Rubio A Moderate? Only To Sad Establishment Hacks Like Chris Matthews

Another establishment politician, whose opinion not a single voter anywhere cares about, Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Rubio Monday. (Watch a little kabuki theater on CNN at the link.) Americans who live outside of Minnesota, where he served as an accidental governor, remember Pawlenty best as a pundit-created presidential candidate in 2012 who announced on YouTube in late May and withdrew less than 3 months later after coming in behind Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul in the Ames Straw Poll, not in a caucus or a primary, in a straw poll based primarily on how many weird food items you eat at a fair. Pawlenty is currently a DC lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a pro-WallStreet bankster front group. A slew of meaningless establishment politicians have been jumping in for Rubio-- or against Trumpf/Cruz-- all Monday. Little-known and influence-free Nevada backbenchers Cresent Hardy and Mark Amodei joined Senator Dean Heller in announcing their love for Rubio in time for today's GOP caucus. And the highly unpopular (job approval 24%) Thom Tillis, a nothing freshman senator from North Carolina jumped in too. And so did Republican sleep-walker Dan Coats of Indiana, who checked out long ago. Weeeeeeeee....

Rubio will lose big again in his second home today but all will turn around for the Establishment candidate March first, right? It looks like Rubio is aiming to cement the public impression of him as a loser to Trumpf in every kind of state. In Massachusetts, which one operative told me would be "a lock" for Rubio, Herr Trumpf is already leading him 50-16%. Why don't real voters see Marco the way pundits-from-the-way-distant-past, like MSNBC's irrelevant Chris Matthews, do? Over the weekend, a pundit with a lot more savvy than the always superficial Matthews, Jonathan Cohn, laughed aloud at the establishment line-- now a drum beat-- that somehow Rubio is the "moderate" Republican. "You’re going to hear a lot," he giggled, "about Rubio consolidating support among moderate Republicans. In a three-way race against Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and real estate mogul Donald Trump, Rubio might be the most attractive alternative to the voters who were supporting Bush-- and who can’t abide Cruz’s stridency or Trump’s explosiveness. But don’t for a second believe that Rubio is a moderate. In fact, the real takeaway from South Carolina is that, with Bush exiting the race and Ohio Gov. John Kasich likely to follow sometime in the not-distant future, what was left of the GOP’s moderate wing is officially dead." Prediction: Chris Matthews will call Marco a "moderate" every day until he officially suspends his campaign-- and for the anguished weeks of chicken bone examining that follow.

Consider something that happened late last week, although it got relatively little attention amid all the other campaign news. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Rubio confirmed that, if elected, he would rescind President Barack Obama’s executive action protecting so-called Dreamers from deportation-- and that he would do so on his first day in office.

Whatever Rubio’s reversal says about his consistency, or lack thereof, it speaks volumes about the ideological direction of the Republican Party now that South Carolina has apparently winnowed the presidential field. Cruz, Rubio, Trump-- all three want insanely large tax cuts for the rich, all three want to take health insurance away from millions, all three oppose same-sex marriage and now all three have taken up extremely conservative positions on immigration.

The candidates still have their differences, of course. One (Cruz) is a true-believing conservative, one (Rubio) is an ideological shape-shifter, and one (Trump) is a nativist bomb-thrower. But they’re all embracing policies at the far right end of the American political spectrum, leaving the middle without a champion among the leaders in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Is no one allowed to mention Paul Ryan until he is crowned the "compromise candidate" by the Establishment at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland in July?

Now that Jeff Madrick's new robber barons have voided Robert Reich's "basic bargain" . . . ah heck, let's look at GQ's Least Influential People Alive

"In other words," says Jeff Madrick, "Occupy Wall Street’s
claim that 'We are the 99 percent' is dead on right."

"[C]orporate profits now constitute the largest share of the economy since 1929.

"1929, by the way, was the year of the Great Crash that ushered in the Great Depression."

-- Robert Reich, in his op-ed "Restore the Basic Bargain"

[T]he Robber Barons may have kept money due to monopoly advantages and their power over workers. All the while they were adding to GDP by building oil and steel giants, railroads, and mass production companies from chewing gum to cars.

"Today’s people at the top exploit workers in somewhat different ways. . . . Wall Street helps creates a culture in which it is considered okay for a company to fire workers while giving its CEO a giant raise. . . . [M]uch else of what happens on Wall Street has nothing to do with the real economy, except to waste hundreds of billions of misdirected savings that are plowed back into useless speculation and casino-like gambling by the very rich on trades among themselves."

-- Jeff Madrick, in the New York Review of Books
blogpost "America's New Robber Barons"

by Ken

I had wanted to take a close look at these two terrific pieces, and admire the way they interlock. Well, the way they interlock is pretty obvious, I think, and rather than have me summarize and paraphrase the pieces, I'm sure you'd rather read them yourself.

In case it's not obvious what Robert Reich means by "the basic bargain":

For most of the last century, the basic bargain at the heart of the American economy was that employers paid their workers enough to buy what American employers were selling.

That basic bargain created a virtuous cycle of higher living standards, more jobs, and better wages.

Back in 1914, Henry Ford announced he was paying workers on his Model T assembly line $5 a day – three times what the typical factory employee earned at the time. The Wall Street Journal termed his action “an economic crime.”

But Ford knew it was a cunning business move. The higher wage turned Ford’s auto workers into customers who could afford to buy Model T’s. In two years Ford’s profits more than doubled.

That was then. Now, Ford Motor Company is paying its new hires half what it paid new employees a few years ago.

The basic bargain is over – not only at Ford but all over the American economy.

Meanwhile, I think of Jeff Madrick as a writer on economics who almost always guides us to the crux of matters, and you should really check out the way he zeroes in on the group we're calling the 1% ("In other words, Occupy Wall Street’s claim that 'We are the 99 percent' is dead on right.") -- or, really, the .1%, as we know -- in support of his basic proposition:

Though the situation is often described as a problem of inequality, this is not quite the real concern. The issue is runaway incomes at the very top—people earning a million and a half dollars or more according to the most recent data. And much of that runaway income comes from financial investments, stock options, and other special financial benefits available to the exceptionally rich—much of which is taxed at very low capital gains rates. Meanwhile, there has been something closer to stagnation for almost everyone else—including even for many people in the top 20 percent of earners.

But his more important point is that these latter-day "Robber Baron equivalents," as he describes them, are way worse than the old ones, who at least built something, produced dramatic increases in the GDP, whereas the .1%, while enriching themselves with their Wall Street-based games, simply suck wealth out of the economy.

Or, as Robert Reich would put it, they've smashed the former basic bargain, and in its place put . . . well, nothing.


AH, HECK WITH IT, LET'S LOOK AT GQ'S DECEMBER
LIST OF "THE 25 LEAST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE ALIVE"

Well, a few samples anyway. As writer Drew Magary explains: "For every Steve Jobs and every Warren Buffett, there's an equal and opposite nitwit who spent 2011 devouring attention and contributing nothing to productive society. We salute the great artisans of utter uselessness with the one celebratory year-end list you don't want to be on."

1. Tim Pawlenty
Every election season produces a number of hilariously pointless candidates who have no chance of winning. Some of them have value as novelty items. Look! It's Alan Keyes, the token black Republican! And over there! It's David Duke! He's a racist! These are the fun, fringy candidates. The Sharpton Sector, if you will. Then there are folks like Pawlenty, who fail to register even as novelties. T-Paw (as he calls himself) spent much of 2011 as a six-foot-tall paperweight, an aggressively forgettable fellow perfectly suited to the role of debate filler. The $1 million he spent to lose the Iowa straw poll might as well have been burned in front of a group of orphans.

[Editor's note: OMG, was that in this election cycle that T-Paw thought he was a force-to-be-reckoned-with candidate?]

5. Team Spider-Man (Bono, the Edge, and Julie Taymor)
Here's an amazing idea. Let's spend $65 million on a musical about Spider-Man, because kids who like Spider-Man and old Jewish tourists who like to go to Broadway shows are totally the same demographic. Now, we're going to need a batch of forgettable U2 B sides and a harness system designed by Lyle Lanley from The Simpsons' monorail episode. And let's make sure there's a shoe-shopping number! Who's with me? It can't possibly fail!

24. John Boehner
There once was a time when politicians openly courted the wingnut fringe of their respective parties to get their votes, then had the good sense to ignore those imbeciles once they took office. Those days are over. Boehner, who always looks like someone made him stay at work much longer than he wanted to, represents the self-fulfilling prophecy of open cynicism toward the U.S. government: a politician who was elected specifically to not give a shit.

25. President Obama
Okay, so we're cheating a bit with this one. He did order the raid that wiped Osama bin Laden off the face of the earth. But then he used that surplus of political capital to let everyone in Washington stick a boot in his ass. This is a man who should be the most transformational figure of the century. Hell, he promised to be that. Instead he wields all the power of a substitute teacher at night school.

#

Can President Obama flog the economy into submission before job-killing dynamo President Willard Inc. gets his grubby mitts on it?

Say, didn't this guy used to be What's-His-Name?

"Man, all those other jerkwads, they're all scary crazy."

-- what lapsed GOP prexy candidate What's-His-Name tactfully refrained from saying in his endorsement of Willard Inc.

by Ken

For days now, ever since the president gave his big jobs speech, I've been scouring the news for word of passage of his big jobs bill, the one he said it was so important to pass right away. Now I find out that he was only just today sending the damned bill to Congress, which means it's highly unlikely that it'll be passed before tomorrow.

What's everyone waiting for? Don't they understand how urgent this is? Hey, there are a lot of rich and superrich people (it takes a lot of people to make up that Top Two Percent) waiting -- not all that patiently -- for their next windfall.

Among those who are waiting with a certain amount of dread for the other budgetary shoe to drop is The American Prospect's "Balance Sheet:

THE DEFICIT IS A CRUEL MISTRESS

Today, President Obama will send his new jobs plan to Congress -- a key step in remedying relations between the president and the left-wing of his base. But we're still waiting for one more proposal from the president, and this one could alienate liberal Democrats all over again. A week from today, Obama has promised a plan on how to pay for his $447 billion jobs proposal.

If addressing jobs and unemployment are Obama's best way to shore up his base, then addressing the deficit is Obama's way to reach out to independents and curb criticism from the right. One way to bring in more revenue from the wealthiest Americans is to raise the capital gains tax rate. In fact, some members of the Super Committee tasked with coming up with a deficit-reduction plan want capital gains to be on the table. But as the Washington Post points out this morning, both parties have been active in lowering capital gains rates over the last two years and making sure they stay low. A second source of revenue progressives would welcome is taxes on the over $1 trillion in revenue American corporations are currently holding overseas, hoping to bring back to the U.S. at a highly discounted tax rate. But as The Wall Street Journal reports today, the Obama administration is leaning towards giving corporations a big tax break on their overseas profits.

Both capital gains and repatriation taxes were a big part of Mitt Romney's jobs plan and will undoubtedly be pushed on the 2012 campaign trail. Obama may try to beat them to it. That could be good politics but is certainly bad policy.

AND SPEAKING OF WILLARD INC.

Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer choice.

The unstoppable juggernaut that is Willard's presidential campaign has presumably gained even more momentum from the endorsement of the lapsed GOP presidential contender known variously as "T-Paw" and "Huh, who?" (who tactfully stopped short of saying out loud, "Man, all those other jerkwads, they're all scary crazy"). I'm still tickled beyond words at the news in Howie's post yesterday that Willard has come out of the corporate closet and officially dubbed himself "Romney for President Inc." Willard Romney Inc. As I wrote in the comment I added, "From now on he's no longer just plain Willard to me, he's Willard Inc."

It'll be a grand moment, Inauguration Day 2013, as Chief Justice "Smirking John" Roberts administers the oath of office and the inauguree repeats: "I, Willard Romney Inc., do solemnly swear . . . ."

#

What? You mean there are highlightable "substantive differences" between the White House and mad-dog Republicans? Who knew?

Plus: A heartfelt ta-ta to T-Paw!

WASHINGTON -- As the economy worsens, President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

-- from "White House Debates Fight on Economy" by Binyamin Appelbaum and Helene Cooper, in today's NYT

by Ken

On the whole I have no quarrel with the argument by friends and colleagues on the Left that the Obama administration, far from being outfoxed and outnegotiated by the marauding hordes of the Far Right, is in fact winding up with essentially the right-wing agenda espoused by his fellow New Democrats and erstwhile DLC types. (They call themselves "centrists," of course, but of course they're only centrists measured against the out-of-the-galaxy position of the New Right, in rocket-powered space flight from reality.) This certainly fits the wide range of crucial issues where this administration has shown little discontinuity with its predecessor, or is even farther right -- with the additional consideration that on many of these issues this administration has achieved right-wing goals that a Republican one couldn't have.

There's just one thing that keeps me from wholly embracing the "Obama is getting just what he wants" theory: that in the process he has allowed himself -- no, made himself -- to look like a bumbling asshole, wide open not just to general contempt and ridicule but to near-unanswerable nonstop assault by Republicans of record-breaking stupidity and corruption.

Take the above-noted report by Binyamin Appelbaum and Helen Cooper in this morning's NYT. What? you say. There are "substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail," differences that might just possibly be subject to public highlighting? Who could have known? Stop the presses!

Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.

But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them.

One might observe that those free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors rank among the stupidest and most self-defeating (in terms of economic sense) advanced in the history of the American republic. But then, Bill Daley has a reputation as a walking cesspool of political reaction and fiscal corruption to uphold. As my colleague Debra Cooper points out, in the event that the O-man manages to get reelected, he will presumably take it as a "mandate" to pursue . . . a right-wing Republican agenda, starting with gutting Medicare and Social Security.

But this is still all nitpicking relative to the question: How brilliant a strategist is the strategist who makes himself look like a ragdoll devoid of intelligence or principle?

Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes, housing policy and other issues.

Mr. Obama plans to spend time this weekend considering his options, advisers said. The White House expects to unveil new job-creation proposals in early September.

And those job-creation proposals, one has to guess, will make small children laugh -- while their parents cry, and scream bloody murder about the imbecile in the White House. Is this really something a person does intentionally to himself?

POSTSCRIPT: THE WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN SPEAKS

By the way, with regard to this debate on economic strategy reportedly raging inside the administration, Appelbaum and Cooper report: "Dan Pfeiffer, the White House director of communications, said that there was no internal debate."

Oh.

Well . . . as Gilda Radner's Emily Litella might have said: "Never mind."


TA-TA, T-PAW! MAKE SURE THE DOOR SHUTS BEHIND YOU!

So we won't have former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to kick around anymore. This emptiest of right-wing-hack empty suits just wasn't crazy enough for hard-core GOP nominee-pickers. How embarrassing to be shown up by a fellow Minnesotan without a usefully functioning brain cell in her head!

Maybe ol' T-Paw would like to remind us what made him think that anyone not (a) related to him or (b) on his payroll thought he could be a serious candidate for the presidential nomination. On second thought, never mind. With luck, we'll never hear the slug's name again.

#

So Rick Perry is out (Rick Perry, ferchrissakes?), but Tim "Mr. Invisible" Pawlenty is in

by Ken

And it's hard to know whether to be more appalled by the people who are or the people who aren't seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. As you shake your head at the notion that anyone could ever have seriously thought that cretinous pile of sludge Rick Perry running for president was an idea (forget "good" idea), the capital is rocked with the news that the life form known as T-Paw will announce Monday that it "will formally enter the 2012 Republican presidential race on Monday in Iowa, an aide to his campaign Friday," according to WaPo Fixman Chris Cillizza ( who's also reporting that Princess Sarah Palin has 2012 fire in her belly).

If it comes down to a death struggle between "Mr. Invisible" and Willard Romney, it's hard to know who'll be more crazed -- sane people or right-wingers. After all, no matter how much these giant corporate tools try to hornswoggle the famous Republican base into thinking they're genu-wine nuttier-than-a-pecan-pie wingnuts, is anyone so crazy or stupid not to see that these guys aren't true "believers," but simply the most cynically corrupt whores they've been able to be?

When even someone as demented as well as corrupt as Newt Gingrich finds himself accused -- based on his own words, of course, of being too uncrazy, we've reached a pretty pass. Our pal Al Kamen had some fun at his expense in his Washington Post "In the Loop" column, in an item called "The quotable Mr. Gingrich." "Let Newt be Newt!" he declares, noting: "Conservatives have been throwing more than just glitter at Newt for criticizing Rep. [Paul] Ryan (Wis.), the ideas man of today’s GOP." The rest of the week, of course, Newt spent "humbly apologiz[ing] to Ryan and any other Republican he could find. And he attacked Democrats by saying, 'Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood,' because he has 'said publicly' he didn’t mean it."

Eventually Al gets more serious.

Maybe his departure from the race is inevitable. Maybe he simply can’t get in step with the new GOP. Liberals always attacked him as a conservative firebrand, but that was overwrought and 20 years ago. (It was long before he made those TV commercials with Nancy Pelosi, when he bought into that climate-change hoax.)

For example, in a lengthy 1989 interview with the magazine of the Ripon Society, a liberal Republican think tank, Gingrich talked about “the classic moderate wing of the party, where, as a former Rockefeller state chairman, I spent most of my life.” Hmm . . .

He credited his then-recent election as GOP whip to a coalition with House moderates such as now-Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) and said, “I believe in the party of the big tent.” Oh, dear.

He spoke fondly of an active government, of “pragmatism,” and of “the cooperative efforts of Americans -- whether it is building the Transcontinental Railroad, populating the West through the Homestead Act, setting up the Agricultural Agent system” etc.

Ayn Rand might be appalled.

Then there’s this: “The more power there is in a political system, the more the powerful exploit it. New York has ended up a dream world for the poor. It has become a place where Donald Trump manipulates the game.” Funny, they seemed to get along just fine at the White House correspondents dinner.

It gets worse. “What we’ve discovered over the last 20 years,” he said, “is that the world that enriches politicians is the world that enriches a handful of millionaire developers.” Not to mention oil and gas billionaires.

If anyone can stave off the appearance of sanity, it's our Newt, but the craziness may have reached a level where no one really can do it. There must surely be a breeze of caution, if not dread, blowing on T-Paw and Willard. They have an obvious advantage in the kind of cash they have access to. However, you have to wonder if they can make themselves appear cracked enough for the people who determine choose Republican nominees.

#

Oh no, make it stop! The 2012 campaign is under way!

Yes, it's 2008 GOP presidential hopeful-turned-2012 presidential hopeful "Minister Mike" Huckabee, trying his darnedest to figure out whether he's for or against cap-and-trade. Let's see, if it's a day with the letter "d" in it . . .

by Ken

Let's not misunderestimate, as Republicans like to say, how grim these next two years are going to be, with both Republicans and right-wing "centrist" Dems running as hard right in the face of the perceived national mood as their stumpy little legs will take them. We need to remember that President Obama isn't just a born capitulator when it comes to negotitation, although all the available evidence indicates that he is. A good portion of what he's "capitulating" to is stuff that in his heart of hearts he wants to see done anyway. He's just willing to carry it however much farther he has to in the face of those howling Teabaggers and other right-wingers he can feel gaining on him.

So with people like "Sunny John" Boehner and Eric "A Disgrace to the Jews" Cantor and Darrell "OK, I'm a Crook, but What of It?" Issa and a bunch of other committee-chairng hooligans occupying positions of actual governmental power, thereby amplifying their already wildly disproportional access to the infotainment noozemedia, not to mention Senate Minority Leader "Miss Mitch" McConnell commanding every obstructlier troops of obstruction, and an economy still in hell and a war with no end in sight, and so on and so on, it's not going to be pretty. Still, there are already indications aplenty that the New Order isn't going to be the ideological juggernaut it was cracked up to be -- mostly by those very same infotainment noozemedia, come to think of it.

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson has (I dare say) some fun with the already-evident fractures in his column today, "Why so frightened, GOP?"

[D]uring the lame-duck session, it seemed to dawn on GOP leaders that they begin the new Congress burdened with great expectations -- but lacking commensurate power. It's going to be a challenge for Republicans just to maintain party unity, much less to enact the kind of conservative agenda they promised to their enthusiastic, impatient voters.

Robinson points to the possibility of increased defections from the formerly lockstep Senate GOP minority -- "there could be as many as 11 Republicans who might defect and vote with the Democrats, depending on the issue." He concludes: "The new Senate will be considerably more Republican than the old Senate, but whether it's more conservative remains to be seen."

Whereas the very fact that "the new House will be decidedly more conservative than the old House" may actually be "the problem." Can Speaker-apparent Boehner really handle his new Teabagging cohorts?

Republicans face what, for them, is an unpleasant but inescapable reality. Ideologically, most Americans describe themselves as moderate or conservative; but when it comes to getting assistance from the government, most Americans are moderate or liberal. Look at health care, the issue that won the election for the GOP. According to polls, voters clearly favor the benefits that Obama's reforms will provide. All they really oppose is the insurance mandate that makes those benefits possible.

The idea of small, limited government may be appealing, but this is a big, complicated country. As some Republicans already know, and others soon will learn.

MEANWHILE THE PUTATIVE GOP PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGNS HIT SOME ROUGH PATCHES OF ROAD

As a report by the AP's Charles Babington is headlined in today's Post: "GOP hopefuls find some issues a hazard early on." So we've got:

* South Dakota Sen. John Thune (you mean to tell me this doodybag is a 2012 GOP presidential hopeful?!) has been caught making a precipitously quick conversion from compulsive earmarker to a scourge of earmarks -- er, "explaining" that "I support those projects, but I don't support this bill, nor do I support the process by which this bill was put together."

* Our old pal Willard Romney is caught joining in the right-wing jihad against the Obama health care package and its infamous "individual mandate" when that mandate is essentially identical to the one he incorporated into the health care reform he oversaw as governor of Massachusetts.

* Outgoing Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been caught telling whoppers about labor unions, which he could only back up with reference to a passel of lies upchucked by Veronique de Rugy a "senior research fellow" at George Mason University (which, it shouldn't be forgotten, has been permanently tainted by gobbling up those Koch Brothers millions; to quote the title of a post I wrote in October, "It's important that everyone associated with George Mason U. suffer the stigma of the Koch Bros.' Mercatus Center") on, as I live and breathe, Andrew Breitbart's website! Is there anyone in that chain of stupidities with a brain capable of even recognizing truth?

* Former Arkansas Gov. "Minister Mike" Huckabee, who this month claimed, with regard to cap-and-trade: "I never did support and never would support it, period," the only small, itty-bitty problem is that --

at an October 2007 meeting of the Global Warming and Energy Solutions Conference in New Hampshire, Huckabee said: "I also support cap and trade of carbon emissions. And I was disappointed that the Senate rejected a carbon-counting system to measure the sources of emissions, because that would have been the first and the most important step toward implementing true cap and trade."

In his post-facto weaseling he managed to drag the Chinese into his own poor-quality lying: Voluntary cap-and-trade, it appears, is OK, "but I was clear that we could not force U.S. businesses to do what their Chinese counterparts refused to."

* That sad hack Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour of course had his seemingly inevitable momentum toward 2012, er, sidetracked with his serially embarrassing blithering in defense of racial segregation.

Ha ha ha, see the bozos run. But that brings us to the true horror underlying all of these stories: Hide the children and the silverware, the 2012 campaign is upon us.

May God have mercy on our souls.

#

Minnesota GOP finds a guv candidate modeled, not on Virginia's Gov. "Slick Bob" McDonnell, but on AG Ken Cuckoonuts

MN's certified-Tenther GOP guv candidate Tom Emmer

by Ken

Still searching for a link to that Rachel Maddow Show clip with Ira Furman doing his impromptu Mr. Science-style demonstration of the totally counterintuitive basic principle of "lift" that makes flight possible, I was wandering around the Maddow blog looking for the entrance to the attic when I stumbled across a blogpost from this afternoon by Laura Conaway which seems a logical sequel to my post earlier today about Virginia's uneasy wingnut tandem of Gov. "Slick Bob" McDonnell and AG Ken Cuckoonuts:

Minnesota GOP picks really wacky guy for governor -- no federal laws?

By Laura Conaway - Mon May 3, 2010 2:36 PM EDT

Holy smokes -- the Minnesota Republican Party has picked a tenther candidate for governor, State Rep. Tom Emmer, who makes Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli look like Eleanor Roosevelt or something. From TPM:

Emmer was first elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2004. He is a co-author of a proposed state constitutional amendment that would, to borrow the words of Nigel Tufnel, turn the Tenth Amendment all the way up to 11, with Minnesota preemptively nullifying all federal laws unless a state supermajority consents to them. Here is the key quote from the amendment's text: "A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor. Before voting to approve a federal law, each legislator must individually affirm that the legislator has read the federal law and understands it."

The best part? Emmer got the blessing of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who's aiming at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Here's more from Eric Kleefeld's TPM post (which includes video clips!):

State Rep. Tom Emmer picked up the official Republican endorsement at the party's convention this weekend, and he also walked away with the backing of Pawlenty himself. "We don't have any doubt about what Tom Emmer stands for or what his values are," Pawlenty said at the convention. "He is strong. He is steadfast. He is clear. ... He is going to be the next governor of the state of Minnesota." Emmer also has the support of Sarah Palin, who praised him just before the convention got underway as a "hockey dad" who once played for the University of Alaska-Fairbanks -- a move that may have been a tipping point, according to the Star-Tribune.

Emmer was first elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2004. Just this past March, he was a co-author of a proposed state constitutional amendment that would, to borrow the words of Nigel Tufnel, turn the Tenth Amendment all the way up to 11, with Minnesota preemptively nullifying all federal laws unless a state supermajority consents to them. Here is the key quote from the amendment's text: "A federal law does not apply in Minnesota unless that law is approved by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the legislature and is signed by the governor. Before voting to approve a federal law, each legislator must individually affirm that the legislator has read the federal law and understands it."

Last September, Emmer proposed another state constitutional amendment that would prohibit any individual or employer mandate to carry health insurance in the state of Minnesota, if one were to eventually pass at the federal or state level (as it did eventually pass at the federal level).

* * *

"There have been some questions about the Tenth Amendment," Emmer acknowledged, "and we all know that states have the rights to assert their Tenth Amendment powers and affirm those rights in the state constitution." As for the skeptics, Emmer said that his amendment would protect Minnesotans from federal encroachment on health care, in the same way that the First and Second Amendments have protected freedom for the last 220 years."

* * *

In another amusing Emmer moment, a year ago he tore into a Democratic state representative for wanting to copy elements of environmental science and regulations from California and Europe, which the Dem in question felt were superior to the status quo in Washington or Minnesota. To Emmer, this was an example of liberals hating America:

"Oh oh, hey by the way, we also apparently have to look at this country and be extremely critical of the United States of America, and start kissing the rear end of the people on the other side of the Atlantic," Emmer said mockingly. "That's ridiculous, and I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I'm hearing it out of Washington, now I'm hearing it here. This is a great country, Rep. Knuth."

Well done, Minnesota GOP! Looks like you've found a winner! And we can just feel the excitement oozing out of Governor Tim's pores! (That's a joke. As far as I know, nothing has ever been known to ooze out of the governor except his unaccountable personal ambition -- unaccountable in that he's such a total nonentity.)

#

Barney And Rachel Nail The Republicans The Way They Should Be Nailed Every Single Day

If the media wasn't owned lock, stock and barrel by the big corporate interests desperate to maintain the status quo for their own sake, what you're going to see below is how real news and opinion TV would look every day instead of that drivel coming out of CNN, Fox and the broadcast networks.

Rachel starts off on her own-- well, not exactly on her own. She has a little help from Republican Governors Schwarzenegger (CA) and Crist (FL) representing virtually all governors of both parties with the exception of a tiny handful of secessionists and über-partisan hacks like Mark "Tango Dancer" Sanford (SC), Rick Perry (TX), John Hoeven (ND) and delusional presidential aspirants Tim Pawlenty (MN) and Bobby Jindal (LA), in talking about how useful and successful Obama's stimulus package has been in saving and creating jobs, not Inside-the-Beltway, where out-of-touch congressional ideologues spend their lives, but in America, which they all avoid assiduously. Governors of 42 states and 5 territories signed a letter to Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell urging them to give Obama their "assistance in protecting jobs and speeding economic recovery by extending the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s (ARRA) enhanced federal match for Medicaid (FMAP) for two additional quarters." Yes, even far right Republicans like Haley Barbour (MS), Sonny Perdue (GA), Bob McDonald (VA), Mitch Daniels (IN), Bob Riley (AL), Dave Heineman (NE) and Sean Parnell (AK), when faced with the realities of real life Americans elected congressmembers Inside-the-Beltway are shielded from (they only talk to wealthy donors and lobbyists), aren't willing to throw their state's citizens under the bus for narrow partisan gain.

You'd never know it from listening to obstructionist GOP hacks like Boehner, Cantor, Pence, McCotter, Foxx, Issa, Ryan, McHenry, Schock, etc., but last year's stimulus bill created something like 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009 according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Crist: "We accepted the stimulus money; I think all of my fellow governors did. I think it was the responsible thing to do for the people and it puts people above politics. In Florida alone, for example, it created or maintained at least 87,000 jobs."

Schwarzenegger: "I have been the first of the Republican governors to come out and support the stimulus money... and anyone who says it hasn't created a job can talk to the 150,000 people who have been getting jobs in California."

And then Rachel talked about the grotesque hypocrisy and partisan game-playing of Lindsey Graham, Tim Pawlenty and John McCain. Man, did she nail those three-- especially poor pathetic old McCain! And then she brought on Barney Frank, who's been working with Republicans in Congress since 1980 and has some understanding of what makes them tick, to drive a stake through their hearts. You've got to watch this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama's Missile Defense Architecture Is A Security Improvement, Not A Concession

Click and it gets big... and crazy

Poland's Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, may be a right-wing politician, but his election in 2007 was very much a step in the right direction from the excesses of the neo-fascist twin brothers who ruled before him, Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the latter a McConnell/Foley-like closet queen, who are most remembered in the West for their loud and hysterical homophobic obsessions.

Wednesday night Tusk refused to accept a phone call from Hillary Clinton who wanted to explain the details of the U.S. plan to change the childish and aggressive Bush era policy of provoking Russia on its borders. Thursday night, stiff mildly peeved, Tusk got on the phone with Obama. And this morning, the Russians announced-- as expected by everyone except right-wing American political hacks like Tim Pawlenty-- that they would scrap their own plans for deploying missiles near Poland.

For all the whining on the American right to the contrary-- cue up McCain/Lieberman/Graham-- a plurality of Poles are relieved and agree with Obama's more mature approach.

Almost half Poland's population supports a U.S. decision to scrap a planned anti-missile system partly based on their soil, a survey published on Saturday showed.

The survey published in the daily Rzeczpospolita by polling firm GFK showed 48 percent of Poles believed the decision was good for Poland, while 31 percent had the opposite view.

Stanford University Professor Emeritus Martin Hellman, whose work seeks to apply risk analysis to nuclear deterrence, applauded the Obama Administration because it "provides some hope for desperately needed improvement in Russian-American relations," while pointing out that hacks like McCain and Pawlenty are already "accusing Obama of 'appeasement,' wrongly but effectively conjuring up fears of Russia as a modern-day Nazi Germany, bent on world domination."

Given the looming battle over missile defense, it behooves us to better understand why the Russians find this defensive system so offensive. To do that requires going beyond what most people think nuclear deterrence means and, instead, seeing its reality.

Neither the US nor Russia can use nuclear weapons against the other without being destroyed in retaliation, leading most people to believe that these weapons will never be used-- their very destructiveness seems to ensure the peace. But that view ignores the more subtle use of nuclear weapons in times of crisis.

Hellman then proceeds to give an in-depth analysis of the high-stakes game of nuclear chicken known as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and concludes that today the Russians "have reason to fear that even a rudimentary, untested American missile defense [on their borders] will allow us to increase the intensity of our bluffs during a crisis."

To be afraid of our missile defense, the Russians don't have to fear that it will give us a military advantage. They don't even have to fear that our leaders will mistakenly believe that it will. All they have to fear is that our leaders will act as if they believe that it does. In nuclear chicken, the first party to behave rationally loses, so having one more prop to use in our act is dangerous to Russia's interests.

At first, that might seem to favor the Eastern European missile defense-- at least from our vantage point. But appearing more irrational than the Russians is a highly questionable advantage since it increases the risk of a catastrophic outcome. Failure to weigh the chance of a small gain (coming out ahead in a crisis) against the risk of an infinite loss (destruction of our homeland) clearly can have disastrous consequences.

The need for our decision-making process to better balance potential gains and losses extends far beyond missile defense and national security. Lack of such a framework led financial institutions to take excessive risks, an error that is now costing us trillions of dollars. As expensive as that mistake was, it pales in comparison to what we will suffer if our nuclear weapons strategy proves as faulty. Before it is too late, let us learn from our now obvious economic mistakes and objectively balance the risks associated with changes in our nuclear weapons posture against the risk associated with threatening to destroy civilization.

Listen closely to Obama's explanation of his decision (in the video below), which seems to indicate that knee-jerk obstructionists in the Republican Party-- particularly McCain-- are simply on another planet. Of course, there is still the question of how much progressives can really trust Obama anyway.

The Pentagon’s 2010 budget seeks 250 Standard Missile-3 interceptors. It also seeks to increase to 27 from 21 the number of warships equipped to launch the Standard Missile-3s and requests $1.6 billion to develop software and hardware to upgrade ships and to develop a ground-based model.

The Pentagon is also now promising Poland that Patriot missiles will still be deployed in that country as previously planned.

So in the end I see this as an adjustment in strategy due to technology as much as anything. The flexible, more mobile, short range missile defense systems are proving ready to go while the former Bush proposal for Poland and Czech Republic included technologies that are not yet proven.

Obama can appear to be stepping back from an immediate confrontation with Russia but in fact he is following the lead of the Pentagon who for some time has been saying that they must move to expand the more promising Navy Aegis-based missile defense system. This program has already been dramatically growing in the Asian-Pacific region and will now be slated for expanded European operations.

UPDATE: What A Shock!

Robert Gates, Bush's Secretary of War who Obama held over, agrees with my assessment. "Last week, President Obama-- on my recommendation and with the advice of his national-security team and the unanimous support of our senior military leadership-- decided to discard that [outdated and ineffective Bush era] plan in favor of a vastly more suitable approach. In the first phase, to be completed by 2011, we will deploy proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles-- weapons that are growing in capability-- in the areas where we see the greatest threat to Europe."

It looks like he forgot to consult with President McCain or President Pawlenty. Maybe he tried and they were too busy running to get face time on the media to take his call.

Breaking news: Minnesota Supreme Court says unanimously, it's "Senator Al Franken." AND NOW: Coleman concedes, Pawlenty will sign!

FINAL UPDATE: Coleman concedes! Pawlenty says he'll sign!

From USA Today:

Republican Norm Coleman is addressing supporters in St. Paul following a Minnesota Supreme Court decision today that found Democrat Al Franken has won the election. The USA TODAY story is here.    

"I join all Minnesotans in congratulating our newest United States senator, Al Franken," Coleman said. "I have never believed that my service is irreplaceable. We have reached the point where further litigation damages the unity of our state, which is also fundamental. In these tough times, we all need to focus on the future. And the future today is we have a new United States senator."

Update 4:28 p.m. ET: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has released a statement announcing that he will sign the election certificate, which clears the way for Franken to be seated in the Senate. "In light of [the] decision and Senator Coleman’s announcement that he will not be pursuing an appeal, I will be signing the election certificate today as directed by the court and applicable law." Earlier, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Franken could be seated as early as next week.

ORIGINAL REPORT

[1st UPDATE below: statement from Sen. Harry Reid]

The Associated Press reports:

Minn. rules for Franken in Senate fight

By BRIAN BAKST
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 30, 2009; 2:18 PM

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- The Minnesota Supreme Court has ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state's long-running Senate race.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibuster.

Coleman hasn't ruled out seeking federal court intervention.

Unfortunately, the ruling doesn't seem to include the death penalty for Norm Coleman -- and Sen. John Cornyn and the rest of his election-stealing supporters -- for kidnapping the U.S. electoral system. Now the ball is in Governor Pawlenty's court, and he has indicated that he might actually be prepared to do his job certifying the election.

By the way, the ruling unanimously rejected outright all of Coleman's claims, and that's with the two justices who had participated in the recount commission not participating. -- Ken


UPDATE: SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY
REID HAS ISSUED THIS STATEMENT --

I congratulate Senator-elect Al Franken, the next Senator from the state of Minnesota.

The people of Minnesota will now finally get the brilliant and hardworking new senator they elected in November and the full representation they deserve. After all the votes have been counted and recounted, the Minnesota Supreme Court has made the final determination that Minnesotans have chosen Al Franken to help their state and our country get back on track.

The Senate looks forward to welcoming Senator-elect Franken as soon as possible. He will play a crucial role as we work to strengthen our economy, ensure all Americans can access and afford quality health care, make our country more energy independent, confirm the President’s outstanding nominee to the Supreme Court, and tackle the many other challenges we face.

I once again encourage Governor Pawlenty to respect the votes of his constituents and the decisions of his state’s highest court. He should put politics aside, follow his state’s laws and finally sign the certificate that will bring this episode to an end.

#

Mark "MIA" Sanford positions himself in the 2012 GOP wingnut derby. 3PM (ET) UPDATE: AH, YET ANOTHER WINGNUT CHEATER-LIAR

Trust Fox Noise to misidentify the man of the hour, or scumbag of the day, as a "D." MediaMatters reports that the Noisemakers did eventually correct the identification to an "R."

ABC News reports (also see ENSIGN UPDATE below):

South Carolina Governor Sanford Admits Affair, Resigns As Chairman Of Republican Governors Association
Governor Explains The Reasons Behind His Unannounced Disappearance

Bu HUMA KHAN and ERIC NOE

Apologizing profusely to his staff, family and friends for disappearing unexpectedly, a teary-eyed South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said he had been "unfaithful" and admitted affair with a woman in Argentina.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife," Sanford said at a press conference this afternoon, adding that his affair was with a "dear, dear friend from Argentina."

The affair, Sanford said, began "casually" but "last year developed into something much more."

"We developed a remarkable friendship over those eight years and then as I said about a year ago it sparked into something more than that," Sanford explained. "I have seen her three times since then, during that whole sparking thing. ... It was discovered five months ago and went into serious overdrive."

Sanford also offered his resignation from his position of chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

An emotional Sanford said he needed a break from his job after what he called an "exhausting" battle against President Obama's stimulus bill.

"What I've found in this job is that one desperately needs a break from the bubble," he said.

"When you live in the zone of politics, you can't ever let your guard down."

He said his wife was aware of his affair before he left for Argentina, and that the family had been trying to work through the situation for "about the last five months."

"What I did was wrong, period, end of story," Sanford said.

"I'm committed to trying to get my heart right... this was selfishness on my part."

On whether he was separated from his wife, the governor responded: "I don't know how you want to define that. I'm here, she's there. I guess in a formal sense we're not."

He did not identify the woman with whom he'd been having an affair, but when asked whether he was alone during his five-day trip to Argentina, Sanford said, "obviously not."

Sanford did not answer a question from reporter asking him whether he would resign as governor.

[Article continues onsite.]

Now that we know the truth (we think), back to our original report . . .

Inside a black SC state SUV found parked at Columbia (SC)'s Metropolitan Airport is a parking pass for the school attended by the children of Gov. Mark Sanford-- you know, the kiddies left without their daddy on Father's Day while he hiked the Appalachian Trail on national Naked Hiking Day. Or maybe not.

"Originally, it was believed Sanford took a hike on the Appalachian Trail."

-- from reporter Jack Kuenzie's account, as posted

on the WIS-TV (Columbia, SC) website

by Ken

So what do you think, is "hiking in the Appalachians" or "hiking the Appalachian Trail" going to take its place alongside "wide stance" in the growing stock of wink-wink euphemisms contributed to the language by the wingnuts-in-high-places fraternity? Of course it's only now that we know what it's a euphemism for: apparently, a week in Argentina.

[Afterthought: And what do you suppose "a week in Argentina" is a wink-wink euphemism for?]

Argentina? Well, the governor is supposed to be back in his office today, so I'm sure he'll explain it all. (A press conference is scheduled for 2pm ET.) But according to the WIS-TV account, he told a CNN reporter that he was going to go hiking on the Appalachian Trail but at the last moment decided instead to go someplace "more exotic." That, apparently, would have been Buenos Aires. I guess it's kind of a lucky thing he happened to have his passport with him when he set out for the Appalachians.

Maybe it's just me, but I love that line of reporter Jack Kuenzie's: "Originally, it was believed Sanford took a hike on the Appalachian Trail." You always have to worry when a reporter takes a dive into the passive voice. "It was believed"??? Is there anybody on the planet who believed the governor was hiking the Appalachian Trail? Okay, there are the usual slaves to wingnut propaganda, who'll believe anything they're told by the puppeteers as long as it's crazy and dishonest enough. But is there anyone with a normally functioning brain who believed?

Of course reporter Kuenzie knows the story about the story about hiking the Appalachian Trail. As he's about to report, it was just one of the series of lies told by the governor's staff in an effort to cover up . . . well, we don't rightly know yet what the loony scumbag is actually covering up. First, though, instead of reporting, he offers a wee bit of spin. "It was believed." Indeed.

"The plot continues to thicken in the case of Gov. Mark Sanford's mystery trip.

Originally, it was believed Sanford took a hike on the Appalachian Trail. But Wednesday morning, CNN reported that Sanford told a reporter with the State newspaper at the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta that he was returning from a seven day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media. "

Here are some things we do know. Across the country governors have awakened to the harsh reality that in the wake of the economic meltdown, the buck stops in their bucks-challenged statehouses. Can you believe, some of them seem to have been surprised? (Anyone heard from Louisiana's Bobby Jindal lately?) But for the ones who knew it was coming, it didn't help that much. There wasn't much they could do to cushion the blow. They have to keep their states functioning.

Of course this is trickier for the wingnut-loon governors who don't believe in government, and therefore are hard put to see why exactly it depends on them to keep their states running. Goodness knows, even in better economic times many of them were doing their darnedest to disable their state governments.

Among wingnut governors, the still harsher reality of the new economic reality has been even harder to face. After all, these are folks who didn't bring much to public service but some combination of raw ambition and a satchelful of mindless wingnut policy bromides that should have been finally discredited through the catastrophic adventure in crony capitalism that was the Bush regime.

AT ANY RATE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED

This should have been the one redeeming takeaway from the otherwise unmitigated horror of eight years of Bush-Cheneyism. For eight nightmare years, those loony far-right bromides, which are so useful when the loons are in opposition and trying to persuade voters feeling dispossessed that someone really cares about them, even thought they don't, were used for actual governing, and the results couldn't have been more disastrous.

There was a teaching opportunity there, a chance to help average Americans see how empty and dangerous all that far-right bombast is, and how worse-than-useless it is applied to actual governing. Democrats could have come out of the 2008 starting gate with their rhetoric blazing. But not many did, least of all the presidential nominee, who apparently felt that such talk would have been perceived as "divisive" and held against him. It was probably a good choice for his personal popularity, but now that personal popularity (which is dropping in any case) is almost impossible to translate into support for a political agenda.

Meanwhile, it's every wingnut governor for him/herself as state budgets have to be closed with some minimal level of government services provided. One fine example is Minnesota's gutless windbag Tim Pawlenty, indicating his intention to hightail it out of the governor's chair as soon as he can git. This, he presumably hopes, will give him a chance to wipe his fingerprints off the wreckage he'll be leaving behind in St. Paul and the state.

Another wingnut-loon governor who sees himself as potential 2012 presidential timber is none other than Mark Sanford, perhaps the most devious and dangerously reality-resistant of the bunch. Last week, as the state's legislature wound down to the closing of its spring session, the legislators faced up to the reality that while they may be every bit as ideologically blotto as the governor, somebody has to actually conduct the state's business, and keep it functioning. This is reflected in the ten gubernatorial vetoes they overrode, including the governor's much-ballyhooed refusal to accept federal stimulus money.

It could all be a coincidence, of course, but this is the point at which the governor did his disappearing act. I'm sure Buenos Aires is lovely this time of year. But it's really very naughty of a sitting governor to just disappear for a week. It would be a lot easier for him at this press conference today if he could show visual marks of having been nearly eaten by Appalachian Trail wolves.

Last night Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow (with in-the-dark SC Lieut. Gov. Andre Bauer as a guest), and Jon Stewart all feasted on the story. (Telling moment: Guest Lewis Black recalling to Keith that he had been asked what comics were going to do once George W. Bush was gone from the scene.) Even Fox Noise was reporting that the South Carolina capital was in something of a tizzy over this bizarre episode.

Naturally, as suggested above, there is comradely wingnut blowback. I was looking yesterday at the comments appended to Chris Cillizza's washingtonpost.com report of the phony-baloney announcement that Governor Sanford wasn't missing at all but was hiking the Appalachian Trail -- on Naked Hiking Day weekend. While those online comments were by and large appropriately derisive and/or scathing, but then there were the occasional gems like this one:

gfafblifr wrote:
"Some considered Sanford's disappearance odd for someone seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2012." with some being defined as the editorial staff who wrote the article. Why is it unusual for someone to get out and relax after working hard?

Um, gfafblifr, has anyone pointed out to you that you appear to be seriously insane? It would be nice to think that no even semi-responsible adult disappears for five days without either his family or his coworkers know anything about his whereabouts. When it comes to the governor of a state, unless he can do some mighty fine 'splainin', he better be packing his resignation. And take with him the staffers who covered for him, stonewalling even the lieutenant governor who was trying to figure out who exactly was in charge.

It was also pointed out that if a Democrat had pulled a stunt like this, the Right-Wing Noise Machine would have been in a dudgeon such as to make the noisemakers forget their BS grandstanding over Iran.

Dallas138 wrote:
A sitting governor going incommunicado on his own for five days, without his staff knowing where he was? What, pray tell, could possibly be "odd" about that? Don't all governors do a vanishing act every now and then and disappear from the face of the earth for five days at a time? Oh. So OK, they don't. Well, drop it anyway, because he's a Republican, so it's politically incorrect to question anything he does, especially in a state like South Carolina. Too bad he's not a Democrat, as then he could be savaged by the legitimate press, as well as by Fox and National Hate Radio for being a less-than-stable politician who can't handle the pressures of office.

Ah yes, the eternal Wingnut Crunch: so many lies to tell, so little time to tell them, despite their 24/7 unencumbered, seemingly unlimited access to the Infotainment News Media.

2ND UPDATE: SPEAKING OF WINGNUT CHEATER-LIARS,
CREW FILES AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST ENSIGN

BREAKING: CREW files Ethics Complaint Against Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). His "stunning abuse of power shocks the conscience"

Submitted by crew on 24 June 2009 - 12:07pm.
Today, CREW filed a complaint against Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against his campaign committee and leadership PAC, based on activities surrounding his affair with a campaign staffer, Cynthia Hampton. The complaint can be found here.

On June 16, 2009, Sen. Ensign announced he had engaged in an affair with Ms. Hampton, who was married to Doug Hampton, the Senator’s administrative assistant. The affair began in began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.

The complaint details a number of Senate ethics rules and legal violations.

First, Mr. Hampton has alleged Sen. Ensign terminated him and his wife for reasons related to the affair. If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex. At least two members of Congress previously have been investigated for sexual harassment, including former Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) and former Rep. Jim Bates (D-CA).

Second, Ms. Hampton apparently received a severance payment directly from Sen. Ensign when she was terminated from the campaign committee and PAC, but neither committee reported any in-kind contribution by the senator. In addition, if Sen. Ensign paid Ms. Hampton more than $5,000 he may have made an illegal excessive contribution to the PAC. Knowingly failing to report a contribution of over $25,000 is a violation of criminal law.

Mr. Hampton apparently was paid $6,000 upon his departure, purportedly for vacation time. If this actually was some sort of severance payment, Sen. Ensign’s office may have misused official funds.

CREW has alleged Sen. Ensign violated the rules prohibiting improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate by abusing his authority as the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) to hire and pay the Hampton’s son as an intern at the NRSC and by claiming to have been blackmailed by Mr. Hampton, without reporting the alleged crime to law enforcement authorities.

[More onsite.]

So for now, it's Ensign and Sanford neck and neck, while Pawlenty searches for someone -- preferably female -- to have sex with him.

#

Pawlenty Won't Seek Third Term-- Now Free To Veto Franken Forever

You think Minnesota voters have learned a lesson or two?

Tim Pawlenty is, basically a failed and unpopular governor who acknowledged just last week on Minnesota Public Radio that he knew seeking a third term would be an uphill battle. Today he announced he'll spend his energy on something less daunting. While we can be sure it won't be trying to govern Minnesota, it's likely that he'll throw his hat into the clown's ring of Republicans wanting to take on Barack Obama in 2012. (Although a friend mentioned he could also be thinking of challenging Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate seat in 2014, accusing him of being an absentee senator who missed a ton of votes and wasn't there for Minnesotans.)


And speaking of Franken, many folks are speculating that Pawlenty's announcement is proof that he will refuse to sign the election certification no matter what the Minnesota Supremem Court rules-- and despite the fact that 63% of Minnesotans want Franken seated now. Instead he will play up to right-wing zealots and obstructionists in Texas, Alabama and Georgia who want him to tough it out and not allow the Democrats that 60th seat.

Earlier today, when the rumors about his decision were starting to circulate, the Star Tribune reported that Pawlenty had already told GOP legislative leaders he wasn't going to seek re-election. Nationally, the GOP is in such dire straits that even a complete nothing like Pawlenty has as good a shot at any of the other kooks and loons vying for the worthless presidnetial nomination.

In the just-concluded legislative session, Pawlenty also took a hard line that played well with Republicans far beyond Minnesota, vetoing all DFLers' proposed tax increases and unilaterally cutting parts of the state's budget to whittle down its gaping deficit.
Political analysts have said a run for a third term could have been risky for Pawlenty if he harbors ambitions beyond Minnesota.

Pointing out that he has never cracked 50 percent of the vote during his two previous runs, they said he could have been vulnerable next year. And if he lost, it would have effectively ended his presidential ambitions.

In addition, if the state remained mired in economic hard times during that third term, forcing him to make potentially unpopular decisions, it could have diminished his standing among GOP White House hopefuls.

Ben Smith at Politico pointed out that if Pawlenty is serious about running for president or-- more likely-- vice president, this announcement "rees him from the strictures of tough Minnesota campaign finance laws, which made presidential fundraising tough."


UPDATE: Will Michele Bachmann Run For Governor?

Today's Star Tribune goes through all the garbage likely to look at jumping into the Minnesota gubernatorial race. They suggest Coleman might run and claim he's "the state's most prominent Republican."

Among other potential candidates are House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, and Senate Minority Leader Dave Senjem, R-Rochester.

Less well-known potential candidates from the Legislature include Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague; Sen. Geoff Michel, R-Edina, and Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie.

Michel said a "boatload of Republicans" have been waiting for Pawlenty to decide on a third term.

Former House Speaker Steve Sviggum and former state Auditor Pat Anderson also are considered possible candidates, as is GOP activist Brian Sullivan, who ran against Pawlenty for the Republican endorsement in 2002.

Former U.S. Sen. Rod Grams and U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy have been mentioned as theoretical possible candidates, as has been current Rep. Michele Bachmann.

.

Is it true? Can our Willard Romney really be back? Oh, those wacky GOP-ers! But surely it's not as a potential Young Johnny McCranky running mate?

by Ken

On the DNC blog, Matt Ortega has a post up about old DWT fave Willard Romney, who lit up the early stages of the 2008 GOP presidential race with his flipflopperoo campaign hi-jinx.

(Since our Willard is known for his money-making expertise, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he was shrewd enough to patent his special process of Saying Any Damned Thing You Have to Say to Try to Get Elected, with the result that Young Johnny McCranky now has to pay him a royalty every time he contradicts one of his previous positions -- or, in the vernacular, "flipflops." Which is to say pretty much every time Young Johnny opens his mouth or the McCranky brain trust fires up the campaign mimeograph machine.)

If you need to put some twinkle in your day, I seriously encourage you to check out Matt's post, which might be subtitled "Willard in His Own Words." For Matt has gathered a stunning accumulation of clumsy verbal evasions by which our Willard attempted to duck uncomfortable questions by announcing things he's not.

In his post Matt provides for each "I'm not . . ." the full context along with the full Willard quote (including source). Here, stripped to the bare essentials, are some examples:

* Willard on "sanctuary cities": "I'm not a mayor."

* Willard on possible immigration legislation: "I'm no legislator."

* Willard on Senator McCranky's anti-torture proposal: "I'm not a senator." (Um, say, while we're on the subject: Hey there, Crankyman, how about your old anti-torture proposal? You know, from back before you turned in favor of torture?)

* Willard on global warming: "I'm not a scientist."

* Willard on Boston's infamously mismanaged Big Dig: "I'm not an engineer."

And so on and on. By his own testimony, our Willard is, in addition, not a Supreme Court justice, a political pundit, a psychologist, or a big-game hunter. The underlying theme would appear to be that our Willard isn't much of anything, to which one can only respond, How true, how true!

But oh, for those good old days, when Willard was being taken seriously as . . . well, as anything other than the grubby opportunist he actually is. The good old days when the GOP proudly sported that massive field of clueless white male presidential hopefuls running under the GOP's apparent campaign banner for 2008:

"The Clowns Have Taken Over the Circus"

Those were, of course, the days before the party faithful turned their backs on their more comical clowns, like Willard and Minister Mike Hucksterbee, and opted for the "pathetic" clown mode (old-timers can hark back to those dreadful tragiclowns Red Skelton used to portray, both on camera and on canvas) represented by Young Johnny "Bozo" McCranky.

The only thing I'm a trifle unclear about is how we come to be talking about Willard now after all this time. You're not telling me he's somehow back, are you?

Not, surely, as a possible GOP veep choice? No, I don't see this at all. For starters, the Crankyman needs someone who knows when to talk -- and to say only what he's told to -- and especially when to shut the heck up. Does this sound like our Willard?

In addition, I think Young Johnny is particularly cranky about the possibility of being shown up by his running mate (and prospective vice president). The very fact that our Willard can, you know, talk and breathe at the same time makes Young Johnny appear incapacitated. Throw in those beefcake photos of Willard stripped to his bare essentials, and folks are apt to be reminded that Young Johnny has at least one foot, if not most of his decrepit carcass, in the grave.

Now Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the Man Who Never Was -- this strikes me as McCranky veep material. Provided you discount that awkward episode when Governor Timmy ran squealing from the Crankyman's words of "wisdom" about the collapse of that Minneapolis bridge, a subject on which the governor appears kind of touchy -- understandably, since wherever he goes he seems to see people pointing fingers of blame at him, as if it was his fault that his state more or less stopped spending money on infrastructure maintenance. (Oh, wait . . .)

Man, those wacky Republicans! I think the least we can do is to join in that topsy-turvy spirit of GOP fun and say:

Welcome back, Willard!

#