On the Hustings

(New York Times): "GOP senators fail to head off primary challenges"

(Los Angeles Times): "Matt Romney, Mitt's son , decides not to run for mayor of San Diego"

(Charleston Daily Mail): "Natalie Tennant could tighten U.S. Senate race (in W. Virginia)"

(Bloomberg): "Christie runs up vote, faces partisan pivot others missed"

(The Hill): "Sister of Liz Cheney says she is 'dead wrong' in opposition to gay marriage"

Chris Matthews never saw a war he wouldn't cheerlead for

By Frank Moraes

I've been really busy this week, so I haven't been doing much cooking. And cooking is the only time I watch television. But tonight, I had to cook because I had some Spanish rice and corn tortillas that really needed to be used or they were going to go bad. So I found myself in the kitchen trying to make something like taquitos. I failed miserably, but the result was still delicious. But mostly, I got to watch All In, which was all about the coming Syrian attack. Even though I seem to agree with Chris Hayes on the issue, most of the guest were there cheer leading for war.

I was hoping for something more from The Rachel Maddow Show. The truth is that I'm really depressed about what's going on. It really does seem that Obama has painted himself into a corner with all that talk of "red lines." And now he thinks he will look weak if he doesn't bomb Syria. It's sad, because to me, he does look weak. He looks weak the same way that bullies always look weak. He looks weak because he cares more about saving face than doing what's right. So I was hoping that Maddow would make me feel better, even though I thought the odds were long.

Alas. Rachel Maddow was off. In fact, the whole The Rachel Maddow Show was off. Instead, there was a special edition of Hardball with Chris "War Monger" Matthews. But I continued to watch. After all, my pseudo-taquitos were not ready to go into the over. (I know, I know: they are fried, not baked!) Anyway, how bad could Chris Matthews be? Surely he had learned something from being so painfully, so aggressively wrong about the Iraq War. Right? Right?! Right?!!

One thing that Chris Hayes discussed on his show is how disheartening it is to see people pushing for war with Syria by saying exactly the same things proponents of war with Iraq said 10 years ago. The only difference is now they add some obligatory statement about how it is different this time.Sure, the intelligence that was indisputable last time was wrong, but this time it really is indisputable. But other than saying such things really deliberately and forcefully, we have no reason to think anything has changed.

Matthews came out swinging. He said the bombings were about killing. Okay, that got my attention. But it was just a fake. It was just so that he could go on to claim that killing innocents was a small price to pay for sending a message. And he doesn't see that message being sent to Syria and the Assad government. No, bombing Syria is about sending a message to Iran about not building a nuclear weapon. And he had others on to parrot back his words to him. Matthews really belongs onFox News, because that's all his program is: propaganda. And I would say that even if I agreed with him.

Here's the thing: bombing might indeed make Iran very careful in public. And it might make them really determined in private to get a nuclear weapon. Because everyone knows that Obama wouldn't be about to bomb Syria if it had a nuclear weapon. As I wrote about earlier this week, when the United States intervenes, we send unintended messages. But all of this talk of messages from Matthews is just smoke and mirrors. He loves a good war. He loves a bad war. He loves anywar.

MSNBC should have fired him long ago!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Liz Cheney is a piece of work

By Richard K. Barry

Liz Cheney is running for the Republican senate nomination in Wyoming against incumbent Mike Enzi. The GOP establishment seem to be backing Enzi, but Liz wants what she wants. Anyway, it's a democracy so, fine, she can run.

Recently, Cheney issued a press release accusing Enzi of conducting a push poll which implied that Cheney was pro-abortion and supported gay marriage. A push poll, if you don't know, is a poll that asks questions which never clearly state that your opponent holds an unpopular view or is guilty of some terrible thing, but suggests as much. For example, one such question might be: "If you knew candidate X kicked puppies for fun, would it make you more or less likely to vote for him?"  The question never states clearly that candidate X has done such a thing, but those so polled walk away thinking it's true. Carl Rove is a master at this.

Cheney accused Enzi of putting a poll in the field that asked, "Are you aware that Liz Cheney supports abortion and aggressively promotes gay marriage." You might say, "What a dirty trick on the part of Enzi because the question doesn't state these things as fact, only asks if a respondent is "aware" of these positions on the part of Cheney." 

Thing is that Enzi denies being responsible for any push poll, which is no surprise. No one brags about engineering push polls, at least not until long after the fact. The other thing is that it's really hard to prove you didn't conduct a push poll. Something about proving a negative. But I'm inclined to believe Enzi. Liz Cheney is more associated with the beltway establishment and potentially some liberal views. You will also recall that her sister Mary Cheney is gay and father Dick has been rather supportive on the issue.

Liz is the one who needs to get out early and often with statements trumpeting her social conservative credibility in this very red state. How better to do that than to claim her opponent has smeared her and misrepresented her views, which ends up being a two-fer? Not surprisingly, Liz Cheney has come out strongly, in the aftermath of the push poll dustup, to say she is anti- abortion and anti-gay marriage. How convenient.

I will be so pleased when she gets thumped in the primary. It's not like there is much purity in electoral politics, but I doubt the Cheney's have any boundaries.

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Kerry becomes chief advocate for U.S. attack"

(The Hill): "Some see Syria as edge for Obama in fiscal showdown"

(Washington Post): "Conservative activists heckle Marco Rubio"

(Daily Kos): Obama praises value of stable, prosperous working class in weekly address"

(Politico): "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to officiate at same-sex wedding"

On the Hustings

(Sabato's Crystal Ball): "Virgina Governor: A favorite emerges - McAuliffe leads race going into Labor Day"

(New York Times): "Leading Democrats, de Blasio has broad support as primary nears"

(Charlie Cook): "The GOP shouldn't run a fools errand"

(The Hill): "Poll: W. Virginia secretary of state would make senate race competitive"

(Roll Call): "Liz Cheney accuses NRSC of push poll against her #WYSEN"

Saying something nice about W.

By Richard K. Barry

As one who probably never said anything nice about George W. Bush during his disastrous tenure as president, I don't mind throwing the man a bone now that he is far from the levers of power. In this case, W. was asked by Fox News to comment on whether or not Obama should intervene militarily in Syria, to which he responded, "the president has to make a tough call," adding that he "was not a fan of Mr. Assad." He also said some things about President Obama having the best armed forces in the world at his disposal should he choose to act, and other such platitudes. 

The point is that in an overheated partisan environment, the former president has kept his head down while others in his administration, notably Dick Cheney, have been obnoxious in the extreme. I am not suggesting that former presidents can't or shouldn't be partisan. They continue to be members of a political party once they leave office, and have every right to support whatever and whomever they like. But, and I'll be a bit of a traditionalist here, once having held the highest office, I think they have an obligation to dignify the experience by keeping their partisan comments respectful of the efforts of those who currently lead. You know, the old "disagreeing without being disagreeable" thing. 

For my money, George W. Bush has done well on that score since going back to Texas. Yes, if we occasionally praise respectful dialogue, we might actually see more of it. And now you can tell me that Bush is the last person to deserve our respect given the fact that he lied so easily to justify invading Iraq where so many have died as a result, which would be another way of saying that there never will be a good time to be respectful in politics. Too bad. 

De facto cannabis legalization

By Frank Moraes

There was amazing news out of Washington yesterday. The Huffington Post reported that the Justice Department is going to stop prosecuting cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington, at least for now. There are, of course, exceptions big enough to drive a SWAT team through. But this is amazing because it is unquestionably a move in the right direction.

It wasn't until 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act that we had any federal drug laws. Truly, if drug use is an issue, it is a local issue. But at least that was a tax act—a proper form of federal government law, even if it was just a pretense. Since then, even pretense has gone and we've been left with more and more laws and harsher and harsher penalties for the sole purpose of allowing politicians to appear "tough on crime" to their constituencies.

What we really need is to repeal the federal drug laws. It isn't like the states don't have all of the same laws anyway. It's not like repealing these laws would create a free for all. And the feds could concentration of the transportation of drugs into the country and across state lines. Again: these are perfectly justified uses of federal power. And here's the thing: conservatives should love this. After all, the states are supposedly the laboratories of democracy. Will legalizing cannabis destroy society? Well, Colorado and Washington will let us know!

Of course, conservatives especially will be against this. They are always against states rights if they increase the freedom of individuals. That's why the banner "states' rights" has always been a joke. It's just a dog whistle for "oppress minorities." But to actually allow states to try less punitive solutions to social ills? Forget about it! And notice: Massachusetts was used as a laboratory of democracy with healthcare reform. And it worked! And what was the conservative response: not in my nation!

The problem is not just conservatives, of course. At this point, federal drug laws have been around for such a long time no one remembers when they weren't. Everyone thinks that they have always been there and if they haven't, they were put in place for very good reasons. If by "very good reasons" you mean hatred of Chinese, blacks, and Latinos, then yes, they were put in place for very good reasons. Otherwise, no. Drug related problems are far worse since the laws.

So this is good news. But there are so many ways that it can go wrong, it will not shock me if it does. After all, it will only take some teen aged suicide in Colorado who is found to have smoked cannabis. I can see the headlines now, "Teen Dies Because of Colorado Pot Law." Regardless of this kind of thing, once a Republican is in the White House, I'm sure that the Justice Department will want to reverse course on this. But there is also a good possibility that nothing will go wrong by the time we get a new John Ashcroft, and cannabis tolerance will be the new normal.

When have I ever been this positive about anything?

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "Obama set for limited strike on Syria as British vote no"

(Politico): "The lonely president"

(First Read): "Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria"

(Buzzfeed): "Federal judge strikes down law barring same-sex couples from receiving veterans' benefits"

(The White House): "Fact Sheet: New Executive actions to reduce gun violence"

Hillary Watch 2016: Ducks and rows

By Richard K. Barry

The Washington Post reported today that Priorites USA Action, a pro-Obama super-PAC, is

quietly positioning itself to become the main independent group funding a media campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, according to Democrats familiar with the plans.

The story also says that having Priorities in Hillary's corner would "introduce a heavyweight player into the rapidly intensifying effort by super-PACs to shape the 2016 landscape." 

You'll recall from the 2012 campaign that Priorities did a masterful job of painting Mitt Romney as a rich d-bag, not that he needed the help. They raised nearly $80 million dollars and established themselves as a serious player in the last cycle.

The people familiar with the plans said Priorities is developing a different mission than Ready for Hillary, a group started this year by ardent Clinton supporters and now backed by longtime Clinton associates. While Ready for Hillary is focused on grass-roots organizing, Priorities is planning to become what one of the Democrats called “the big money vehicle” that would produce and air expensive television advertisements.

That's all very interesting, and I suppose it has to lead other potential Democratic contenders to ask if any smart Democratic money is going to line up behind anyone but Clinton.

When everyone realizes that the answer is no, the next question has to be: In what universe is it conceivable that a political animal such as Hillary Rodham Clinton is not running for the most powerful political job in the world when all the ducks are lining up so nicely?

Syria intelligence: "Undeniable," but not "slam dunk?"

By Frank Moraes

This morning, the Associated Press reported, Intelligence on Weapons No Slam Dunk. And it's first sentence is a doozy, "The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no 'slam dunk,' with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say." Now I don't want to get all metaphysical here, but that sure doesn't go along with Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the intelligence was "undeniable."

I was directed to the article by "bloody good war" proponent Jonathan Chait who is now a bit concerned about the whole thing, Obama Better Have the Goods on Syria. His caution is understandable. Even if Syria used chemical weapons on its people, the United States doesn't have a great justification for bombing them:

The clearest justifications for military action don't apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didn't sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians. 

Chait goes on to explain that he still thinks that enforcing this norm is a good idea. But you have to wonder: does the United States have the moral authority to do this? After all, we've done nothing while chemical weapons were being used in the past. In fact, we've even provided at least tacit approval. That doesn't stop us from starting a new policy, of course. But I seriously doubt that we would do anything if it was a despot we liked better or even just one that isn't on The List.

Supposedly, the Obama administration is going to present its evidence against Syria today. And I understand that people like Chait really do care that we get this right. But does it really matter? Remember Colin Powell's slam dunk at the United Nations? It doesn't much matter what the administration says. If they say it forcefully enough, the US press will shout headlines like "Undeniable!" And intelligence officers will privately shake their heads and mutter, "Here we go again."

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Lest you think NYC is immune to the derp...

By Carl

Here’s an excerpt from last night’s Republican primary debate for the candidates seeking to be the next mayor (because, THANK GOD!, Bloomberg has to leave.) [video at the link]

Asked at the start how they'd react to one of their children getting questioned by police, none of the candidates -- whose families are white -- said they'd necessarily have a problem with it.

A federal judge ruled this summer that New York's stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional.

"I'd say to him, 'What did you do to provoke it?'" billionaire businessman John Catsimatidis said of his son, John Jr.

Joseph Lhota, the former MTA chairman and Giuliani administration official, said he'd remind his daughter, Kathryn, of the legal history that allowed police to interrogate suspects, and try to determine whether the officers crossed the line.

Doe Fund founder George McDonald stumbled over the question, but gathered his thoughts and said his child didn't live in a high-crime neighborhood. "My son, John, isn't going to get stopped — and that's the whole point."

I do want to point out that McDonald’s answer, while superficially smacking of elitism, is actually on point (the video cuts off the last part of his statement, so it sounds even worse than it reads). McDonald is the founder of the Doe Fund, a charity that gets jobs for the homeless. His answer actually starts along the lines of “My son isn’t going to be stopped because I live in an affluent neighborhood.”

Yea. As I said, it sounded much worse than it reads.

The other two make McDonald’s answer sound practically progressive and in a city where Republicans almost always have to run as moderates to win (Giuliani, believe it or not, ran as a moderate, and Bloomberg switched from Democrat to Republican to run the first time), it’s actually skin-crawly to hear a couple of actual candidates lecture from a position of patriarchical demeanor.

Lhota’s answer gets downright creepy, something the quote I pulled doesn’t do justice to (again, watch the vid.) Here’s what he actually said:

Front-runner Joe Lhota said one of his first moves would be to read his daughter the Supreme Court decision that legalizes the practice.

"I (would) give her Terry v. Ohio which was given by Chief Justice (Earl) Warren in 1968 that gives officers the opportunity, based on certain levels of suspicion, to stop someone," Lhota said. He added that he would become upset only if the officer did not follow procedure.

Hey, um, Joe? I know a judge in Montana with whom you should get acquainted.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind)

A.M. Headlines

(Roll Call): "Yellen plays down chance of getting top Fed post"

(PBS Newshour): "President Obama: 'I have not made decision' on Syria"

(New York Times): "The most dangerous negro"

(Washington Post): "States find new ways to resist health care law"

(Associated Press): "Obama offers new gun control steps"

Into the lion's den - not

By Richard K. Barry

Roll Call noted today that a number of high profile Republicans were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic civil rights march on Washington, but declined. Prominent on the list of those who apparently had something better to do were Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

That wasn’t a wise choice, said Julian Bond, a renowned civil rights activist, in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday afternoon.

“What’s really telling, I think, is the podium behind me, just count at the end of the day how many Republicans will be there,” Bond told news anchor Alex Wagner. “They asked senior President Bush to come, he was ill. They asked junior Bush, he said he had to stay with his father.

“They asked a long list of Republicans to come,” Bond continued, “and to a man and woman they said ‘no.’ And that they would turn their backs on this event was telling of them, and the fact that they seem to want to get black votes, they’re not gonna get ‘em this way.”

The best and smartest politicians seem to have no fear of the lion's den. As a politician, if you are not comfortable there, you're in the wrong job.  If Republicans truly feel they have nothing to say to those who believe in the importance of civil right, they really are in trouble. And, if demographic trends hold, shady redistricting practices aren't going to work forever.

The wisdom of prior commitments and the complexity of politics

By Richard K. Barry

Just kidding about politics being complicated. It's simple really. There are just a few basic rules, one of which is that politicians shouldn't draw undue attention to measures they support that are highly unpopular with their constituents. See? Simple.

"Embattled" Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) gets that, which is why he is making himself scarce when Bill Clinton comes to Arkansas to talk about how great ObamaCare is. Pryor's press aide is saying that the senator has a prior commitment so won't be able to attend. Yes, he has a very important meeting with political prudence, which will keep him out of town.

Fact is that Pryor voted for the Affordable Care Act and he certainly loves him some "Big Dog," who has been generous with his time in helping Sen. Pryor raise money in what will be a tough reelection bid in this very red state. But ObamaCare is not popular in Arkansas and there is just no upside to reminding prospective voters that you are offside on the signature piece of legislation of the man they love to hate - the Kenyan socialist.

It's not like Republicans are going to let Arkansans forget Pryor's position on ObamaCare. It's just that visuals matter - another of those basic political rules. That voters might recall you hold a position they don't like is one thing, having pictures of you supporting that position is another. And with Mr. Clinton there, the cameras will be in abundance.

MSNBC still losing the war

By Frank Moraes

Steve Benen is something of a legend as a blogger. And now he pretty much single-handedly writes Maddow Blog. He is really good, but I often have problems with him. They are usually the same problems I have with Rachel Maddow and the whole of the MSNBC nighttime lineup. First, they are too actively partisan. Second, they are not very effective in their partisanship. I think of them very much the way I think of Obama: in a perfect world, we largely agree. But given political constraints, their priorities are very often not mine.

Today, Benen took an opportunity to go after Rand Paul. That's all fine. Paul is an idiot. But the framing was all wrong. Benen compared Chris Christie's "practical conservatism" with Paul's "ideological conservatism." Then he argues that there isn't even much to Paul's ideological thinking. But he leaves the impression that Christie somehow is practical and therefore, at least somewhat reasonable.

There is a reason that Paul claims the "ideologically purity" throne and Christie claims the "get stuff done" throne. Paul is a United States Senator. Chris Christie is a governor. It is the nature of their jobs. Christie is no less ideologically rigid than Paul. In fact, if you look at the men's last battle, it was Christie talking about how Rand Paul should shut up regarding NSA surveillance because Christie has to look in the faces of the widows. It was pure politics of the lowest common denominator—absolutely vile, disgusting stuff.

In addition to that, Rand Paul's position is the liberal position in that fight. I'm sure that Steve Benen has no trouble understanding that regardless of how effective "stop and frisk" may be (it isn't), if it isn't constitutional, it's still wrong. But he's more than willing to give a shout out to Christie in his political campaign for the surveillance state.

Christie isn't just a vile man on this and most other issues. He is also running for office. Rand Paul isn't running for another four years. If you're going to be a partisan, be an effective one. Christie will likely win his re-election bid with lots of help from liberals who just don't know what they are voting for. And here is MSNBC portraying him as the anti-Rand Paul, even though Christie is actually worse on the issues than Paul. Brilliant!

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

The dream is dying

By Carl

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. August 28, 1963:

"But one hundred [ed.note: and fifty] years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition."

(NB: Dr. King had the full text copyrighted, so I can’t use much more, but in truth, I really don’t have to.)

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A.M. Headlines

(New York Times): "President, not preacher, but speaking more on race"

(The Hill): "McCain scolds Obama for 'crazy' leaks on Syria air strikes"

(Washington Post): "Here's why Obama is giving up the element of surprise in Syria"

(Kaiser Family Foundation): "Majority against defunding ObamaCare"

(Politico): Immigration reform no. 1 enemy: Time"

Hillary Watch 2016: Gaming the rules

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, this is what passes for political news in the dog days of August. The New York Times is quasi-breathlessly reporting that Clintonite Harold Ickes has managed to get himself on the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic Party. As you may recall from the 2008 campaign, rules are very important and Mr. Ickes intends to be there to ensure that Hillary, should she run for president, has her ducks in a row, rules-wise.

Does it mean she will definitely run? Of course not. Does it mean she wants to be well positioned should she choose to run? Yes. Yes it does.

Between now and 2016 I will say at least a thousand times that Hillary Clinton is far from the most progressive candidate likely to run for the  Democratic nomination for president, but she is the Democrat most likely to win the general election. In this political climate, that's good enough for me.

No, the revolution is not coming.

Aston Kutcher works hard for the money

By Frank Moraes

My colleague Richard Barry here at The Reaction brought my attention to a little speech that Ashton Kutcher gave last week at the Teen Choice Awards. He told the teens (and all of us, really, because Kutcher is just that kind of a guy), "I've never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always just lucky to have a job. And every job I had was a steppingstone to my next job, and I never quit my job until I had my next job." I'm so inspired that I want to drop an anvil on my foot.

Richard brings up the speech because the conservative media are all a twitter that Kutcher is making a "conservative" statement. As he notes, it is anything but. Hard work is not a partisan issue. But I would go further than that. If anything, hard work is a liberal issue. The conservative movement may talk the talk but it doesn't walk the walk. It is all about depriving opportunity from the poor and giving huge handouts to the rich who are never allowed to fail. See, for example, TARP.

But I see Kutcher's statement in a less positive light. He had advantages that many others do not—and I'm not even talking about his boyish good looks. He was brought up in a middle class household when that meant something. It certainly wasn't a perfect childhood, but I suspect that Kutcher has put the most negative light on it. His brother did have health problems and his parents did finally divorce when he was in his late teens. But it wasn't a dysfunctional household by any means. What's more, he did not suffer economically.

During his senior year of high school, Kutcher burglarized that high school with the express intention of stealing money. He was caught. But the authorities didn't exactly throw the book at him. He was given probation. I generally think that a young black man would have gotten something more. Regardless, it did not stop Kutcher from being able to go off to college. Although he claimed that the burglary straightened him out, once in college he was back to his wild ways. The only job we can see that he did was some summer work that it looks like his mother got him. He then didn't go on to graduate college. Instead, he won a modeling competition and went pro.

What exactly it is that Mr. Kutcher has to teach teens about the value of hard work is not clear to me. Did he not quit some temp waiting job until he got his modeling contract? It is not surprising when stars think their lives have been solely the result of hard work. But in his specific case, it seems odd. After all, he paternal twin brother Michael had a heart transplant when he was just 13 years old. That ought to make it pretty clear that he's at least lucky in that way. And that ought to make him realize that he was born with that face. And if it hadn't been for that, he'd be lucky to be working at some Procter & Gamble factory right now.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Syria's moonlight

By Carl

One kind of wonders why both China and Russia are making trouble with the world on Syria:

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement.

The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who may have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation.

Now, given our rather spotty track record when it comes to the possession of weapons of mass destruction, we might pay a little heed to the warnings both China and Russia have given. Prudence is clearly warranted and, besides, I really can’t stand being the police department to the world.

On the flip side, there’s no Scott Ritter or Hans Blik flapping their arms, trying to point out that, no, Syria does not have WMDs, and my mind wanders back to the 1990s, when we had a chance to prevent the death of 750,000 Rwandans at the hands of their own countrymen, and did nothing.

Syria as a strategic issue is a conundrum. Yes, they are a threat to Israel, particularly through their Lebanese surrogates, but it’s not like Israel hasn’t had bigger threats that they’ve faced down by themselves, with us standing behind them.

That Assad would use (assuming he has) chemical weapons against his own people means the likelihood of using them against Israel is even greater and while Israel has long expected this kind of attack, she’s never been tested the way she’d be tested by short-range missiles tipped with bioweaponry. By treaty, we’d be forced to retaliate, and by extension, so would NATO.

Sort of makes a case for Russia joining NATO but they seem content with offering some low-level assistance to that organization and nothing else.

One would hope for a better solution to be found in Syria, and that Kerry’s speechifying and Obama’s public pondering are merely a little sabre-rattling. Another war is the last thing this nation needs, and as tired as we all are right now, a major mistake is just a button-push away.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A.M. Headlines

(Courier Journal): "Sen. Rand Paul's fundraising has picked up the pace"

(BloombergBusinessWeek): "The lucky break that could land Larry Summers at the Fed"

(Washington Post): "After Syria chemical allegations, Obama considering limited military strike"

(Reuters): "Haley announces reelection bid"

(New York Times): "Mayoral rivals in two-way fight for black vote"

Those wacky conservatives

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a bit of an oddity as we approach the end of summer. It seems that a number of high profile conservatives think they have found a new hero in actor Ashton Kutcher for his recent comments on the virtues of hard work.

Speaking at the Teen Choice Awards Kutcher made statements such as, "I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work," and

I've never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always just lucky to have a job. And every job I had was a steppingstone to my next job, and I never quit my job until I had my next job.

From my perspective these seem like entirely reasonable things to believe and say no matter your political persuasion. In fact, Mr. Kutcher is known to be a liberal having supported President Obama and Democrats generally last year.

What is interesting, however, is the assumption on the parts of Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, all of whom praised Kutcher's comments, that his remarks are indicative of a conservative political philosophy.  It's still about makers and takers for these people and if you aren't a card carrying Republican or aren't predisposed to vote for the GOP, you obviously have your hand out and wouldn't know a hard day's work if it bit you in the ass, etc., etc.

Couldn't possibly be a liberal or progressive unless you intend to coast on the hard work of others.

And all those people working three jobs to feed their families really are, or ought to be, Republicans, if only they knew their own best interests.

Poor planning, sporadic blogging, much-needed resting

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A quick update, given that nothing new has appeared here in quite some time, an unusual thing for us...

Richard and I are both currently on vacation, and that includes a vacation from blogging -- and in my case even from paying much attention to what's going on in the world, including in the world of American politics (which just keeps getting sadder and stupider in many ways). I wrote a few things last week, but otherwise I'm enjoying the disconnection, and I know Richard is as well. Now, of course, we have several other co-bloggers here, but generally they've been taking late-summer breaks as well, and generally posts don't go up if at least one of Richard or me isn't around.

In any event, we'll have some new posts up soon, so stay tuned, and we expect to be back to our usual schedule on or just after Labo(u)r Day weekend. We're looking forward to a busy fall, with some interesting gubernatorial and mayoral races to follow, with attention turning more acutely to the '14 midterms, with Republicans constantly trying to outdo themselves on the crazy scale, and with perhaps a little less media obsession with such trivial matters as, say, the ups and downs of Anthony Weiner's Carlos Danger (but who are we kidding?).

Otherwise, enjoy the rest of the summer. Be safe, and be good to one another.

-- Michael

George Who?

By Capt. Fogg

Here's a history quiz for you.  Which President of the United States do we see on the left, telling the incompetent Mr. Brown he's doing a "heckuva" job responding to hurricane Katrina?  

29% of Louisiana Republicans said in response to a TPM poll that it was Barack Obama - still only an obscure freshman senator from Illinois who bears most of the blame.  44% weren't sure just who was responsible for the poor response to the devastating hurricane. George who?

These people vote.  These people say Liberals are retarded. These people are happy to lecture you about history and science and laugh at your education. George who?

I credit Libby at The Impolitic for bringing this to my attention, but I wish she hadn't.  Of course, being a Floridian, I'm glad for evidence for the argument that Florida isn't the Stupidest State as long as we have Louisiana, but none the less; how can I not feel despair at reading a poll showing, as she says, that "73% of Louisiana Republicans don't remember who was president when Katrina hit NOLA."

(Cross posted from Human Voices) 

Who cares about Ted Cruz and his citizenship?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So right-wing mouth-frother Ted Cruz, senator from the not-so-great state of Texas, has released his birth certificate. And, yes, he was born in Calgary -- that is, not in the U.S. -- and is a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. (given that he was born in Canada to an American mother). Which, yes, means he likely can be president, as he is a "natural born" American, unlike, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger, though there may be some lingering dispute as to the meaning of "natural born." But the facts of his birth will continue to hound him politically:

The circumstances of Cruz's birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the tea party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House.

"Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen," said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. "To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship."

Well, apparently he still has it, whether he likes it or not, and so he'd have to go through the formal process of renouncing it.

As a Canadian, I'd welcome any such renouncing. Cruz being a Canadian citizen, even unwillingly, or unwittingly, makes this country worse.

While I loathe him, though, and while I understand that a political leader -- particularly one with presidential ambitions -- needs avoid not just the reality but even the perception of conflicted loyalty, this is all quite ridiculous.

It's abundantly clear that Cruz is an American. He may have dual citizenship, like a lot of people do (including me), but in this case one of his citizenships is merely a technicality. (I'm Canadian and British. I'd say I'm overwhelmingly Canadian, but I have close family in England and have voted in the U.K. and so have more of a connection there. Indeed, I would say that I'm far more American, as I'm one-quarter American, than Cruz is Canadian.) There's no good reason why the location of his birth should automatically disqualify him from the presidency. (I would even say that the "natural born" rule should be removed from the Constitution.)

It's either opportunism or jingoism that is fueling this "birther" controversy, and of course it's also the latter that will come in to play if he's criticized for holding dual citizenship.

But, fine, let him recounce his Canadian citizenship if he must. The key fact about Cruz isn't his birthplace or the extent to which he's a Canadian but rather his political views: he's a Tea Party extremist out on the fringe even of the extremist Republican Party, a faux right-wing populist with a crazy right-wing anti-government agenda.

It's those views -- what he is politically, what he stands for, what he would do in office -- that truly should disqualify him from the presidency.

Police state intimidation: British authorities detain Glenn Greenwald's partner at Heathrow Airport

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Honestly, the surveillance state apologists all across the spectrum, on both sides of the Atlantic and around the world, can go fuck themselves.

Because this is how their beloved "democratic" governments operate, this is what they do when you dare challenge their undemocratic rule, their regime of secrecy and surveillance:

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

*****

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

It is indeed such a profound attack, and I hope that Greenwald and others, undeterred and indeed strengthened by this appalling incident, continue to expose the illegal and/or at the very least deeply troubling activities that in the U.S., the U.K., and elsewhere are corroding the core elements of a free society, undermining the democratic principles that are the essence of enlightened self-governance, and eating away in very real terms at the basic rights that we all supposedly hold so dear and for which, over the centuries, so much blood was spilled.

Even Krazier Bill Kristol says Palin can "resurrect herself" with Senate run

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You have to wonder.

Krazy Bill Kristol has a long history of the Krazy. And it's not just partisan Republican or ideological neocon. Sometimes it's just batshit insanity, "analysis" that is so Krazy it makes you wonder if he's serious in his Kraziness or just throwing around bullshit to see what sticks. I used to think he was a fairly bright fellow, if terribly misguided, and so my sense used to suggest the latter. But now I'm not so sure.

To wit:

The Weekly Standard‘s Bill Kristol was one of Sarah Palin’s earliest supporters to be picked as the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, and now he says she can “resurrect herself” by running to be a senator from Alaska.

In an interview on Sunday, ABC's Benjamin Bell asked Kristol if Palin had disappointed him after he pushed so hard for her to be on the 2008 ticket.

"I was for taking the gamble of putting her on the ticket, I don't think it hurt the ticket in 2008," Kristol explained. "I think her stepping down as governor of Alaska was a big problem. People don't like to see a candidate, a governor, an executive — absent some medical reason or whatever — just leave office early. And she had been a good governor — incidentally — of Alaska until then. So, I think that is something, I think, she has to recover from in terms of being a serious leader in the party. Still has a lot of loyalty, still can shape the debate, she still has a great political touch."

"I think the way Palin would possibly resurrect herself — if that's the right word or rehabilitate herself, I think is a better way of putting it — run for Senate in Alaska in 2014," he continued. "I'm not urging that. I'm just saying, if I were her adviser, I would say, 'Take on the incumbent, you have to win a primary, then you have to beat an incumbent Democrat, it's not easy.'" 

Yeah, except that she embarrassed herself in ridiculous fashion during the '08 campaign and certainly did hurt McCain. And that she did step down as governor because she didn't give a shit or something, or because she wanted to pursue fame, fortune, and glory on the right-wing national media stage and, you know, by being a reality TV celebrity. And that she'll never be considered a serious leader of her party except by those on the moron fringe who hang on her every gargle of nonsense. And that many Republicans, including in the leadership ranks, see her as a massive liability. And that there's no way she can shape the debate given her lack of policy ability, not to mention rationality. And that she's shown zero interest in actually being a serious political actor. And that her "political touch," such as it is, is limited to Facebook and Fox News assaults on anyone and everyone she doesn't like, anyone and everyone who doesn't share her wacko right-wing views. And that... well, and that she's Sarah Palin, a huge national joke.

No, Krazy Kristol isn't advising her, isn't urging her, but he sort of is, isn't he? He was her champion well before most anyone had ever heard of her, and it was he and his neocon rabble who got her onto McCain's ticket. He was wrong then, as he is generally, and he's wrong now, the Krazy even Krazier than usual.

Data implies its misuse

By Frank Moraes

Recently, I've been confronted with a lot of people telling me that they don't care about government surveillance programs because, "I don't have anything to hide." This seems like a strange response to me. First, you all may not have anything to hide, but I do. I am working on of a high tech project that we are concerned will become known before we go public. And it is especially the kind of computer hackers who the NSA employs that we don't want finding out about our work. Second, even if you don't think you have anything to hide, you are wrong. You don't want your social security number known. You don't want your medical records know. You don't want recordings of you on the toilet released on the internet. And finally, even if you personally have nothing to hide, there are lots of people who make your life better who do have things to hide. The most obvious example is the way that government agencies have gone after peace activists. Robust debate and dissent are critical to having a democracy.

Yesterday, Bart Gellman broke a big story over at the Washington Post, NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of Times Per Year, Audit Finds. When I read that headline, I laughed out loud. Of course! And this is just what the NSA finds using their own screwed up idea of privacy.

Consider that in the first quarter of 2012, the NSA violated FISA 195 times. This is big news because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides us with very few protections. To give you some idea of this, the FISA court is more or less a rubber stamp for law enforcement: anything they want, they get. You doubt me? As I wrote in February:

Funny thing about the FISA courts. The government has made 38,093 requests from 1979 through 2011. In that time, the FISA courts have denied—Wait for it!—just 11 requests. In fact, before 2003, they never denied a request.

Almost the first thing that Edward Snowden said publicly was that from his terminal at work, he could spy on anyone. Many people in the media and politics claimed that this was untrue, but it, like everything else he's said, has turned out to be true. This most recent revelation ought to concern all those people who think that the government would never misuse the data they collect. Information is power. And currently, the NSA is collecting all the information they can just because they can. Such information does not sit idle for long. And there is an entropy problem: it tends to get mixed and ends up in places you would never predict.

Think about Edward Snowden. The people who claim that he is a villain and that we have nothing to worry about regarding the NSA are being inconsistent. It is not remotely possible that he was the only person who had access to that data that has or will use it in a way that we don't approve of. And Obama's idea of limiting the number of people who have access to the data will not fix the problem.

But this kind of misbehavior by people at the NSA, CIA, FBI, and the dozens of other "law enforcement" organizations isn't even at issue in this most recent revelation. This one is just about the fact that the NSA having data about us means that they will misuse it. There is no need to even discuss the many nefarious aspects of the agency. The existence of the data implies its misuse. If we are going to address this problem, we must do it on the front side—on the collection side. After the data are collected, the battle is lost.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

A.M. Headlines

(Washington Post): "NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year, audit finds"

(CNN): "Christie raps potential 2016 rivals at Republican confab"

(Politico): "Eve of destruction"

(Wall Street Journal): "An Ohio prescription for GOP: Lower taxes, more aid for poor"

(National Journal): "Michigan GOP poised to botch Senate pickup opportunity"

Karl Rove and the politics of impotence

By Frank Moraes

I think I may understand why Karl Rove sounds like the voice of reason in the Republican Party these days. Unlike most of the Republicans in Congress, he's practical. To him, it is very simple: blocking everything that Obama proposes does not lead to Republican policy. Nor is it the case that just standing around blocking all policy will lead to a Republican White House and Congress. 

In fact, on Monday, the Washington Examiner published, House at Risk in 2014 Unless GOP Offers Agenda.  According to the article, Republicans are quietly worried that they really could lose control of the House, even if the public statements assure us that it would be, "Pert near impossible." And that is the kind of thing that Karl Rove is worried about.

Rove was debating the issue with Mike Lee on the Sean Hannity Radio Showon Monday. Rove said, "This assumes that the Democrats are going to be scared of a shutdown. They're aren't; they want it! They know what happened to us in 1995." Lee responded that Rove was being a coward, "You mean to suggest that we're not going to fight and we shouldn't fight simply because we're so afraid of being blamed for it? This is how we get into this mess when we say we're afraid that the other side's not going to cave so we have to. So we cave and we cave and we cave." Note the framing: normal legislation within the limits of your power is caving. "Ignorance is strength" much?

It only gets worse. Jonathan Chait wrote an article this morning that suggests that we won't see a government shutdown because the Republican establishment "is pushing back aggressively and effectively." But that even if this is the case, it will only be a temporary reprieve. He flags an amazingNational Review article by Robert Costa, Shutting Down a Shutdown. In it, he wrote, "Sources tell me the House GOP will probably avoid using a shutdown as leverage and instead use the debt limit and sequester fights as areas for potential legislative trades." So instead of something bad (government shutdown), the Republicans will do something really bad (government default). Brilliant!

The problem here is the politics of impotence. At least half of the Congressional Republicans feel they must do something but they must notcompromise their ideology. This makes them impotent because they simply don't have the power to do what they want. Normally, a party would do what it must do to get the power it needed. That is certainly what people like Karl Rove want to do. But among the true believers, there is (as I've written aboutmany times before) a revolutionary fervor. They think that if they just stand firm and believe, then the Democrats will just crumble. This is a very dangerous situation.

I don't think that Rove is right to say that the Democrats want a shutdown. I think most of us would rather just have a reasonable party that we could deal with. But he is most assuredly right that the Democrats don't fear a shutdown. It would be bad for the Republican Party. It could be just what the Democrats need to take back the House in 2014. But here's the interesting thing: even if that happened, I don't think that the Republican Party is ready to change. Even if they lost, the remaining members of the House Republican Caucus would claim that the problem was that they compromised too much. They would redouble their efforts at obstruction. And we would have to wait until 2018 to see any real changes. And that is what Karl Rove is worried about and it is why he is the most prominent voice of reason in that very troubled party.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Stillbirth

By Mustang Bobby

Josh Marshall makes the case that it’s pointless to go after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over the question of whether or not he’s eligible to run for president: the law is pretty clear that he’s a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Yes, it’s nice to see Tea Partiers discomfited that their guy really was born outside the United States (he was born in Calgary). But that schadenfreude doesn’t change the fact that he’s natural born and thus eligible. As he told ABC News a month ago, “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen … “I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were.” And he’s right. That settles it.

By every historical and legal standard, “natural born” in the Constitution simply means that you were born an American citizen. The fact of your birth made you an American citizen.

It is well-established that being born on American soil makes you an American citizen. And being born to an American citizen, no matter where you were born, makes you an American citizen. At the time of his birth, Cruz was born to a mother who was an American citizen. That clinches it. The fact that his father was then not yet an American citizen is not relevant. Just as the location of Cruz’s own birth is not relevant. The Congressional Research Service actually did a study of this a couple years ago and after lengthy research and documentation, they basically came up with what I said above.

Over the last half dozen years, in addition to coming up with numerous conspiracy theories that allege specific factual inaccuracies about President Obama’s birth, the ‘birther’ community has developed all sorts of harebrained interpretations of what ‘natural born’ mean. They’re all wrong. It simply means, did you become an American citizen by the fact of your birth – whether that mean your parentage or geography?

Still thinking of pressing this point? Nope. Zip it. It’s done.

The only reason I’ve ever brought it up in the past was to tweak the noses of the birthers who have been using President Obama’s birth certificate as a thin veil for their racism. And if they keep insisting on bringing it up when Mr. Cruz runs — and he will — then it will be fun to hear them pretzelize themselves to explain how “that’s different!” Yeah, how?

The other reason Mr. Cruz’s circumstances of birth are pointless is because of the simple fact that it will not matter. He will never be elected President of the United States, so it’s a waste of time to think about it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A.M. Headlines

(Politico): "Hillary Clinton considering academic options"

(The Hill): "Republicans fear 2016 free-for-all will only boost Hillary Clinton"

(Bloomberg): "With so many job openings, why so little hiring?"

(New York Times): "Death toll in Egypt raids climbs to 525"

(The Hill): "Crunch time for Keystone XL"