center, the Senate confirmed six appeals court judges in President George W. Bush’s seventh year in office, despite the fact that the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Presidents Clinton and Reagan also spent their seventh year in office in a period of divided government when the opposite party controlled the Senate, and yet the Senate confirmed 7 appeals court judges during that part of the Clinton presidency and it confirmed 10 appeals court judges during the same period in the Reagan presidency.
This is not the first time McConnell has moved the goalposts on judicial confirmations. In 2012, for example, when President Obama was up for reelection, McConnell announced that he would attempt to block all appeals court confirmations under the so-called “Thurmond Rule.” The Republican leader claimed that this rule “holds that within six months of a presidential election, the opposition party can, and typically does, refuse to allow votes on circuit court judges.”
No such rule exists. Although the “Thurmond Rule” has, at times, been invoked to slow down confirmations in a presidential election year, prior Senate practice does not support McConnell’s claim that confirmations should simply halt. As we explained shortly after McConnell announced that he was invoking this so-called rule, “President Carter had 5 appeals judges confirmed between this day in 1980 and that year’s election, one of whom was future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Reagan had 7 in his first term and 2 in his second. The first President Bush had 7. No appellate judges were confirmed in the lead up to the 1996 election, but one was confirmed at the end of President Clinton’s second term. The second President Bush had 3 confirmed during this period in 2004 and 2 in 2008.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * O'Reilly is often wrong, this time is a perfect example. Anyone who doesn't think like him is a 'loon' and just doesn't get it. Never mind that the ideas and practices HE advocates won't work. The huge amounts of SPIN in his 'no spin' zone is laughable. * O'Reilly isn't wrong, half the country ARE simpletons. He should know, they're his viewers. * Right, it has nothing to do with the old, white racist farts (a/k/a the Republican Base) dying off. * Billo doesn't even know how the tides work, so who's a simpleton really? * I believe there is a recognised psychological trend that the most simple minded tend to be paradoxically the most secure in their belief in their intellectual superiority over others. I think it is associated with an inability to empathise with others. * You're absolutely right! It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect! The most skilled individuals judge themselves as less competent, and the most unskilled (read: simple) judge themselves as more competent! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
................................................................................................................................................................... Fox News Host Has Outrageous Reason Progressive Ideas Are Getting More Popular
By Alice Ollstein, May 28, 2015
For the first time since Gallup pollsters began tracking, the country is evenly split between those who identify as liberals versus conservatives. It’s a major drop for conservatives, who in 1999 outweighed liberals two-to-one. Analysts have cited many factors for the steady, multi-decade rise of self-identified progressives in the U.S., including increased acceptance of same-sex marriage and legal marijuana, but Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has his own theory.
“Only about 50 percent of the American people take the time to understand important issues,” he said on his show this week. “Half the country does not; they are simpletons, unwilling and unable to discipline themselves into formulating a philosophy of life.”
O’Reilly added that those who supported President Obama in 2008 and 2012 must not have “grasped” his policies, and only cast their votes for him “because of his charisma and his historic position as the first black man to achieve the White House.”
The comment is just one in a long line of conservatives attempting to rationalize the groundswell of support for the President by questioning the intelligence of Democratic voters. Mitt Romney infamously quipped that “47 percent” of Americans vote Democrat only because they want handouts. Georgia Republican lawmakers justified cutting early voting — which Democratic voters disproportionately use — by suggesting that those who vote before Election Day are ignorant about the issues and candidates on the ballot.
Yet as the raw data indicates, it’s support for a host of progressive policies that has driven this change — with support rising across the country for same-sex marriage, legal marijuana, abolishing the death penalty, and gun control. Though it wasn’t included in this particular poll, support for other progressive policies has also increased, including raising the minimum wage, offering all workers paid sick days, and renewable energy sources.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * The Tea Party is a repudiation of the Bush era Republican Party so Tea Party Republicans like me already knew Hastert was part of the problem. The problem with DC is that Democrats haven't repudiated unethical politicians like Pelosi and Reid. * ... MORE moralizing by Republicans lacking in ethical values... * Republicans control both houses of Congress. If Pelosi or Reid did something unethical, where is the investigation? * Yeah, Hastert isn't hypocritical on this. He did not want to marry his male students, just bugger them.
................................................................................................................................................................... Hastert Joins Crowded Ranks of Fallen Moralists
By Margaret Carlson, June 4, 2015
Evil lurks in unlikely places. In movies, it is always the all-American nice guy who turns out to be the villain.
In real life, think Bill Cosby (scolding others to “pull up their pants,” even as he allegedly attacked women he had drugged into unconsciousness), Josh Duggar (he of "19 Kids and Counting," who, according to his parents, molested four of his sisters and another child, while Mom and Dad covered up so their moralizing reality show could go on), and former Florida Representative Mark Foley (who resigned from Congress in 2006, after the disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he had sent to teenage congressional pages). If you want to jump on the Hypocrite Wayback Machine, there’s televangelist Jim Bakker (sent to prison for dipping into $165 million in donations, part of which went to silence a church secretary who had accused him of rape).
Now add to the list former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He was indicted last week for withdrawing huge amounts of cash in increments of less than $10,000 to pay off "Individual A" (identified by the New York Times as a male former student), with whom he met several times in 2010 and agreed to pay $3.5 million to “compensate for and conceal” past “misconduct.”
Dennis Hastert? Any number of other politicians could be indicted for something similar without setting your hair on fire, but Hastert? The rumpled, shambling, small-town wrestling coach was chosen by Republicans to be speaker as the antidote to previous scandal-plagued leaders. He wafted into office as a breath of fresh air compared to former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the twice (since then thrice) married conservative who was having an affair with a staffer while supporting President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Gingrich’s replacement, Louisiana Representative Bob Livingston, another hounder of the president, had to quit before being sworn in because it turned out he had been involved in several affairs, including one with a lobbyist who (personally) lobbied him.
Now all-American nice guy Hastert, who liked being known as Coach, turns out to have been not so nice at all. For starters, he accumulated millions while in office, in part by shoehorning fine print into a huge bill that provided federal funds to build a freeway that turned raw land he bought for a pittance into a goldmine.
Throughout, he maintained a humble aura. Except when it came to matters of morality.There, he followed in the hypocritical footsteps of his predecessors, devoting much energy to shaming others about their sexual behavior. He advanced the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act through the House and proposed a constitutional amendment to annul same-sex unions in states that allowed them.
He railed against Clinton, saying as he voted to authorize a House Judiciary Committee investigation that they had to “uphold the rule of law” rather than sweep “the matter under the rug,” which was hardly the case. By then, Clinton had already been subjected to unprecedented levels of public humiliation with the release of the Starr Report, which indulged in gratuitous descriptions of the president’s fumblings with Monica Lewinsky and anatomy.
Grand juries can’t indict on charges of hypocrisy, so Hastert was indicted on what looks like banking technicalities. It’s well known that the FBI takes being lied to badly (Hastert laughably told investigators that he kept the hundreds of thousands in cash because he felt the banking system wasn't safe), but it doesn’t prosecute all liars.
What may be happening is that Hastert, like Cosby, can’t be successfully prosecuted for the alleged underlying crime of sexual abuse -- one so heinous that its perpetrators must be segregated in prison to avoid violent retribution from morally superior murderers and other criminals. But he can be punished, even if it is only for breaking banking laws and lying. Either too much time has passed or Individual A won’t go public for a larger prosecution.
Which brings us back to Bill Cosby and, glancingly, to Bill Clinton, both of whom, like Hastert, took advantage of the less powerful in pursuit of their own pleasure. Cosby rendered his victims comatose before assaulting them. Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world , took advantage of a child-woman -- she could be his, or anyone’s, daughter --- who recently made us all a little ashamed by letting us know what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the feeding frenzy of moral condemnation that came her lonely way. The affair may have been consensual but it was by no means between equals.
Had Republicans focused on Clinton's predatory power play with an intern, they might have prevailed. Instead, they preferred to humiliate the president with voyeuristic pornographic detail. Not only did Clinton survive their misguided effort, he now bestrides the globe as one of the most revered men in public life.
Unlike Clinton, Cosby lives on only as one of the walking dead, a fate that may be worse than prison for a celebrity who once had a halo of sainthood for his paeans to family values and tough love for those who stray. He lost his new show, he lost his reruns, he lost his TV special. His concert tour is a field of cancelled dates. Protests and heckler marred the few that went on.
No matter what happens when Hastert appears in court next week, no matter how slight the charges compared to what he allegedly did, the portraits will come down and there will be no roads named after him. He is dead to us.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * The comments I read by conservatives do betray these two strains of racism and selfishness all the time. Working people in general and especially minorities, are characterized as lazy and wanting handouts, women are to be controlled, gays and atheists are purposefully undermining families, and the rich should be free to take advantage of those ignorant rubes at every opportunity. That's what they always mean by "freedom". The freedom of the rich and powerful to prey on the poor and weak. Advantage begets further advantage. "Keep the government out of it because without those laws all this abuse of labor would be legal and the poor saps would have no recourse." This kind of lawless conflict may make for good drama but it sucks if you just want what most people do; to do a job for a decent wage and save a little for your family. It's certainly not true that all Republicans are like this but if you are like this you are probably a Republican... and no one in the party will ever challenge you on it. * The closer the gop comes to their well deserved end that harder they will fight to take the country down with them. * Ironic how most conservative Christians don't believe in evolution, but always resort to Darwinistic thinking, such as the dog-eat-dog, survival of the ruthless type of philosophy. * Barry Goldwater would've been sickened by today's Republican party. 20+ years ago, he warned what would happen if the GOP was overtaken by religious nuts and extremists, and he was right. * This story really nails it. I used to be a pretty reliable GOP voter and admired the things the GOP stood for which were conservative but not mean spirited as they are today. The GOP has truly lost their way and they will have less and less influence until they make a major overhaul of their anti everything agenda. * The Republican party used to have some values but now the two pillars of the party's entire ideology are racism and thievery.
................................................................................................................................................................... Two Kinds of Meanness: The Modern Conservative Movement
By Mike Lux, June 5, 2015
I grew up and did my early work in politics in Nebraska, and my wife is a farmer's daughter from rural Missouri. I spent about 10 years organizing and door-knocking for campaigns in rural Iowa. So I know a lot about the kind of Bob Dole conservatism that used to be the dominant political culture of those places. Since I became a progressive Democrat, I didn't agree with those conservatives on many things, but I mostly liked and respected them. Wary of the unintended consequences of change, suspicious of big government, fiscally conservative, traditionalist in many ways, they were generally decent folks with much to admire in them, and very worthy political opponents.
To my great sadness, though, I feel like the modern conservative movement (and the Republican Party, which has been completely captured by this movement) has devolved into something quite different. It's not necessarily more conservative (in some ways it is, in other ways not), mostly just a whole lot meaner.
At conservative conferences and Republican gatherings over the last decade, we have seen the crowds turn ugly. Remember the Republican presidential debates four years ago, with audiences cheering for torture and people dying because they had no health insurance, and booing soldiers, decorated for their heroism, because they were gay? Remember the McCain/Palin rallies of 2008 where the audiences were openly racist and called Obama a Muslim terrorist? Here's another example that still chills me: Glenn Beck giving a speech to CPAC a few years back, talking about how there should be no safety net because "in nature, the lions eat the weak." The audience burst into applause and laughter, and these are the same folks preaching Christian values.
It is important to note, though, that there are two different kinds of meanness that animate the modern conservative movement, and they are very different from each other. Two recent videos illustrate that difference.
The first is of the kind mentioned above: that nasty, racist meanness that animates so many conservatives. The woman speaker from the audience is the mother of David Bossie, one of the leading figures in the conservative movement and the head of Citizens United. Listen to her compare immigrants to rats and roaches while the audience goes crazy, cheering her on:
Note that the moderator of the session, famed GOP pollster Frank Luntz, not only doesn't push back but praises her and asks the crowd if they would support her for president. This kind of undiluted racism takes my breath away.
However, there is another kind of meanness that is even more central to modern conservatism. If you are looking for a philosophical forebear to this kind of philosophy, read some Ayn Rand, who proclaimed that selfishness is good and that government help for poor people, or even charity, is bad because it encourages the leeches of society. This kind of meanness is a lot smoother and more sophisticated than the rats-and-roaches kind of meanness, but it is just as nasty. Check out this truly sobering interview by my colleague Lauren Windsor with this senior Cato Institute staffer, George Selgin. He says bank runs are good because they will make the economy stronger and bank customers more savvy :
Now, remember how influential Cato is: It is the Koch brothers' leading think tank, pushing their philosophy, and it advises Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress. At the conference where this interview took place, leading Republican appointees to financial regulatory agencies were the keynote speakers. And their banking policy guy, Selgin, argued that the the Federal Reserve, FDIC deposit insurance, and almost any regulation of financial markets should be eliminated. Because that worked out so well during the Great Depression!
Selgin actually thinks that the onus should be on consumers to evaluate the safety of a bank by researching their balance sheets. Given that the nature of banking is to lend out or invest the money that they get from depositors, and given the complexity of modern finance -- the "best CEO on Wall Street" couldn't figure out that the London Whale was going to lose billions overnight for JPMorgan Chase -- this is a pretty incredible philosophy. And at its heart it is meanness in its most distilled form: It doesn't matter if millions of people lose their life savings, their homes, and their jobs in a financial collapse, because, hey, they deserve it if they didn't know better in the first place. And in the meantime, if financial charlatans and speculators become billionaires for setting up these market failures and getting out just before the crash, so be it.
This is not the kind of conservatism I grew up around. This is devil-take-the-hindmost conservatism: Every man for himself, and let the unlucky ones starve if it works out that way. These two kinds of meanness together -- the Ayn Rand kind and the nasty, racist kind -- paint a very ugly picture of modern conservatism.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * GOP policies look great on paper but they don't work in reality. * Wow ... Don't confuse the republicans with facts. Facts have no place in today's GOP. * "Supply side" economics and "trickle down" theories are laughable and have absolutely no record of success anywhere. But they keep Republicans and their wealthy donors happy. Tax cuts are all that matter to these blood suckers...whether or not the middle class benefits in any way is of no interest to the upper 1%. Giving Dave Letterman, Bill Gates and Lebron James tax cuts neither creates jobs nor helps anyone. It just makes the rich richer. Greed is ruining this country. The only way to stifle it is to tax it. * In typical GOP assjack fashion they will raise the taxes that most impact the middle and lower income and won't go near anything that would tap into the billions of reserves that are held by the ultra-rich. Scum-of-the-earth GOP eat chit and, well, you know the rest. * The GOP's vow to pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist over Americans is treason. Clearly republicans care more about there lobbyist than America. * The Raygun proved that supply side economics was a failure. Somebody needs to drag the GOP kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
................................................................................................................................................................... Their ‘No-New-Taxes’ Vow is Now Haunting the GOP
By Eric Planin, June 5, 2015
For decades, many Republicans have embraced the “supply-side” theory that tax cuts more than anything else help to spur economic growth through savings and investment and that raising taxes – except under the most dire of circumstances – hurt jobs and the economy.
Indeed, the GOP-controlled Congress in early May approved a long-term budget plan that would wipe out the deficit over the next decade without raising taxes. Now, the Republicans’ long-standing aversion to tax increases is coming back to haunt them, both on Capitol Hill and throughout the country.
While tax policy likely will be a prominent issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, many of the GOP candidates appear to be stepping gingerly in this area – careful not to promise absolute cuts in taxes.
The Gas Tax
The most urgent problem facing GOP leaders in Congress is what to do to avert a crisis in the federal Highway Trust Fund this summer -- one that threatens the possible shutdown of some state highway construction projects beginning in August. So far, Congress has passed several short-term spending “patches” to keep the federal highway and infrastructure program afloat until a long-term, comprehensive plan can be ironed out.
Raising the 14.8-cents per gallon federal gasoline tax at a time of relatively low gas prices appears to be the most logical and direct approach to fixing the problem, according to many state officials, business leaders and highway advocates. But House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other GOP leaders have ruled out an increase in the gas tax that was last increased in 1993.
The combination of the Tea Party rebellion against Boehner’s reelection as speaker in January and solid opposition from outside conservative groups likely struck the death knell for a tax increase to replenish a Highway Trust fund that’s been running on fumes for years.
Senate and House Democrats are contemplating a get-tough strategy that would prevent Republican leaders from passing yet another stop-gap highway funding measure this summer, according to Politico. “I think it’s horrible that they’re even thinking about the short-term extension,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said this week. “I think it’s ridiculous.”
State Tax Dilemmas
Kansas: Republican Kansas governor Sam Brownback and the GOP controlled state legislature are confronting the grim reality that their supply-side tax strategy of major cuts over the past three years is a flop – and that without a tax increase of some sort they will face a huge, untenable budget deficit this summer. Just several days after Brownback won a hard-fought reelection campaign last November, the Kansas budget office revealed that state revenue projections were off by more than $200 million. That boosted the overall budget gap to $600 million.
Last weekend, Brownback did the once unthinkable: He called for an increase in the sales tax to 6.65 percent, elimination of itemized deductions, and a cigarette tax increase of 50 cents per pack. But even those measures won’t fully close the budget gap. Brownback claimed his plan would reduce the budget deficit to $81 million this year and $255 million next year.
Connecticut: After 3 major companies threatened to pull out of the state because of new taxesproposed by Democratic governor Dannel Malloy, the governor quickly lowered a $700 million tax increase on business to $504 million over two years and added additional charges to residents to the tune of $1.5 billion. Travelers Insurance, Aetna, and General Electric were just three companies that threatened to pull out of the state.
Michigan: Faced with the problem of a deteriorating highway system and shortcoming in the school system, Michigan’s Republican governor Rick Snyder turned to voters earlier this year with a proposal for increasing sales taxes to pay for schools and state gas taxes to generate $1.3 billion annually for road and bridge construction.
Snyder argued that the increase was essential because Michigan’s damaged roads are inferior to those in neighboring Ohio and costly to motorists whose vehicles are damaged by potholes. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the plan in a referendum in early May.
Where the GOP Candidates Stand
Tax policy will be an important part of the presidential debate this year, but experts are divided over whether any of the major GOP candidates will support a major tax cut that could add to the deficit. Richard M. Skinner, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins and George Washington Universities, flatly predicts that whether the Republican nominee is former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, or someone else, the GOP will endorse a major tax cut.”
Skinner notes that Republican candidates are still consulting with supply-side guru Arthur Laffer. “Since the late 1970s, deep “supply-side” tax cuts have become the party orthodoxy,” he wrote recently. “No matter the economic context or the lack of personal enthusiasm of the candidate, the GOP will back slashing marginal rates.”
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, begs to differ. He wrote on the TaxVox blog that the large field of GOP presidential aspirants has been strangely silent until now on the need for major tax rate cuts. Rather, they at most have outlined support for major overhauls of the tax system – but changes that are “revenue neutral” and don’t add to the deficit.
For example, while Jeb Bush has embraced the supply-side tax philosophy, he has refused to sign an anti-tax pledge. Rubio has co-sponsored a tax plan that emphasizes a large child tax credit and cuts the corporate rate, but that proposal might increase rates for some upper-middle-class individuals. Former neurosurgeon and Tea Party favorite Ben Carson advocates a 10-percent flat tax, but he insists his approach would raise about the same of revenue as the existing tax code.
“Even Sen. Ted Cruz, another flat taxer, isn't saying Americans pay too much in taxes,” Gleckman wrote. “While he frequently vows to abolish the IRS, he doesn’t promise to cut taxes.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * ... illegals are voting? Since when? You still have to be a REGISTERED voter to vote, did these illegals browse the phone book to find a name to steal? Just more rubbish. There is no voter fraud, unless you consider the tampering of electronic voting machines by the people who make them? * Efforts to stymie voting rights are, well, just unAmerican and it's the stinking GOP, as usual, trying to limit the rights of citizens except, of course, for second amendment rights as they would like to see everyone kill each other then they could do the pipeline and keep all the money for themselves which they were going to do anyway. * In the history of this country, there's never been a demonstrated problem of illegals voting. Since when did the American philosophy of voting be the most important thing a citizen can do, change to a philosophy that its better to deny a million citizens the right to vote in order to prevent one illegal from voting. This isn't what I served 20 years in the military to defend. * But....but....how can conservatives win any elections without limiting voting rights? This is clearly not fair to all those people out there who cling to their tired regressive social and political philosophy of conservatism. Hopefully the Hopeless 5 on the Supreme Court can remedy this atrocity and restore and affirm conservatives' right to cheat and scam their way into office. * Texas' voter ID law, which some consider the nation's strictest, is currently being considered by a federal appeals court and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.**************************************************** And the REAL AND ONLY reason for such laws that purport to prevent voter fraud was expressed most vividly two years ago. “I’m going to be real honest with you,” Tea Party leader Ken Emanuelson said at a Dallas County Republican Party event on May 20 (2013). “The Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats.” There IS voter fraud, but it is committed UPON voters, not BY voters. * And the Supreme Court will once again say if there's a problem, let Congress fix it, knowing full well that Republicans will never bring anything to the floor.
................................................................................................................................................................... Attempts To Limit Voting Rights Stunted As Efforts To Enhance Voting Access Prevail
By Samantha Lachman, June 3, 2015
A number of state legislatures are adjourning, and supporters of expanded access to the ballot box may be sighing in relief as they see some of the major efforts to restrict voting access were stymied during this legislative session.
Then again, they may be disappointed that bills to restore voting rights to felons were squashed, or that courts haven't yet shut down strict new voter identification requirements in Arizona, North Carolina and Texas.
At the federal level, congressional Republicans haven't been rushing to update the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court gutted in 2013, even as they celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Selma, Alabama, civil rights march that helped bring about the landmark law.
As the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University highlighted Wednesday, "For the third year in a row, bills to expand voters’ access to the ballot box outpace those to restrict voting, both in terms of introduction and enactment." Of course, as the center notes, restrictions passed since the wave that swept the GOP to power in a slew of state legislatures in 2010 have continued to limit voting rights.
Here's a look back at state-level efforts to expand and restrict access to the ballot since November's midterm elections.
Efforts To Restrict Voting Access
Over the past four years, it has been challenging to keep up with all the new voter ID laws put in place. Although voter identification restrictions remained a favorite project of Republican-controlled state governments in their latest legislative sessions, only one -- North Dakota -- succeeded in passing a voter ID bill this time around. That measure made North Dakota's already strict voter ID law even more stringent.
Nevada's GOP-led legislature, which was considered the most likely state to enact a voter ID bill this year, closed its legislative session Tuesday without passing a law that would require a government-issued photo ID to vote. Arkansas and Missouri, where state courts struck down their ID laws, failed to put ID requirements before voters as ballot questions. Voter ID bills also failed in Maine, Nebraska and New Mexico.
Efforts To Enhance Voting Access
Both Illinois and Vermont passed bills allowing for same-day voter registration. Fourteen states now allow their citizens to register and vote on Election Day.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a bill making the state the first to have "universal registration," where eligible voters will automatically be registered using state Department of Motor Vehicles data. An estimated 300,000 new voters will be added to the rolls.
State legislators displayed a renewed enthusiasm for restoring felons' voting rights, though those efforts didn't always lead to success. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) vetoed a bill passed out of his state's legislature. A similar attempt in Minnesota's Legislature didn't survive, but is expected to be pushed again next year. Wyoming, however, did make its restoration process for felons easier.
Texas' voter ID law, which some consider the nation's strictest, is currently being considered by a federal appeals court and is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the state enacted a law that would provide a certified copy of a state birth certificate for free if voters state they would use it to obtain an election identification certificate. Voting rights advocates had called Texas' government-issued photo ID requirement a "poll tax" since the 2011 bill did not make birth certificates free for those who don't have one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... The GOP Contenders Getting the Most Free Exposure from Fox News
By Josh Voorhees, June 3, 2015
With the first Republican presidential debate only two months away, conservative contenders and pretenders are scrambling to claw their way onto Fox News’ ten-person debate stage. The cable news network, which will host the event in Cleveland, has said it will send invites two days before the Aug. 6 event only to those candidates who are polling the best in the five most recent national polls. Given that, there’s no time like the present for those at risk of being snubbed to make sure GOP voters know their names.
One of the best ways to do that? Conveniently enough, with an appearance on Fox News. For a cash-strapped candidate, sitting down for an interview with the conservative cable network is among the cheapest and most effective ways to reach those voters who will decide your fate.
Thanks to Media Matters, a liberal watchdog (that also moonlights as an unofficial rapid response team for Hillary Clinton), we have a snapshot of exactly which GOP candidates secured the most free airtime on the conservative outlet last month. Here’s the full breakdown, with the potential candidates currently among the top ten in RealClearPolitics’ rolling national average in bold:
1. Mike Huckabee: 70 minutes over 7 appearances
2. Rand Paul: 53 minutes over 12 appearances
3. Donald Trump: 51 minutes over 8 appearances
4. Ben Carson: 49 minutes over 6 appearances
5(t). Marco Rubio: 38 minutes over 4 appearances
5(t). Chris Christie: 38 minutes over 4 appearances
7. Carly Fiorina: 36 minutes over 5 appearances
8. Jeb Bush: 29 minutes over 2 appearances
9. Scott Walker: 26 minutes over 4 appearances
10. Rick Santorum: 23 minutes over 5 appearances
11. Lindsey Graham: 15 minutes over 3 appearances
12. Bobby Jindal: 13 minutes over 3 appearances
13(t). Ted Cruz: 13 minutes over 2 appearances
13(t). John Kasich: 13 minutes over 2 appearances
15. George Pataki: 9 minutes over 1 appearance
16. Rick Perry: 0 minutes over 0 appearances
That’s not to suggest these numbers are the result of some sort of master plan from the Fox News Powers That Be. Some candidates, like Bush, have largely avoided sit-down interviews to date, while others, like Paul, have locked down screen time across the cable spectrum by driving the national conversation.
Still, the totals might help explain why Carson has been able to climb to fourth in the national polls despite getting relatively meager attention outside of conservative media, and how Huckabee—a former Fox News host—has more or less managed to pick back up where he left off in 2008. (Trump’s frequent appearances are noteworthy, too, but he is his own type of weirdly coiffed animal given his existing national name recognition and ability to manipulate the political press. His place near the top of the list has more to do with Fox News’ desire for ratings than its advocacy.)
A few Fox news hits, though, can only do so much. Fiorina, for instance, was on the cable channel for a total of 36 minutes last month, spread out over five separate appearances—yet she still remains on the outside looking in with somewhere around 1 percent support in most national surveys.
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................COMMENTS: * The fact is; the Repug party is doomed to extinction in America, along with their bankrupt ideology. * Lets the purges begin. The hardcore won't go for any "libruls" in their party. * The people are probably the same. The party has moved so far right anything short of burning heretics at the stake is now considered "liberal." * True. I remember when the Tea Party put out a list of "purity tests" for candidates and journalists pointed out that Reagan failed 10 of the 11 tests. * The current GOP is nothing more than the John Birch Conspiracy Society, now with more money (Koch) and a bigger megaphone (Fox). They'll never go away as long as there is someone to hate. As Black and Hispanic minorities are assimilated, they'll find someone else to hate--witness their support for Pam Geller. Ignorance and superstition are, unfortunately, eternal. * I would count myself among the GOP refugees. I guess I could be identified as an Eisenhower Republican. I want my government to do stuff but I want it done efficiently. A good motto would be "Austere but adequate." But my home state of Kansas has shifted so far right that I feel like the GOP slid out from under me. I find myself voting Democrat which doesn't bother me all that much. Given the choice between tax and spend or borrow and spend, it seems to me that tax and spend is the conservative path.
................................................................................................................................................................... The Republican Conservative Base Is Shrinking
By Janie Velencia, June 3, 2015
The Republican conservative base -- defined as Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who say they are both socially and economically conservative -- is the smallest it's been since 2005, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday.
Forty-two percent of Republicans now describe themselves in these terms, a 9-point drop from one year ago and a 15-point drop from 2012. The percentage of Republicans who describe themselves as socially and economically moderate or liberal has jumped 5 points in the last two years, reaching 24 percent.
Where do the rest of the Republicans fall on the scale? Twenty percent describe themselves as socially moderate or liberal and economically conservative. This group has remained relatively unchanged in the last six years. The fourth category, those that describe themselves as socially conservative but economically moderate or liberal, represents the smallest portion, making up just 10 percent of the party.
Gallup notes that although the shift is significant, it is not unprecedented. But it may present a unique challenge to 2016 GOP candidates, as they now face a conservative base that is less than 50 percent of the party.
Gallup surveyed 1,024 adults between May 6-10 via live interviews on landlines and cell phones.
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................COMMENTS: * The only time the GOP received more votes was Dubya/Cheney reelection right in the middle of his Deadly, Needless, & Unfunded wars. Al gore received over 1/2 million more popular votes before the GOP controlled SCOTUS gave him the POTUS, also in every election lately the only way the Tealiban Bagger Terrorist Controlled Republicans won any election is because of gerrymandered districts there have been more democrats voting in everyone of the elections. * So, Rudy is saying that to be a Republican is be an intellectual Dinosaur that never evolves, spouts the party line, and never, ever thinks for itself? Yep... he nailed it...... * Simply put, if you're not owned by the Religious Right, you can't be a Republican. * Everyone knows what Republitards are against. But what are they FOR? Corporate greed and even more government intrusion into the American people's private lives. * To be a republican all you need to do is say and do whatever the billionaires tell you to. * The notion that leftists are opposed to "personal responsibility" is just as silly as the notion that we're in favor of wasteful spending or are promoting a "gay agenda" or think abortions are wonderful. Such absurd notions are promoted by an anti-intellectual, black-and-white worldview. Sadly, with the help of the corporate media, those ideas have taken hold in the minds of many, but that doesn't make those ideas any less absurd.
................................................................................................................................................................... Let Me Finish: Giuliani serves the GOP with its eviction notice
By Chris Matthews, June 2, 2015
Let me finish with this…Rudy Giuliani today served the Republican party with its eviction notice.
He did it in New York fashion - big, loud and crystal clear. He said you can’t be a Republican candidate for president unless you’re right on gay marriage - against it! If you’re not right on abortion - you want to outlaw it! And you want to give a chance to illegal immigrants, a chance to become Americans.
Rudy’s list was quite a score sheet but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
If you want to be a Republican today, a candidate on the Republican ticket, you have be against common core, against Obamacare, against gun control, against any recognition of man’s role in climate change.
This is why the Republican party has lost so many popular elections for president of late…five of the last six, in fact.
It’s why, even with a platoon of candidates, it has yet to offer a positive, winning vision to the American electorate for next year. It’s simply too hard to get the majority of the American people - in a country well over three hundred million - to agree on so many items, to score a perfect 100% on the assigned list of positions people are supposed to take.
If the Republican party loses next year, it will be for a simple reason. It asked too many Americans to agree to be simple minded.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * Shows what a class act Cruz is,...not! He and Sarah Palin could run together as the UGLY AMERICANS team. * He's got to learn that saying the same things over and over again may play well with the average mentally limited resource Tea Party supporter, but not to the other 95% of America. * How wonderful it must be thinking that saying something so incredibly offensive can be "UNSAID" with a gratuitous "It was a mistake". Cruz didn't even 100% own his statement by saying, "I" MADE a mistake. He did say he apologizes but, it just isn't the same. Cruz is a rectal sphincter and, if he can't think well enough on his feet to NOT say such cruel things, he should withdraw from the race. (actually, I meant the human race, not the presidential race). * They say the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,yet the gop runs the same lame #$%$ no talent politicians for president and cant figure out why they lose *He just revealed his true self. How much lower can you get than kicking someone after the tragic loss of a child? He is the truest example of a slimy politician that I have ever seen. Horrible.
................................................................................................................................................................... Ted Cruz Apologizes for Joe Biden Joke After Son's Death
By Arlette Saenz, June 3, 2015
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz has apologized after making a joke about Vice President Joe Biden while he is mourning his son.
"Joe Biden," Cruz reportedly said to some laughter while speaking at an event in Michigan. "You know the nice thing? You don't need a punchline."
"Vice President Joe Biden," @TedCruz says to faint laughter. "You know the nice thing? You don't need a punch line." #JoeBiden
— Chad Livengood (@ChadLivengood) June 3, 2015
The vice president's son Beau Biden died Saturday after battling brain cancer. He was 46.
Cruz then took to his Facebook page to apologize.
"It was a mistake to use an old joke about Joe Biden during his time of grief, and I sincerely apologize," he said, according to the post. "The loss of his son is heartbreaking and tragic, and our prayers are very much with the Vice President and his family."
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * It seems to me that there is a Biblical passage about removing the plank from your own eye first, which the Duggars seem to have ignored. I'm not surprised in the least about the recent revelations as to they and their son's actions, because it seems the ones most vocal in the limelight have the most to hide everytime. * ... religion causes people like the Duggars to turn off their critical thinking skills. * Most people who promote the hatred of gay people have a financial interest in keeping it going. * that's right.....they appeal to astro turf IQ's who they whip into a frenzy over gays.....or abortions........then ask for money....what a racket * ... Politicians owe their careers, and their payoffs, to the condemning of others, as do Born Again churches, the Tea Party apologists, all of Faux News for that matter, etc etc. The money generated by cultivating homophobia no doubt adds up to billions per year.
................................................................................................................................................................... The Dangerous Hypocrisy of the Right: The Josh Duggar Edition
By J. Nelson Aviance, June 2, 2015
The rhetoric of religious freedom and the 'war on Christianity' -- so often used as a justification for discrimination against LGBTQ people -- has nothing to do with religion or faith. While it is painted to look like an argument for the freedom of conscience, it is a medieval attempt by a group of people with money and power to assert control. How do I know this? Just ask yourself how many times right-wing 'religious freedom' activists stood up for the rights of Muslims. Oh, wait, you can't remember the last time that happened? Is it because the people who shamelessly claim to be victims are the same who opposed the Ground Zero mosque? Or burned Qurans? Or sponsored armed rallies in which white people gleefully resisted radical Islamists by drawing racist cartoons of Mohamed? Or created and fostered the idea that our president was a Muslim, with no other evidence beside his skin color and his father's country of origin?
The Duggar family, the Republican hopefuls and their conservative base like to promote the idea that opposite-sex couplings are required to raising healthy and successful children. They ignore multiple long-term studies that show children are most successful with same-sex parents than with opposite-sex parents. This same talking point -- that kids "deserve" a mom and dad in a committed marriage and only an opposite-sex couple can make a "real" family -- is echoed by most of the fringe groups these hopefuls pander to and it contributes to the hostile environments that lead to so many LGBTQ teen suicides. While the Duggars encouraged the idea that gay people are somehow morally suspect, inferior or outside of 'God's plan,' they kept their own son's predatory behavior a secret until after the statute of limitation expired. Perhaps they were trying to protect their child. However, they also succeeded in protecting the family's brand and the political brand of its patriarch and former member of Arkansas' House of Representatives. Instead of facing the allegations and granting dignity to Duggar's victims, they chose to allow his predation to remain hidden and exposed their children and community to the danger that Michelle Duggar would later project onto trans people.
Despite how hollow their anti-LGBTQ rhetoric becomes, they persist in offering a self-righteous and judgmental version of Christian 'compassion' in which they condemn the 'sin' of homosexuality. This view is rooted in bigotry rather than religion. Jesus ate with prostitutes, lepers and sinners. He said those who suffer and are downtrodden would be welcomed into the kingdom of God. He withstood the judgments and condemnation of those who rigidly enforced the old religious laws, who were the ones to later turn Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. He said to obey the Ten Commandments, but that the complicated religious laws used to govern society at large (Mosaic laws) were not relevant to worshiping God. While there are passages in the New Testament that may refer to male homosexuality, female homosexuality is conspicuously absent. And, despite whatever condemnation the Bible may have for homosexuality, or how people may interpret these things, none of it came from Jesus.
The above list is arbitrary and selective. So, too, are those of people who quote the Bible in saying that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin while ignoring the similar prohibition on eating shellfish. While right-wingers love to pretend that marriage has been defined the same way by all cultures throughout history, that isn't only inaccurate in our current world, but it is absolutely contradicted by the many ways marriage is defined in the Bible, not just in behavior and the roles of husband and wife, but even in the composition of a marriage.
Biblical scholars and people of Christian faiths have denounced the idea of a single Biblical definition of marriage in recent years. Some Christians also make compelling cases that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, and even supports marriage-equality. Whatever your personal interpretation, it is clear that the kinds of judgments made by the Duggars are absolutely against Christ's message of love. Arguing that you are 'loving' a gay person by praying for them is passive-aggressive and condescending. It often is accompanied by dehumanizing condemnation of LGBTQ, which completely invalidates any argument of 'loving the sinner...' Note recent calls for a state-sponsored execution of gay people, the association of marriage-equality with the Biblical end-of-days and punishment from God in the form of natural disasters and the also scientifically disproven idea that gays are all pedophiles and trying to recruit and rape your children (particularly your sons), all from "Christian" pastors and public figures.
The real question for me, then, is what purpose does condescension and condemnation by the Duggars, conservative pundits and Republican hopefuls serve? It isn't religious freedom. No one is infringing on the Duggars' right to worship or free speech. On the other hand, many people who hold similar beliefs don't run for office or get in front of a camera. This is then about power and control. Their use of their fame as a tool for expanding their platform in the field of politics makes that clear. They could, instead, be drawing attention to our broken foster care and adoption systems, the suffering of starving children here and abroad or bring attention to people suffering under unjust authoritarian regimes. Instead, they're interested in elections and imposing their conservative social values on public policy.
What's worse, they exploit the ignorance of their audience, people who may not know any gay people or whose opinions are shaped by rich white corporate plutocrats like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. They encourage their followers to vote for empty suits who cut taxes on rich people and corporations, cut nutrition programs for poor children and yet identify as people of faith. The Duggars demean and vilify people, make no effort to call out self-proclaimed Christians advocating for imprisoning and murdering gay people, immigrants and Muslims, but then claim to be victims. This isn't about religion, scripture or faith. This is about power, an insidious bid for control that directly harms LGBTQ people and families. That's the dangerous hypocrisy of the right.
...................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................... COMMENTS: * Whenever the Republicans are out of power, they talk a big game about spending cuts, deficit reduction, more government less freedom, etc. Whenever they're in power, people like Cheney run the show. We get massive defense spending, wars, deficits, surveillance, torture, and human rights abuses somewhere in the world at US taxpayer expense. * Yeah, shame we didn't live up to the good old days. The Iraq War. Abu Greive. Torture. Bosnia. Rwanda. Throwing up on prime minister. Shoot-down of Iranian airliner. Bombing of marine barracks. Iran-Contra. Ah, THOSE were the halcyon days of freedom. * Dick Cheney is so mean he attacked a country just to watch it die. * "His 'overarching message,' notes the Wall Street Journal, 'is that the U.S. needs to assert itself more on the world stage.'" Never mind the fact that Cheney's increased assertion of the U.S. on the world stage has created exactly the problems that have made us less safe. I guess he just embraces the irony.
................................................................................................................................................................... The Hawks Return George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were reviled at the end of their administration. Now their disastrous ideas are flying high.
By Jamelle Bouie, June 2, 2015
Among the first polls of 2009 was a postmortem of the Bush administration. On the eve of Barack Obama’s inauguration, pollsters asked where Americans stood on the outgoing president and his deputy, Dick Cheney.
With an approval rating of 22 percent, Bush was the least popular president in Gallup’s seven-decade history of presidential polling. Americans no longer liked him. Yet he was still ahead of Cheney. The public loathed the vice president, who helped engineer the war in Iraq as well as the torture programs at U.S.-controlled prisons for captured enemies. At 13 percent approval, Cheney was the most unpopular politician in the country and a virtual pariah in public life.
But time heals unpopularity, and six years later, both Bush and Cheney are back on the national stage. But where the former president is low-key—at most, Bush is giving private speeches and advising his brother’s bid for the Republican nomination—the former vice president is unrestrained. Working with his daughter Liz Cheney through their political action committee, Keep America Safe, Cheney aims for influence. His “overarching message,” notes the Wall Street Journal, “is that the U.S. needs to assert itself more on the world stage. ‘We thought, looking forward to 2016, it was very important to make sure those issues were front and center in the campaign,’ he said.”
It’s great news for Cheney, then, that he won’t have to work hard. Far from marginal, Bush and Cheney’s ideas and language are part of the Republican bloodstream, embraced by presidential candidates, pushed by elected officials, and on the agenda if Republicans win in 2016.
To that point, the former vice president’s influence is most evident in the rhetoric of the Republican field. Cheney never spoke with caveats. His language was clear, direct, and meant to scare the public into action. “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” he declared during the runup to the Iraq war. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, against us.” Likewise, during the 2004 presidential campaign, he warned that Sen. John Kerry’s election would lead to more terrorist attacks. “It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again,” he said, “that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre–9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.”
Today’s Republicans sound the same. “I want to be president to defeat the enemies trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in his campaign announcement on Monday. “Nothing matters if we aren’t safe,” declares Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on his website. “You can’t enjoy your civil liberties if you’re in a coffin,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in a speech criticizing civil libertarians like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. “On behalf of your children and mine,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to the audience at the South Carolina Freedom Summit, “I want a leader that is willing to take a fight to them before they take the fight to us.” Even Jeb Bush, the moderate of the group, has adopted this language. “ISIS … wants to destroy Western civilization,” he said in an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation.
If this were just rhetoric, it would be less jarring. But like Cheney, these candidates have plans for an aggressive, more confrontational United States. “As president, I will use American power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outer space,” said Rubio in a speech on foreign policy last month. “Russia, China, Iran, or any other nation that attempts to block global commerce will know to expect a response from my administration.” Walker wants to abandon any deal with Iran, and Bush has inched toward his brother’s belligerence.
Yes, there are Republicans who have struggled to turn the party away from its interventionism. Since winning election in 2010, Paul has fought to widen the Republican foreign policy debate and tilt the conversation toward nonmilitary alternatives. But it’s been a losing battle. To even enter the conversation, he’s had to adjust his views, signing the now-infamous letter to Iran and endorsing elements of Obama’s drone policy. And his victories, like this week’s blow against key sections of the Patriot Act, are largely symbolic; the law expired, but House and Senate Republicans passed a compromise bill that reinstated core provisions on Tuesday. Paul notwithstanding, the party consensus has turned back toward Cheneyism.
Hawks will celebrate this development, but I’d be more circumspect. The centerpiece of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy agenda—the Iraq war—was a substantive disaster and an electoral catastrophe. Without Iraq, there is no Democratic majority in 2007, no Barack Obama in 2008, and potentially no Democratic presidency in 2009.
Maybe the picture has changed and voters are ready for a more hawkish administration. But before going that route, I’d think hard about the risk. Do conservatives want the next Republican president—and vice president—to leave office as hated and disdained as the last one?
...................................................................................................................................................................
