You Gotta Love, California Politics

h/t: r2witco

Oh the irony in the GOP

Considering the joke Meghan McCain's father made at Chelsea Clinton's behalf.

If you don't remember:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

It sure is amusing reading the younger McCain's critique of David Letterman's Bristol Palin joke.

The most frustrating part of McCain's complaint is she continues to peddle the nonsense that the joke is about 14-year-old Willow Palin. No where in the original joke did Letterman mention Willow by name and in his apology the following the day he specifically says he was referring to Bristol.

I'm not defending what he said. In my opinion, neither Letterman nor the older McCain's jokes are defensible. But I wish Meghan McCain would just shut up already.

Mo Dowd Just Isn't as Funny as She Thinks She Is

When NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd is on, she's hilarious and on fire. It's just that more often than not her columns scream laziness.

I'm far from a fan of the Edwards' family, but you got to love Elizabeth Edwards defending herself and taking a slap at MoDowd:

In response to a recent New York Times column by Maureen Dowd that called Edwards's new book, Resilience, "just a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life," Edwards says Dowd is way off base and adds that she'd have been "foolhardy" to think she'd be protecting her kids by not writing about her life.

"My children aren't protected from the death of their brother, my breast cancer, or any of the things that have happened in our family," says Edwards. "They're smart kids, they have Google alerts. They already know." Dowd, she adds, "has written an editorial where she clearly does not understand this."

Congress Wastes More Money, Good for the LOLz

Energy and Commerce hires a speedreader.
h/t Swampland

California's Quick Tumble

John Cole is sick of California budget politics and says "Let [California] Burn." Hours later he returned to say he was right with the prescription, but wrong with the prognosis:

“The California Constitution has been amended or revised more than 500 times. It is now 157 pages. “

That just strikes me as a recipe for fail. Additionally, I learned that you all have term limits, so not only does it only take a 50+1 vote to increase spending and a 2/3 vote to raise money to pay for things, you also have special interests doing bond initiatives for anything that blows their trumpet, property tax laws that make no sense, and then to compound everything, people have no problem raising spending because when the shit hits the fan, they will have been term limited out and it is someone else’s problem. Then, the new people coming in to replace them have no experience and no authority and no way to fix it and the voters all hate them.

Pretty awesome.

You've got to respect someone who acknowledges when they're wrong and isn't afraid to do some research.

John pointed me to one of my new favorite blogs, Calitics, who takes the prognosis one step further:

The video features Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, Chair of the Budget Committee, breaking down the root of the evolving California budget crisis. It's an important watch, regardless of your party affiliation or ideology.

What's next?

As the notion of California as ungovernable grows stronger than ever, Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has expressed support for a convention to address such things as the state’s arcane budget requirements and its process for proliferate ballot initiatives, both of which necessitated Tuesday’s statewide vote on budget matters approved months ago by state lawmakers.

“There could not be more of a tipping point,” said Jim Wunderman, chief executive of the Bay Area Council, a business group that moved forward on Wednesday with plans to push for a constitutional convention. “We think the interest is going to grow by orders of magnitude now.”

The constitutional convention would be must see TV. It looks to be the best solution to this mess.

Sullivan Explores a Fundamentalist Disconnect

Amy Sullivan does great work over at Time's "Swampland" blog presenting digestible religion journalism for non-believers. Also, everyone once in a while she'll show up on BHTV. She does great work tonight demonstrating the gap between the Vatican and Bill Donohue's version of American Catholic Fundamentalism. The whole piece is included below:

First L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, ran an article giving Obama's first 100 days a tentative thumbs-up. Then, as conservative Catholics in the U.S. were wringing their hands about the horror of Barack Obama's scheduled appearance at Notre Dame, the newspaper--and the Vatican in general--was conspicuously silent. Then, when the paper did report on Obama's speech, its calm, fairly positive take was in stark contrast to the furious reaction of many conservative Catholics here.

But this takes the cake. In an interview with an Italian newspaper the day after Obama's speech, Giavonni Maria Vian, editor-in-chief of L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to forcefully push back against the view that Obama is a threat to Catholic values and religious freedom. “Obama has not upset the world,” said Vian. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.' To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”

After reaffirming that the Vatican newspaper shares the American bishops' staunch opposition to abortion, Vian went further. "What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president."

Uh, oh. It sounds like the Vatican newspaper "doesn't understand what it means to be Catholic."

You can follow her, as well as Joe Klein over at Swampland. Together Sullivan and Klein almost make Karen Tumulty tolerable. The feed is still worth following.

Republicans Piss into the Wind and the Media Hold Their...

I haven't said anything yet about the closing of Gitmo. Mostly because while I believe it should be closed sooner rather than later, I understand the politics of it are going to be a difficult, and I won't pretend have the answers. But the Republicans fear mongering and claims that Gitmo is just like Disneyland are quite amusing. Today's comments by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) take the cake:

I've mentioned Inhofe before here. He's in the running with Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for biggest wackjobs in the Senate.

It's frustrating that the White House has allowed Republicans to control the debate. It's natural for congress feeling left high and dry to vote against funding the Gitmo closing. Dem Senators say they need a plan. After all, they're the ones who have to take this back home and the fear mongering is going to work unless the White House gets into the debate. Tomorrow is Obama's big national security speech, which Politico is already hyping as a duel with Dick Cheney's “Keeping America Safe" at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

It's unclear how a private citizen's views on national security can compete with the President of the United States, but when you're a leaderless party Dick Cheney might be the best you've got.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) says them to CA:

Why not? We keep the Manson Family, the Night Stalker and many other various dangerous people. We sure could use the money, after last night's ballot initiatives were trounced. All this talk of dualing almost makes me forget we had a 2+ year long presidential campaign. It's a shame Dick Cheney didn't run. Maybe then the media would ignore the guy.

h/t: ABCNews and Think Progress

DADT's Slow Crawl Toward Oblivion

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Interviews like this and the Colin Powell are what separates Rachel Maddow from the others. She's not being used to her potential and it's a shame. Make sure you watch the full video if you need further proof why DADT must be revoked.

Obama sent a personal promise to repeal DADT to a soldier a couple weeks ago but the delay is ending careers now.

Mark Ambinder at the Atlantic posted what seems to be an educated hypothesis of the White House's plan:

"You can see the outline of the strategy in the administration's decision to let stand an appeals court ruling requiring the military to explain why being gay is, in itself, a reason to have fired a highly regarded lesbian Air Force major. The effect of not appealing the ruling will put the burden on the government to explain to skeptical judges why being gay is inherently incompatible with military service, something the administration (and many in the military) believe is very hard to prove, let alone justify. The hope here is that by allowing the military to make its best case -- and then seeing that case be torn apart by the courts, a critical mass of opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, will build."

There's more. It's worth a read. One of Ambinder's commenters, calchala, perfectly capture my feelings on the subject.

"[I]t's a little too soon to be worried, and I'm actually a little angry at activists on this issue. We're four months in his first term and it's not ALL activists, not just gay rights ones, seem to feel that everything should be done immediately. There's still plenty of time, however, if we're coming to the fourth year of his last term and it's still not done? Then that would be pretty problematic. But right now, I don't like saying this, but chill."

h/t Huffington Post
----------------
Now playing: Etta James - At last

Wingnuttery Everywhere

I was pleasantly surprised with Michael Steele truth to power Republican base Mormon comments:

"[R]emember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost."

I'm not a Republican, nor am I part of either party's base, but I've been fascinated by the Evangelical movement for sometime, and Steele's comments are backed up with many conversations I had during the primaries.

Continetti doesn't mention Huntsman's Mormonism in his complaints I mentioned yesterday, but then again, Continetti is not part of the GOP base. His quest for party purity isn't based on religion affiliation. Continetti actually said something that made me a at least a little bit proud:

"The coalition that would nominate such a man (or woman!) exists, sure. In the Democratic party. Not the GOP."

That was until Oliver Willis brought this John Aravosis post to my attention:

"It doesn't matter what Huntsman now tells us. The Mormons have a tenet in their faith called "lying for the lord." It means they outright lie when asked about their church, in order to protect and promote their church. And as we've seen with their treatment of the Holocaust victims, and their absurd excuse for why they secretly baptized President Obama's mother only last year, in matters concerning their faith, they have shown that you cannot trust them at their word. Their promises come second to their faith.

If Jon Hunstman is required by God to secretly help the Mormons infiltrate China - and he is - then that is what Jon Huntsman will do as our next Ambassador to China. You can bet on it. Pity the poor Chinese. They have no idea what's about to happen to them."

These conspiratorial ideas are common place on the extremes of both parties. Aravosis is fairly mainstream in the liberal blogosphere. It's disappointing to see this from what I'd hoped would be the more tolerant edge of political discourse. Hunstman's dedication to service is tried and true. More should expected out of liberal bloggers. These are the things we'd come to expect from birthers.

h/t Oliver Willis
----------------
Now playing: Louderbach - autumn

Continetti Disappointing Op/ed and GOP's Diminishing Numbers

I typically like Matthew Continetti on BHTV. I've debated Continetti merits with Brendan in the comments section a couple times, but his new article in the Weekly Standard is garbage - minus one nugget of truth:

"Because an Obama-friendly moderate stands absolutely no chance of winning a Republican presidential nomination anytime soon. The coalition that would nominate such a man (or woman!) exists, sure. In the Democratic party. Not the GOP."

The Republican Party has no interest in ever moderating itself - 2016 or any time in the future. It will take several presidential elections before it even considers something o drastic. We're talking 16-years minimum.

Today TPM and WaPo both dissect a new Gallup on the ever shrinking GOP. Other than church-going Caucasians, every other demographic has left them.

By 2042 the United States will be "majority-minority," when ethnic/racial minorities will make up the majority of the population. Currently 10% of American counties are "majority-minority" and another 7% are reaching that point.

Good luck in your purification attempts, GOP. You'll be joining the Whigs soon enough.

h/t Ben Smith

A Day Late, But Still Important: Obama at Notre Dame

I just love the way he confronts these controversial topics. As Amy Sullivan at Time said, Obama deserves a certain amount of respect simply for showing up. Pro-choice politicians have been running scared from moral questions on the topic. It's nice to hear Obama take those on head-on.
h/t Balloon Juice

Hollywood Wants into Politics

The Terminator has hardly been a successful governor, so I'd appreciate it if the media didn't use him as a positive example of Hollywood gone politico.

Just say no to Ice Man Val Kilmer for New Mexico governor!

About Damned Time

Sen. David Vitter still a shmuck, finally lifts his hold placed on the FEMA head confirmation.

I, for one, am excited about porn adult film star Stormy Daniels challenging Vitter in the LA Republican primary.

White House to Honor Stonewall Rebellion

Word is that the White House is going to release a proclamation recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion for Gay Pride month. San Francisco-based blogger Michael Petralis says:

A draft is being prepared as we speak in preparation for June. First one since 2000!

Interesting that Bill Clinton issued a presidential proclamation honoring LGBT pride month in June 2000, his last year in the Oval Office, and Obama is getting ready to put forward a similar proclamation in his first year as president.

Nice bit of progress!

I can't wait to read the Stonewall 40 proclamation from Obama in a few short weeks. And to also say, "Thanks, Mr. President."

h/t Carla Marinucci

Rachel Maddow w/ Rep. Joe Sestak and Lt. Dan Choi

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I've really enjoyed watching Sestak performance since Sen. Arlen Specter's move to the D's.

PA Senatorial Politics

A media question, so it's pretty funny watching the media ask questions about a Arlen Specter vs. Tom Ridge match up. But why would we think Ridge can get past Toomey? where are these Ridge vs. Toomey polls? Ridge is pro-choice. This just won't fly with what's left of the PA GOP. It's pretty clear the Specter vs. Ridge match up would be close, but they are basically the same candidate. Big name candidates are one thing, but this is beltway talk. Where are the reality based memes?

Texas, You Know, I Don't Think It's Going to Work

The New Yorkers' Hendrik Hertzberg supports Gov. Rick Perry's suggestion Texas secession:

Despite Perry’s fighting words, there is no reason for the separation to be an occasion for violence. The globe is replete with two-state solutions: India and Pakistan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Israel and Palestine. Admittedly, these may not be the best examples. A closer parallel would be Czechoslovakia, which, in 1993, split peacefully into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Like Czechs and Slovaks, Americans and Texans speak closely related languages, share a common, if not equally intense, interest in football games (though the Dallas Cowboys could no longer style themselves “America’s Team”), and enjoy each other’s cuisines. (Houston has a number of acceptable organic fusion restaurants, and there is a pretty fair barbecue place just a block from The New Yorker’s offices.) The border between the United States and the Federated States (“Confederate” being a word that remains a little too provocative) might not be as trouble-free as that between the United States and Canada, but, compared to the border with Mexico, it would probably require somewhat fewer armed citizen militias and fences topped with concertina wire to thwart illegal aliens desperate for a better life. On balance, trade relations between the U.S. and the F.S. would be advantageous to both. Cultural exchanges, tourism, and even a degree of military coöperation would be far from unthinkable.

For the old country, the benefits would be obvious. A more intimately sized Congress would briskly enact sensible gun control, universal health insurance, and ample support for the arts, the humanities, and the sciences. Although Texas itself has been a net contributor to the Treasury—it gets back ninety-four cents for each dollar it sends to Washington—nearly all the other potential F.S. states, especially the ones whose politicians complain most loudly about the federal jackboot, are on the dole. (South Carolina, for example, receives $1.35 on the dollar, as compared with Illinois’s seventy-five cents.) Republicans would have a hard time winning elections for a generation or two, but eventually a responsible opposition party would emerge, along the lines of Britain’s Conservatives, and a normal alternation in power could return.

The rest is worth reading, for many laughs. Keep in mind, many Texans do support secession. Just this weekend Gov. Perry has requested help with the swine flu.

Republicans Stuck in 1993

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is going to filibuster the confirmation vote of Judge David Hamilton over concerns he's not anti-Muslim while being anti-Christian. Newt Gingrich did an interview with Christianity Today, where he said more of this nonsense:

You have Obama nominating Judge Hamilton, who said in her ruling that saying the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK. You'll find most Republican senators voting against a judge who is confused about whether you can say Jesus Christ in a prayer, particularly one who is pro-Muslim being able to say Allah.

Michael Tomasky, over at the Guardian, does an excellent take down on this lunacy:

So here's where the lie comes in. Hamilton did indeed rule that Jesus Christ must not be mentioned in legislative prayers. But what did he say about Allah? It practically goes without saying that the decision doesn't so much as mention Allah. So this is what his wing-nut critics are doing: They're using the fact that he proscribes mentions of Jesus but does not specifically proscribe mentions of Allah to assert that he thinks mentions of Allah would be perfectly, as it were, kosher.

Please read the rest, if you're interested in why the current GOP is a geographically isolated party.
----------------
Now playing: Department of Eagles - on glaze

Take that Culture War and Shove It

Shorter version of Politico's "Obama skates while Right fumes:" 2009 is a new era and Obama's team plays the politics game really well.
----------------
Now playing: ESPN - PTI: 4/21

The Never Ending Senatorial Race

Although I haven't written much about the prolonged Minnesota Senatorial race, I've been following it closely over at Talkingpointsmemo and the Strib. Both have been doing an excellent job. Something caught my eye in today's Strib piece:

Appearing on CNN, Klobuchar sparred with Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, who repeated GOP talking points that "votes [of all Minnesotans] should be treated the same. And I at least think that his appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court should be heard."

Republican Norm Colman is expected to file an appeal with the Supreme Court this week, asking that his setback last week at the hands of a special three-judge panel be overturned.

Did you catch that?

"Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, who repeated GOP talking points..."

It's small, but this is just another sign of the MN media turning on Coleman. Minnesotans are fed up and want their second senator. Three newspapers that endorsed Coleman have asked him to concede the defeat: the Bemidji Pioneer, The Albert Lea Tribune and the Worthington Daily Globe.

Coleman filed his appeal to the MN Supreme Court yesterday. Franken began hiring his staff yesterday. Let's hope for Minnesota and especially Amy Klobuchar this ends shortly. Minnesotans need a second senator.
----------------
Now playing: The Race - Moorwood