What, Me Worry?

(Cartoon by Lee Judge, published in the Kansas City Star and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and be so kind as to return.)

Poor Hillary.  She can't seem to cut a break these days when it comes to the GOP sniping on her every move  If it's not Benghazi, it's Syria, and, now, her boundless wealth. 

One of my tablemates here at the Cuckoo's Nest and I got to talking about the sudden "concern" with all the money she and her husband have, implying that she has lost touch with the commoners (as if the Republicans have a clue about that) and therefor would make a lousy president.  He suggested pretty much what Lee Judge suggests in the above cartoon:  misogyny at work.

While I'm sure that's part of it, I think there's more than just that.  After all, the GOP did nominate Sarah Palin as its vice presidential candidate, even if everyone pretty much knew that McCain-Palin didn't have a snowball's chance in hell.  And it wasn't that long ago that Elizabeth Dole had a reasonable shot as the party's nominee for president.  I think a larger part of the distaste for Hillary has to do with her name:  Clinton.  The GOP still has a visceral hatred of the Clintons, almost as deep as its hatred for Barack Obama.

That said, however, the issue of the Clinton's wealth, a lot of it garnered in speaking fees and book sales, is out there.  I'm glad that it finally is being addressed.  I think Bill Clinton was wise to face it head on during the Sunday talk shows.

Here's Bill Clinton's explanation regarding the wealth issue:

The former president was questioned Tuesday about his wife’s remarks in an interview by NBC’s David Gregory, who asked whether Clinton could appreciate how people, “as a political matter,” might feel that Hillary Clinton is out of touch.

 “Yes, but she's not out of touch,” the former president replied. “And she advocated and worked as a senator for things that were good for ordinary people. And before that, all her life. And the people asking her questions should put this into some sort of context.”

 

“We've got a good life, and I'm grateful for it,” Clinton went on. “But we go to our local grocery store on the weekend. We talk to people in our town. We know what's going on. The real issue is if you've been fortunate enough to be successful, are you now out of touch and insensitive to the agonizing struggles other people are facing? That's the real issue.”   [Emphasis added]
I would remind Republicans and Democrats alike that we've had wealthy presidents in the past who were decidedly not out of touch with those who are struggling.  Two in particular come to mind:  Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. The issue is not one of personal wealth, it's an issue of who the individual is beholden to, who owns her/him.  And that just might be a viable issue this time around.

The chances are pretty good that I won't be around for a Hillary presidency, and that does make me a little sad.  I would have loved to be around for a woman President of the USA.  But I'll tell you what, if she wins, I hope the American electorate gives her a decent Congress, one with which she can work to get things done in the way they're supposed to be done and not by executive fiat.

My prediction is that it's gonna be an interesting couple of years.  Very interesting.

MOS*

*More Of Same 

(Cartoon by Lee Judge, published 6/22/14 in the Kansas City Star and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then return, please.)
No, I'm not through yelling about this.  I'd set my hair on fire if I thought it would do any good (or if it were longer than 1/8th inch all the way around).  I'm really that furious.

And so should every American be, regardless of political persuasion.  This administration isn't fooling anybody when it says that the 300 troops being sent to Iraq are there merely as advisors to Iraqi security forces.  Yeah, right.  And I was the inspiration for "My Sharona."

From McClatchy D.C.

“‘Combat’ is an elastic term when you talk about special operations guys, because you never know what they’re going to be doing,” [Former Marine Corp Sgt. Andrew] van Wey, who now does marketing for a military apparel firm in Fort Worth, Texas, said in an interview. “The nature of these guys’ jobs is covert. When you send in special operations, they leave a smaller footprint than infantry or other conventional forces. That’s how they get around violating the spirit of ‘no boots on the ground.’”

Others who served in Iraq said that once the new U.S. troops are embedded with their Iraqi counterparts, all bets are off, because there are few safe havens in a very dangerous country.

“It’s a stretch to say they won’t see combat,” Eric Young, a former Marine corporal who fought in Fallujah during two deployments to Iraq, told McClatchy. “More than likely those Green Berets will take up leadership roles in the Iraqi military. They may not be doing a lot of fighting, but they won’t just sit back and call for support. They’re there to lead from the front. You don’t lead from the back.”   [Enphasis added]

 The US troops will get involved, perhaps wounded or killed and certain elements will call for vengeance and then, just in time for November, 2016, it will become the kind of issue the GOP has been dreaming of.

Like I said last week.  Here we go again.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/20/231083/iraq-vets-say-obamas-promise-of.html#storylink=cpy

No Surprise Here

(Cartoon by Jack Ohman, published 6/7/14 in the Sacramento Bee and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then kindly return.)

Yeah, yeah.  I took yesterday off.  Nothing in the Sunday papers moved me and it was just one of those low energy days.  But I'm feeling a little better today.

Actually, this cartoon reminded me that Doyle McManus usually has something to say, so I wandered over to read what he offered in his latest column.  He's reading excerpts from Hillary Clinton's new book (about to be published) and from what he sees, there's no longer any doubt that she will be a candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination.

Here's what Doyle McManus had to say:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s memoir of her time as secretary of State isn’t officially being released until Tuesday, but thanks to a deluge of excerpts, we already know most of what’s in the book, and that makes it easy to figure out why she wrote it.

If there was any remaining doubt that Clinton is planning to run for president, “Hard Choices“ should remove it. ...

And, in the most interesting tidbits, she makes it clear that she differed with Obama on some issues: arming Syrian rebels (that divide was already well known), on being tough on Russia’s Vladimir Putin (she says she would have been tougher), on pushing Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak out of power (she counseled more caution), and on avoiding a clash with Israel over settlements in the West Bank. I’ll write more about those issues once I’ve had time to plow through the whole book.

The upshot: Clinton’s not going to run on Obama’s record. Which is exactly what any smart campaign strategist would advise.   [Emphasis added]

I don't think any of us had any doubt that she would run.  Most of us have no doubt that she will win the nomination.  And a goodly percentage of us believe she can win the White House, unless the GOP surprises us with a fairly rational, non-Tea-Partyish type candidate.  So far, I haven't seen anyone who fits the description, but the conventions are still two years away.  She's well-funded and well-positioned for a run, even in the midst of investigation after investigation of Benghazi by House Republicans.

Nor was there any doubt in my mind that she would run as far away from Obama's tenure as Al Gore ran away from Bill Clinton's tenure.  Obama has done a few good things, but he's not come close to fulfilling his various promises for "change."  And he's left too much undone on the big issues, preferring instead to secure his future and his future in history with bland baby steps. 

The problem I see is that Hillary's come with the same DLC background as the current president and is every bit the buddy of Wall Street banksters that he is.  You don't raise the kind of money she has at this point without those "friendships."

So, while Hillary won't be "more-of-same" in every detail, perhaps she will surprise me, especially when it comes to the treatment of women here and in the rest of the world. 

One can only hope.

GOP Gender Gap

(Cartoon by John Darkow, published 4/10/12, and featured at Cagle.Com.   Click on image to enlarge.)

I'm still giggling over the CPAC conference this weekend.  It reminds me that silly season is getting closer and closer.  The 2014 elections are just around the corner, and then the campaigns for the presidential nominations will get started in earnest.  CPAC laid out quite nicely just how silly the run-up to the nominating conventions are going to be.

One thing CPAC made clear is that the GOP still hasn't figured out this whole thing about women.  That was evidenced by their line-up of speakers.  Yes, yes:  Madame Palin spoke and even did some poetry, but she was one of the few women speakers.  Robin Abcarian noticed the same thing when she saw the list of speakers. Her March 7 column in the Los Angeles Times did the math:

By my count, the CPAC mobile app listed 163 speakers and panelists. Men outnumber women by far

The breakdown: 128 men (78%) vs 35 (21%) women. That’s a 57-point gender gap, people. If Republicans have any hope of stopping the Democrats' blockbuster narrative that they are waging a war on women, they must first solve their own war of attrition on women.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who closes CPAC on Saturday evening, is expected to be a highlight for many attendees. But one woman with mega-star power is not enough to dispel the notion that CPAC (and by association the Republican Party) is a retrogressive boys’ club.
When is the next Sarah Palin going to get some CPAC love?

Even a writer on the conservative website, Breitbart.com, was brutal: “CPAC could have invited South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez," wrote Mary Chastain. "These women are not only in a position of power, but they are also minorities. Martinez can reach out to women and the Latino vote, which leans to the left. They did not even bring in Condoleezza Rice … she is respected on both sides of the aisle. CPAC also left out Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.”

In a way, I can understand Cardenas’ obliviousness. He’s got man blinders on.   [Emphasis added]

I guess the GOP just doesn't get it.

Vice Presidential Material?

(Cartoon by Lee Judge/Kansas City Star (3/7/14) featured at McClatchy DC.   Click on image to enlarge.

We're still about eight months from 2014 elections, but campaigning for the 2016 election appears to be in full swing, especially among Republicans.  This past weekend, many of those who seek the GOP nomination appeared at the CPAC convention to present their credentials to the party's more conservative faithful.  In anticipation of that meet-and-greet Sean Sullivan of the Washington Post wrote a rather interesting column which speculates on just who might wind up being the GOP's Vice Presidential nominee. 

I know, I know, that kind of speculation is way premature.  I still found it interesting.  Of course, a lot depends on what happens in the 2014 elections (the Tea Party wing might cost the GOP its shot at winning the Senate), and a lot of the names in the two lists are people who are clearly interested in the Number One slot, not the second. But most of them might very well be considered by the nominee of their respective parties.

Here are the possibilities for each party:

Republicans

5. Brian Sandoval. On paper, the governor of Nevada is just what the GOP needs. He's a popular, moderate Hispanic executive from a swing state. ... But not so fast. He's pro-abortion rights and expanded Medicaid in his state, two things that won't sit well with the conservative base. ...

4. Bobby Jindal. It's no secret that Jindal is thinking about running for president. ... The question is whether someone so ambitious about his own rise could also be a loyal lieutenant. Still, Jindal occupies a space in which he can appeal to the base and the party establishment. ...

3. Scott Walker. Like Jindal, Walker appears to have his eye on the top job in 2016. His resume is tailor made for a run at either job: Midwestern swing state governor who became a conservative hero when he took on organized labor and survived the backlash. ... Walker wouldn't be a safe VP pick. Picking him would gin up both the liberal and conservative bases. He could be the Paul Ryan of 2016 -- which could be good or bad depending on the political climate.

2. Marco Rubio. ...  Rubio is also eyeing a run for president. Rubio's strengths: He gives one heck of a speech, has a great personal story, is young, telegenic and may be the Republican best equipped to occupy the sweet spot between the party's conservative wing and its establishment wing. ...

1. Susana Martinez. The top pick on this list is someone who has declared zero interest in running for president. Martinez, who is the first Hispanic female governor of New Mexico, is also the only GOP woman on this list. If Clinton runs and wins, Martinez could emerge as a powerful counterweight in the battle for women voters. ...

Democrats

5. Cory Booker. Young, energetic and never camera-shy, the new New Jersey Senator could provide a boost of energy (and youth) for a Democratic ticket led by Clinton or Vice President Joe Biden. The New Jersey senator is African American, which would help Democrats as they aim to keep up (or at least not lose too much of) the enthusiasm among African American voters that was there for President Obama's two historic campaigns. ...

4. Kirsten Gillibrand: Gillibrand has quickly gone from obscure swing district House member to popular liberal senator from New York with a growing national profile. She's been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate, but if Clinton runs, kiss any chance of her also making a White House bid goodbye. ...

3. The Castro brothers. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro was introduced to the country to rave reviews when he keynoted the 2012 Democratic National Convention. His brother Joaquin serves in Congress. Viewed as two of the brightest rising stars in the party, the Castros, who are Mexican American, would have to be considered top choices for Clinton. Like Booker, they would add some youth and newness to the ticket. ...

2. Elizabeth Warren. There is no Democrat right now with stronger appeal to the Democratic Party's liberal base than the Massachusetts senator. At a time when fatigue over Obama is on the increase, Warren has been just the shot in the arm the liberal movement has been looking for. ... Clinton has never been a favorite of the left and adding Warren to the ticket could give the ticket a much-needed boost of liberal energy.

1. Deval Patrick. The governor of Massachusetts seems open to the idea of a national bid. ... Keeping African American voters enthusiastic without Obama at the top of the ticket will be a challenge for Clinton, if she runs. Picking Patrick would give the ticket an experienced figure with a strong ability to reach out to black voters.


 Well, that's an interesting set of lists.  It'll give those of us who can't seem to get enough of electioneering plenty to think about for the next couple of years.

The Horse Race

(Cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 2/9/14 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge.
I never thought I'd be linking to Jonah Goldberg, but his column in Tuesday's L.A. Times does provide some insight into who just might be the contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Republicans want an outsider, which is why the senators aiming for the nomination — Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio — spend much of their time denouncing the city they work in. The governors — Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mike Huckabee, formerly of Arkansas — have it easier, but they certainly never miss an opportunity to express their disappointment in Washington. Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Romney's running mate in 2012, is the one candidate who could claim next-in-line status without setting off a riot, but he's unlikely to run. Jeb Bush is beloved by the party establishment, but nothing short of a name change would appease the tea partiers. [Links provided in the original.]

One of the first things I noticed about this list was the absence of Chris Christie, and I admit to being surprised at the omission.  I guess even Jonah was appalled by the alleged thuggery of the New Jersey governor.  Still, it's early in the process and I think he's got time for a "rehabilitation."  The American electorate has a short memory.

What  surprised me a little was the inclusion of two Hispanics, Cruz and Rubio.  It may very well be that the Republicans (at least some of them) really are ready to consider an immigration reform bill.  At the very least, Republicans might realize that they have to do something to attract Hispanic voters.

What is clear from his column is that he believes that the Tea Party will continue to shape the Republican Party.  If he is correct, it's going to be a long, contentious ride into the convention in 2016. 

I recommend investing in popcorn stock.

Well? Is She Going To Run Or Not?

(Cartoon by Jim Morin / Miami Herald (January 17, 2014. Click on Image to enlarge.)

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/19/214978/mcclatchy-cartoons-for-the-week.html#storylink=cpy

The January 27, 2014 issue of Time magazine has a really good article by David Von Drehle on Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate for the presidency in 2016.  It deals primarily with whether or not she has made a decision as to running for the post.  While I suspect she has already decided, she (and her camp of supporters) are being very coy as to just what the decision is.  The article suggests that coyness is for several very good reasons.

Here's the key idea:

How long can this go on? Longer than you might think. The typical reasons for a candidate to "decide" -- credibility with donors and voters, access to media, ability to recruit staff, leverage to secure endorsements -- wouldn't move Clinton because she already has those things.  There's not a door she can't open nor a camera she can't command. [Emphasis added]

Well, being the cover story (once again) of Time certainly gives credence to Von Drehle's thesis, and in all likelihood she will be the cover story several more times in the near future.  And 2+ years out is a little early for any kind of formal declaration.

 In the meantime,   Republicans will keep Clinton in their sights, with Benghazi and any other disaster they can dredge up and link her to. 

Silly rabbits!

Oh, Christ(ie)!

(Cartoon by Kevin Siers and published in the Charlotte Observer 1/10/14.)

Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Siers seems to be implying that the recent brouhaha over the lane closure on the George Washington Bridge will harm any chance Christie has for the presidency in 2016.  I would respectfully disagree.

First, the American electorate has a notoriously short memory.  It did, for example, re-elect George W. Bush to a second term, even with all the discontent over two wars being fought "off-budget."

Second, most of the American public is so disgusted with the current crop of politicians that the bluntness of Mr. Christie is refreshing, even if what he is saying is utter nonsense.  I must admit I have a smidgen of appreciation for the fact that Christie apparently doesn't have a filter between what he is thinking and what is says.

Third, Mr. Christie is operating the way all more traditional politicians operate.  Like Hollywood press agents, politicians believe that any news about them is good news because it gets their name in front of the public.

Although it might be too early to make any hard predictions, I think Mr. Christie still has a damned good shot at the GOP nomination, and, given the current crop of potential candidates, he has an even shot at the presidency.

It's going be an interesting 2014.

They Still Don't Get It

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 6/16/13 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.)

It became even clearer after the Sunday talk shows that we won't get an immigration bill out of this Congress.  From McClatchy DC:

Republican House leaders reiterated their opposition Sunday to the immigration bill passed by the Senate last week, highlighting the uncertain prospects for enacting a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

"The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said on CNN's "State of the Union," echoing statements made by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other senior Republican lawmakers. ...

Boehner has said that he will not bring up an immigration bill for a vote that does not have the support of the majority of the Republican House caucus.

And the reason stated is that there isn't enough of a guarantee of border security to stop the flow of new immigrants in the Senate bill, even though that bill would extend the border fence and increase the number of border agents and drones to do just that.  I think the real reason is that the Tea Partiers don't like the fact that the Senate bill allows a path to citizenship for those "illegals" already here.  The fact that the path to citizenship is so draconian as to be almost impossible to trod doesn't matter.  It's still "amnesty" to their way of thinking.

Will it come back to haunt the GOP?

Certainly.  If not in 2014, then certainly in 2016.  The demographics (see Mike Luckovich's cartoon above) are just too clear.

Some folks are just too stupid to see the light.  In fact, they might just be too stupid to find their way home.

Because We Need More Benghazi

(Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

The Republicans are not done with Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!, and so neither is David Horsey.  Once again he points out that a rational and serious discussion of what went wrong so that the incident isn't repeated in the future would be helpful, and once again he notes that neither party is in the mood for such a rational and serious discussion.

A Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of Republicans believe the administration has been “dishonest” about what happened at Benghazi. Only 16% of Democrats feel the same way. But 60% of Democrats believe Republicans have “gone too far” pursuing the issue while 65% of Republicans think their party’s representatives have handled it “appropriately.”

This stark partisan divide is hardly a surprise given the sour state of American politics, but, on an issue of national security, one would wish for broader middle ground in which concern for objective facts, not political advantage, would guide people’s opinions. ...

Playing a public relations game with the situation does not reflect well on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department or on the Obama White House. However, this game of semantics was a fairly typical example of inside-the-Beltway spin doctoring and posterior protecting. It is not nearly in the same league of monumental cover-ups of illegal acts that took place with Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal.

And that’s the problem with the current demand by many Republicans for a special committee to be set up to investigate the Benghazi affair. That seems a pretty obvious ploy to pump up the issue for political advantage and to do as much damage as can be done to the former secretary of State, who just might be the future Democratic presidential nominee.   [Emphasis added]

2016:  that's the whole point of this exercise in wackaloonacy.  This has little if anything to do with Obama.  He has given the GOP everything they've wanted, even things it didn't ask for.  It's all about the Hillary.  They've got to have some red meat to throw to their basest base in 2014 and they have to deny the Democrats the White House in 2016.

This is yet another reason why we can't have nice things.

Not Amused

(Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

David Horsey isn't nearly amused in his latest column as he was in the one I posted on yesterday, and with good reason.  The whole Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! tempest is one that shows just how dysfunctional the GOP's idea of governance is and what effect that is having on Congress.

The latest round of House hearings about the Benghazi incident provides a perfect example of how American politics has been warped and gummed up by bombastic, partisan extremism. A cool, methodical inquiry could well uncover serious mistakes and provide remedies so that future incidents can be thwarted before more American diplomats are killed in the line of duty. But the current generation of Republican lawmakers does not know how to do cool. Hot rhetoric more suited to a Glenn Beck tirade seems to be the only way they know how to communicate.

A prime example is Rep. Steve King of Iowa. On Wednesday, he said he did not know “what took place, and who was where doing what and why,” yet he declared, “I believe that it’s a lot bigger than Watergate, and if you link Watergate and Iran-Contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is.”

Yup, King does not actually know any details, but he is sure Benghazi is vastly bigger than the two biggest political scandals of the last 40 years. Either King does not really have a clue what Watergate and Iran-Contra were all about or he simply thinks if he really, really believes, wishes upon a star, picks a crop of four-leaf clovers and asks Santa, he and his party will luck into a scandal big enough to topple a president they despise.   [Emphasis added]

I agree with Horsey that a rational investigation of the Benghazi incident is necessary.  We really do need to  find out why the response as to what actually happened was so garbled by the State Department in the immediate aftermath.  We also need to discover why the various US agencies weren't working together closely to prevent the murderous incident from even happening.  That, however, would require a level of rationality and concern for good governance that the wackaloons in the House are incapable of.

That said, I also think that setting up the case for impeachment is only part of the rationale for this inanity.  The wackaloons know that right now Hillary Clinton is the leading contender for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and she just might beat whomever the GOP puts up.  I suspect she is as much a target as Obama.

And that means 2014 will be an important election for both parties.  Will the GOP regulars manage to tamp out the Tea Party Irregulars?  Will the Democrats manage to pick up seats in the House and the Senate?

This isn't popcorn time for the nation.  It's nail biting time.

Grins

(Click on image to enlarge and then come back here.)

And now for something amusing to end the work week.  David Horsey had his tongue firmly implanted in his cheek for this column.  Horsey suggests that Gov. Christie just might have messed up his political career by having the weight loss surgery.

The cable news pundit corps immediately questioned whether Christie was dropping weight to prepare for a presidential campaign in 2016, as if staying alive to see his children grow up and have children of their own were not motivation enough. However valid or specious, such speculation carries the clear implication that Americans would not elect a fat man to be president.

Is that true?

According to a recent poll, 76% of voters in New Jersey have a positive view of overweight candidates. It is hard not to think that has a lot to do with Christie’s current popularity in his home state, but it may also indicate that some people are more comfortable with a politician who looks like them, rather than one who is too slim. (Could that be contributing to the pathological hatred some folks have for our current svelte president?)

A 2012 Gallup survey put the share of Americans who are obese at 26.2%. Another 36.1% are overweight. That is a large base of potentially sympathetic voters for a candidate who enjoys his Krispy Kremes, Double Whoppers with cheese and 64-ounce sodas from 7-11. President Bill Clinton was notorious, not just for sneaking around the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky, but for sneaking out for a Big Mac at the McDonald’s a block from the White House. Perhaps Clinton remains one of the country’s most popular political figures because he not only feels the pain of common people but feels their appetites as well.   [Emphasis added]

Ah ... nothing like a good chuckle to end the work week on a positive note.

Thanks, David.

Nightmare Scenario

(Click on image to enlarge and then return, please.)

David Horsey has presented us with a possible scenario that is frightening in its implication.  All things considered, it is certainly conceivable that the GOP could take over both houses of Congress and the White House by 2016.

Since Mitt Romney lost to President Obama on Nov. 6, the conventional wisdom has been that the Republican Party is in trouble. The less conventional truth is that it is the Democrats whose chances many be more bleak. ...

In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans won big in state legislative races, picking up 675 seats nationwide. Before that election, the GOP was in full control of 14 state legislatures while Democrats were in charge in 27. After the election, Republicans had won control in 26 states and Democrats' number had dropped to 17. As a result, Republicans were able to redraw congressional districts more to their liking in several key states. Redistricting has given Republicans such an advantage that they do not need to command anything close to a majority nationwide in order to retain control of the House of Representatives for years to come.

Republicans are also positioned well to take back power in the U.S. Senate in 2014. Here, again, being unpopular with a majority of Americans does not matter so much. Because each state gets two senators, no matter what their population may be, and because Republicans dominate in states such as Alaska and Wyoming that have fewer people than they have wild animals, the GOP has a built-in head start in the competition for Senate control.

In the coming election, there appears to be no Republican senator who is in dire risk of losing his seat, and the two who are retiring are from the GOP-leaning states of Nebraska and Georgia. Democrats, meanwhile, have six incumbent senators who are retiring, four of them from states that are favorable ground for Republicans – West Virginia, South Dakota, Iowa and Montana. ...

Republicans might blow an opportunity for victory by going crazy and nominating a man to please their fevered base -- Rand Paul or Rick Santorum -- but they could also make their pick someone from vote-rich Florida – Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio – and stand a good chance of winning the White House. Bush is the smarter brother in his famous political family and would appeal to the centrist voters who swing elections. Rubio is a youthful, fresh face of conservatism. Either man could cut into the Democrats’ Latino vote enough to sway an election.   [Emphasis added]

 All of this assumes that the Republican Party will finally be able to shake off the hold its basest base has on the incumbents who fear being primaried by Tea Party candidates.  Right now, a lot of money from folks like Karl Rove and his pals and the Koch Brothers is flowing like cheap wine at a toga party in order to do just that.  Nods toward immigration reform is one sign of that strategy.

And, as I mentioned yesterday, the revisionists are busily scrubbing the Bush name squeaky clean to leave a Jeb Bush path to the White House.

The biggest element, however, is one which Horsey rightfully emphasizes:  Republican control of state legislatures and governorships.  With the help of ALEC, districts were gerrymandered in most states, and legislation passed since then which makes Democratic victories even more unlikely.  Ironically, the Republican Party adapted the Howard Dean 50-state strategy to their own ends, while the Democrats decided to go with Rahm Emmanual's "muscle" a few states plan. 

So, yes, this nightmare could very well be coming up.  We won't want popcorn.  Just plenty of cat food.

Revising History, Just In Time

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 4/23/13 by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

George W. Bush's presidential library is opening just in time for the GOP to revise history further.  After all, there's an election coming up in 2014 and an even bigger one coming up in 2016.  The Bush name has to be burnished for a return by the family.  W has spent the last four plus years quietly and far beyond the ken of the people in this country.  That really hasn't been much of a problem, especially since Obama has pretty much continued with the agenda initiated by W and his NeoCon buddies.

Since then, Bush has absented himself from both policy disputes and political battles. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the passage of time and Bush’s relative invisibility have been beneficial to a chief executive who left office surrounded by controversy.

Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys.

Majorities said they still dis­approve of Bush’s performance on the Iraq war and the economy, but his economic approval numbers nearly doubled between December 2008 and today, from 24 percent to 43 percent, with 53 percent disapproving. Iraq remains the most troublesome part of his legacy. Today, 57 percent say they disapprove of his decision to invade, though that is down from 65 percent in the spring of 2008, the last time the question was asked. ...

Last week’s Boston Marathon bombing was a tragic reminder of the episode that changed Bush’s presidency. After 9/11, Bush implemented aggressive anti-terrorism policies, many of which were embraced by the Obama administration, though not the controversial interrogation measures authorized under Bush. A recent report by the Constitution Project concluded that those policies resulted in torture of some detainees.   [Emphasis added]

Obama may not be authorizing water boarding, but he is obviously OK with keeping Gitmo and force-feeding its current inhabitants, many of whom are innocent of the charges under which they are kept.  And Obama is still backing and supporting the odious provisions of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches.  Is it any wonder that the GOP is finding it relatively easy to rehabilitate W?

And that means Jeb Bush's son will run for a state post in Texas in 2014 to test the waters, and then Jeb himself will be persuaded (ha-ha) to enter the 2016 primaries to save the Republicans from themselves.

See?  Easy.

Chain Of Fools

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 4/10/13 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

Doyle McManus had a very instructive column up in the Los Angeles Times dealing with the president's offer to convert the cost of living increase formula for Social Security to the Chained CPI.  He suggests that Obama is using this to get his "Grand Bargain" on the budget, a major aim for his second term.

In an attempt to meet Republicans halfway in the battle over taxes and spending, Obama has offered to change the formula for calculating Social Security's annual cost-of-living increase — an "entitlement reform" GOP leaders have long asked for.

The result would not change current Social Security benefits, but it would reduce future raises by an estimated three-tenths of 1% in the first year, or about $42 for the average beneficiary. Over the long run, thanks to the magic of compounding, a lower rate of increase would have a substantial effect. After 20 years, estimating very roughly, a retiree might be looking at a yearly payout more than $1,000 less than he or she would have received without the change. ...

Many economists say chained CPI is a more accurate way to measure the cost of living for retirees and therefore it should be the basis for Social Security adjustments.

Greenstein, the patriarch of liberal budget experts, doesn't agree. In fact, in a paper he issued on Tuesday, he argued that chained CPI is probably less accurate as a measure of inflation's impact on the elderly and the poor. Older people spend more on healthcare than on chained CPI measures, he noted. And poor people — who gave up steak long ago — can't substitute cheaper goods as easily as the middle class. ...

Even if GOP leaders buy in, the public will take some convincing. A Pew Research Center poll last month found that 55% of Americans think preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits is more important than cutting the deficit, including 73% of Democrats. (A slim majority of Republicans, 52%, believe cutting the deficit is more important.)   [Emphasis added]

I suspect that the elder Republicans are all among the 48% who don't believe that the deficit is more important than Social Security benefits, or would if they knew just how the shift to chained CPI is going to affect them.  McManus's column can be useful in that regard.

What is especially helpful in McManus's column is the history of Social Security increases over the years and his exposition on why the chained CPI is not such a good idea.  For that reason alone I'd recommend you click on the link and read the rest of the piece.

So, as Luckovich's brilliant cartoon points out, Obama's opening gambit is a loser all the way around, but the president apparently doesn't see it that way.  If he thinks getting a "Grand Bargain" is the most important thing in the world to put on his resume after 2016, he may be disillusioned come 2014.  Already the GOP has started airing comments about the Dems cutting Social Security.  If those comments seep into the public's consciousness, the next election could be a blood bath and that might be the last agreement of any kind that Obama gets.

I guess that doesn't bother him either, but it has made me angry enough to call my DC reps once again.  I hope you will do the same.

I'm Still Optimistic

(Editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman and published 3/27/13 in the Sacramento Bee.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

Doyle McManus had an interesting column up this past weekend.  It was sort of bifurcated, dealing with two separate issues, but I still think it hung together nicely.  Here's the first segment.

The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.

But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.    [Emphasis added]

 If that is how the Court rules in the two cases, there will indeed be some complex questions and some chaos, at least for awhile.  Even so, however, I don't believe for long, and that's where the second part of McManus's column comes in.

... Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.

And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.

One leading GOP fundraiser described the conflict to me as "between the Christians and the donors" — Christian social conservatives who want the party to stand forthrightly against gay marriage, and donors who want the GOP to broaden its appeal to young people and moderates as a path toward winning the next election.

Speaking on condition he not be identified, this veteran of conservative campaigns noted that the GOP needs to keep all those groups inside its tent, which will make gay marriage a problem for any would-be presidential candidate in 2016.   [Emphasis added]

The Republican Party wants a big win in 2016: White House, Senate, and House, but that isn't likely if the the Religious Reich and the Tea Party loons continue to drive the agenda.  Party stalwarts don't want to be left out in the cold the way they are in California.

Furthermore, public opinion on equal rights for gays is moving quite rapidly, far more rapidly than it moved on a prior contentious issue, inter-racial marriage.  Atrios has a post up on that, one with a graph which makes the point clearly.

And that's why I'm still optimistic. 

Stupid And Cowardly

David Horsey's cartoon and column on the sequester is a pretty solid piece of work.  While I think he's taking the "cost" of the sequester to the economy a little too seriously, he certainly does a fine job in outlining just what is driving the process.

 The delusions of tea party Republicans are about to create a lot of misery for America. The "sequester" -- the drastic set of budget cuts formerly known as the "fiscal cliff" -- seems very likely to go into effect at the end of this week due in no small part to the fact that hyper-conservative lawmakers, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, actually think it's a pretty swell idea.

Their obsessive and mistaken belief that the federal deficit is the greatest threat to the republic is leading them to block any compromise with Democrats that would delay or repeal the looming budget reductions.

They want government to get smaller and smaller, even if the cuts will come too quickly and slash too indiscriminately. The supreme absurdity of their position is that this could so damage the American economy that federal revenue will drop and deficit reduction will become even harder to achieve.

The tea party folks may be sincere, loyal citizens, but their notions about how the economy works are exactly that: mere notions. Their core notion is that government needs to do nothing more than get out of the way of business in order for the economy to boom and bloom. ...

Pete Peterson, President Nixon’s secretary of Commerce, has campaigned for years against rising deficits and has earned the ire of liberals who think his insistence on restructuring Social Security and Medicare is too extreme and unnecessary. Yet, even Peterson, in an interview on public radio's "Marketplace" on Tuesday, said many of his fellow Republicans are crazy to think the sequester cuts are a smart idea.

Peterson said the deficit problem is long-term and must be dealt with comprehensively through spending reductions, entitlement reforms and revenue increases, a.k.a. taxes.

What should not happen, Peterson insisted, is a governmental retreat from investing in America’s economic future through funding of things such as education, infrastructure and basic scientific research. Of course, to the tea party Republicans, such talk is heresy.

Now if even Pete Peterson thinks the sequester is bad policy, something is afoot.  It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out.

Horsey's main point, that the Tea Partiers are wrong in this scenario (as they are in every one I can think of), is what is driving more than half of the recalcitrance from the GOP.  Republicans are still scared to death of the Tea Party, even though the old party regulars are trying to shake their hold on the party loose.  I'm sure Boehner would love an opportunity to cut a deal with Obama, especially since Obama is certainly not the strongest negotiator in the world.  Unfortunately, his own Majority Leader stabs him in the back at every opportunity and Paul Ryan, the rising star, joins him.  As a result, the rest of the Republicans in the House and those in the Senate continue to kowtow to the whackaloons.

Why?  None of them want to be primaried in 2014 or 2016.  They don't want to lose, but they also don't want to have to spend precious campaign money in the primary and then face a Democratic challenger, even in safe districts or states.

It's too bad the Democrats dispensed with Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.  It might actually work at this juncture.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Today and tomorrow I predict a lot of popcorn consumption.

H2 Uh-Oh

Poor Marco Rubio.  The shining light of the GOP, the one many hope will lead the party out of the desert, didn't fare so well in his delivery of the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address.  And for good reason (as David Horsey pointed out):  he was stuck of the old rhetoric, the one that cost them the 2012 election.

It is no wonder Florida Sen. Marco Rubio needed to grab a bottle of water in the middle of delivering the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. The speech he was given to recite was like a hunk of stale, dry sourdough and it surely caught in his throat.

For 30 years, Republican aspirants to the presidency have been giving variations of the same speech. It sounded fresh and bold when Ronald Reagan first spoke the words as a candidate in 1980. At that point, the liberal era that began with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 had pretty much run out of gas. Democrats had grown too comfortable with their seemingly permanent lock on the House of Representatives, while their ideas about the creative use of government had devolved into a system of doling out federal dollars to clamoring interest groups.

Reagan declared that government was the problem, not the solution, and that taxes were too high and regulations on business too onerous. It was a winning message and helped bring blue-collar men and the South firmly into the Republican fold.

Rubio spoke the same language on Tuesday night but it sounded like a talking-points memo left over from Mitt Romney’s losing campaign. Rather than looking like a young man with new ideas, Rubio looked like a novice with no thoughts of his own.   [Emphasis added]

As Horsey pointed out in the rest of his column, the country has changed since Reagan in all sorts of ways.  And the economy has changed in drastic and disheartening ways.  The problems and issues we face are real, yet the GOP is still quoting Reagan, and, sadly enough, the failed candidate Mitt Romney.

It's like I said earlier in the week.  The GOP is going with the "Lipstick On A Pig" approach.  That can't work much longer, even in the South.

Mission Fail

(Click on image to enlarge and then be good enough to return.)

I was trying to decide on a subject for today's post.  Several came to mind, among them Harry Reid's selling us out on the Senate filibuster rule and my ambivalence of allowing women to serve in combat (which they have done for years, just ask Tammy Duckworth).

I decided on Hillary Clinton's very successful day on Capitol Hill because it was one bit of fun news.  As David Horsey pointed out in yesterday's column, she made her antagonists look like the buffoons they are.

When Hillary Clinton went to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Republicans opened their bags of overly ripe conspiracy theories and moldering fruitcake ideas and tossed everything at her. Every shot missed.

Republican senators and congressmen on the foreign affairs committees of both houses had insisted that the departing secretary of State come in for a full day of hearings about the deadly terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Some of them must have thought this was a great chance to do preemptive damage to the most popular choice for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Instead, she made them look like the clumsy bad guys in an Aaron Sorkin political drama.

The State Department's own independent investigative board has already answered most of the serious questions about the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The panel cited the failures of mid-level officials and suggested 29 ways to improve the system. Clinton said implementation of those steps was already 85% complete.

A productive hearing would have concentrated on what else can be done to prevent similar tragedies in the future -- a discussion that would have also included examining why Congress not only consistently underfunds the State Department, but has blocked expenditure of money that has already been appropriated to shore up American diplomatic efforts in several international trouble spots.  [Emphasis added]

Ah, but David, the Republicans weren't interested in a productive hearing.  Shouting "Benghazi!" three times worked to get Susan Rice to back out of her nomination, so the magic was expected to work on Hillary. 

Fools.

I don't know whether Hillary is contemplating a run for the 2016 nomination.  I wouldn't be surprised if she decided that she'd had enough of the political circus.  I also wouldn't be surprised if she decided to give it another go.  Either/or, she didn't look too tired, too old, too incompetent to me.

Of Turkeys And Such

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 11/21/12 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

May your plate be filled with turkey, dressing, whipped potatoes, and whatever vegetables you wish, and may your table-mates be cordial and well-behaved.

Speaking of turkeys, Republicans are still being stupid and whiny.  Their latest target is N.J. Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, who committed a sin by saying nice things about President Obama for his handling of Hurricane Sandy.  James Rainey had some well-chosen comments about the GOP reaction in his political column for the Los Angeles Times.

Republicans seem to have no lack of understanding about how badly their presidential nominee, Mitt Romney,  damaged the party brand by demonizing a good chunk of the electorate as “victims” and “gift” grabbers — the slothful masses who just can’t wait to take a government handout.

The party faithful might also want to reconsider their recent demonization of one of their previous favorites, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, if they hope to recapture the heart of America. And have a better shot in the next presidential election. ...

...this is one of those moments when tried-and-true partisan hackery and the thoughts of average Americans diverge in a big way. The rapprochement between Obama and Christie  — who praised the president’s Sandy response as  “outstanding,” “incredibly supportive” and a “great credit” to leadership — pleased a lot of ordinary people. Exit polls found  that roughly 1 in 4 voters called Obama’s response to the giant storm an “important factor” in their vote. Christie’s warm embrace of the president presumably went a long way toward affirming that Obama acted presidential, not political, during the crisis.

And that outraged Republicans.  One of their own praised the president before the election for doing his job.  It apparently didn't matter that Gov. Christie was engaged in doing his job as governor at a particularly rough time for his state.  Nope, Christie committed a major sin for which he must pay.

As John Cole put it at Balloon Juice, "A real Republican would have let his state drown while berating Obama."

Does this mean that Christie hasn't a chance at the 2016 presidential race?  I doubt it.  If the GOP gets clobbered again in 2014, they might finally wake up to the fact that even right of center Americans are fed up with the party that seems only interested in winning, not in governing.  At that point, the boisterous and flamboyant Christie just might be a welcome and refreshing candidate.

But who knows?  Those yahoos are still shooting themselves in the feet at every opportunity.