Last week, the National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a slightly unexpected attack ad. The NRSC, at least somewhat worried about the Senate race in Georgia, went after Michele Nunn (D) for supporting "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants. The problem was with the NRSC's proof.
According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Nunn must support "amnesty" since she's endorsed the bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, co-authored by four Republican senators -- Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake -- and easily passed by the Senate last year.
In other words, according to the Republicans' Senate committee, Nunn deserves to be condemned for agreeing with several prominent Republicans.
Now, Lundergan Grimes hasn't been in Congress, so she couldn't vote one way or the other on comprehensive immigration reform, but the Kentucky candidate did endorse the bipartisan reform package co-authored by some conservative Republicans.
Then again, so did did Karl Rove's operations. And therein lies the point: Rove and his pals in the Bluegrass State are now condemning Lundergan Grimes ... for agreeing with Karl Rove about immigration policy.
All of this may seem like business as usual for Republicans in an election year, but I'd argue there's more to it.
Earlier this year, the Republican game plan for health care was pretty straightforward: attack "Obamacare" constantly, make it the centerpiece of the 2014 cycle, and wait for the inevitable victories to roll in.
The very idea that we'd see a Republican governor bragging about Affordable Care Act benefits -- in the final stretch of a tough re-election campaign, no less -- seemed hard to fathom. And yet, here we are (thanks to my colleague Nick Tuths for the heads-up).
Gov. Rick Snyder on Tuesday touted Michigan's successful Medicaid expansion as part of his re-election bid, saying 63,000 more low-income adults have signed up than projected this year, with [three-and-a-half] months left.
The Republican governor said about 385,000 enrolled between April, when the Healthy Michigan program launched, and Monday. His administration had expected 322,000 signups by year's end.
"At that level, we're adding over 9,000 patients a week," Snyder said at an endorsement event at the Michigan State Medical Society, an East Lansing-based professional association of physicians. "It's outstanding progress."
Progress, that is, implementing a key element of President Obama's signature domestic-policy achievement.
There are, of course, multiple angles to this. Michigan's Eclectablog, for example, noted that local Tea Partiers are not all pleased by the sight of a Republican governor bragging about ACA implementation. For that matter, local Democrats are eager to remind the state that Snyder was not initially an eager proponent of Medicaid expansion, and the governor's delays cost the state money.
Rep. Mark Schauer (D), Snyder's very competitive rival, said Michigan's slow adoption of Medicaid expansion ended up costing the state roughly $600 million.
To be sure, these details matter. But I'm nevertheless struck by the broader political circumstances.
When Andrew Kaczynski caught Monica Wehby's Republican Senate campaign in a fairly blatant instance of plagiarism, the candidate's team didn't handle it especially well. Despite clear evidence that the Oregon candidate's health plan had been copied and pasted from materials published by Karl Rove's Crossroads operation, Wehby's spokesperson got a little snippy.
"The suggestion that a pediatric neurosurgeon needs to copy a health care plan from American Crossroads is absurd," a Wehby aide told BuzzFeed. "Dr. Wehby is too busy performing brain surgery on sick children to respond, sorry."
As best as I can tell, Wehby was not actually performing brain surgery on sick children at the time.
Monica Wehby's campaign on Wednesday acknowledged problems with plagiarism in some of her issue documents and removed them from her website.
Her campaign blamed a former staffer, and it was clear from the context that Wehby and her aides were referring to her former campaign manager, Charlie Pearce, who is now running Dennis Richardson's campaign for governor.
Pearce, who was clearly irked, denied having anything to do with the problem. "I did not author the health care policy or economic policy plans," he said in an interview.
It's safe to say this isn't what Team Wehby needed right now.
Under Pentagon guidelines, American servicemen and women who re-enlist are required to sign a specific written oath. In the Air Force, that's proven to be a bit more controversial than expected.
The oath seems pretty straightforward. Signers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"; "bear true faith and allegiance to the same"; and "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." But it concludes, "So help me God," and for atheists, that's a problem.
In the Army and Navy, Americans have the discretion to omit those final four words without penalty, but the Air Force has made it mandatory. In fact, as we discussed over the weekend, an airman was recently told he would be excluded from military service, regardless of his qualifications, unless he does as the Air Force requires and swears an oath to God.
At least, that was the policy. Abby Ohlheiser reported late yesterday that the Air Force has agreed to change its approach.
After an airman was unable to complete his reenlistment because he omitted the part of a required oath that states "so help me God," the Air Force changed its instructions for the oath.
Following a review of the policy by the Department of Defense General Counsel, the Air Force will now permit airmen to omit the phrase, should they so choose. That change is effective immediately, according to an Air Force statement.
In a written statement, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James said, "The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so." She added that Air Force officials are "making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected."
It's worth emphasizing that the Air Force didn't have a lot of choice -- it was facing the prospect of a lawsuit officials were likely to lose.
The data on initial unemployment claims was a little erratic around Labor Day, leading to some questions about what to expect next. With this in mind, the new data from the Labor Department was not only welcome news, it was better than anyone expected.
The number of people who applied for jobless benefits dropped 36,000 to 280,000 in the week that ended Sept. 13, hitting the lowest level since mid-July, signaling that employers are laying off very few workers, according to government data released Thursday. Economists polled by MarketWatch had expected initial claims for regular state unemployment-insurance benefits to decline to 305,000 in the most recent weekly data from an originally reported 315,000 for the prior period.
On Thursday, the U.S. Labor Department tweaked initial claims for the week that ended Sept. 6 to 316,000. The four-week average of new claims, a trend that's less volatile than weekly changes, fell 4,750 to 299,500, the government reported.
Just to add some additional contest, this new report is the best since mid-July, but more important, the 280,000 figure suggests initial unemployment claims are approaching a 14-year low.
That said, to reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.
The White House may be struggling badly with its political standing, and Democrats may very well have a rough election cycle, but President Obama can still occasionally get exactly what he wants.
For example, the president and his team worked hard to secure support for part of his new counter-terrorism strategy, and yesterday afternoon, the Republican-led House delivered.
The House of Representatives voted on Wednesday afternoon to greenlight President Obama's controversial proposal to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels in effort to defeat the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Obama wanted this measure, and he got it. The president wanted the House to approve a spending measure -- the "continuing resolution" -- to avoid a government shutdown, and he got that, too. Obama even urged lawmakers to extend the life of the Export-Import Bank, and despite the controversy, that's also going through.
It's not often the White House can reflect on developments on Capitol Hill and conclude, "We got everything we hoped to get."
Of course, in yesterday's case, Obama had some help. The measure on support for Syrian rebels passed because House Republican leaders endorsed the administration's plan. The CR passed, despite some recent grumbling, because there was little appetite for a pre-election government shutdown. The Export-Import Bank will live on because so many of the GOP's allies in the business community urged Republicans to side with the White House on this.
Still, presidents struggling in the polls generally don't get what they want, especially from chambers run by the other party, especially when contentious issues like war take center stage. Yesterday, however, Obama had a good day.
That said, there was plenty of drama surrounding the proposal on supporting Syrian rebels -- with a more difficult discussion on the way.
Laith Alkhouri, senior analyst at Flashpoint Partners, talks with Rachel Maddow about how ISIS distinguishes itself from other terror groups by its effective use of propaganda to terrorize Americans and draw the U.S. into the validating engagement it... watch
Rachel Maddow salutes the eccentric good cheer of the Topeka Lamp Dancer, whose twitter account is incongruously followed by the office of the Kansas Secretary of State, which is presently engaged in a legal battle to force a Democrat to stay on a ballot. watch
* About 10 minutes ago, the House approved a White House request to help train anti-ISIS rebels in Syria. The measure passed, 273 to 156, and will be added to a spending bill (continuing resolution) that funds the government through mid-December.
* Syria: "In Talbiseh and across Syria, insurgent fighters who oppose both the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the foreign-led militants of the extremist group called the Islamic State are being pummeled by a new wave of attacks and assassination attempts."
* Here's hoping this doesn't prompt GOP lawmakers to change their minds: "The White House said Wednesday it supports House passage of a stopgap spending bill that would keep the government funded through Dec. 11."
* Ebola: "The three West African countries most affected by Ebola could experience a 'potentially catastrophic blow' to their economies because of the epidemic, the World Bank Group warned Wednesday."
* The Fed: "The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released details of its plan to reverse nearly six years of easy money as it nears the end of its trillion-dollar stimulus campaign. The move comes amid an economic recovery that looks increasingly sustainable, even if it is not as robust as anticipated."
* Too careless, too often: "'No one ever doubts that I mean what I say,' Vice President Joe Biden told a group of lawyers in a speech before the Legal Services Corporation. 'The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.' The crowd laughed. Then, less than 20 minutes later, he made a remark that was promptly condemned as a 'medieval stereotype about Jews' by the Anti-Defamation League."
* She raised a fair point: "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on Wednesday eviscerated Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for attacking the Obama administration instead of focusing on attacking ISIS. She criticized him for the way he questioned Secretary of State John Kerry during a hearing on the U.S. plan for combating ISIS."
* Nate Silver has extensiveconcerns about Sam Wang's forecasting model (the methodology, not necessarily the results). Wang, of the Princeton Election Consortium, responded soon after.
* Something to watch: "People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday."
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused quite a stir in Washington yesterday, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that if the next phase of the U.S. mission against Islamic State falls short, he might recommend deployment of American ground troops.
For many, this was seen as a hint of what's to come: if the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is thinking about ground troops, the argument went, then maybe this is the course of action the Obama administration has in mind. There were, of course, a few problems with the assumptions. First, Dempsey was responding to a hypothetical, not making a prediction. Second, the decision ultimately isn't in the hands of the Joint Chiefs anyway.
And finally, the one who would have to make the final call -- the military's civilian Commander in Chief -- keeps saying the same thing: there won't be a ground war for U.S. troops.
In an impassioned, pep rally-like speech to military personnel in Florida, President Obama insisted again on Wednesday that the U.S. will not send ground troops to fight ISIS.
"I will not commit you and the rest of our forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq," the commander-in-chief said at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla. Earlier in the day, Obama was briefed on battle plans to strike ISIS in Iraq and possibly Syria by military commanders at U.S. Central Command.
Obama added, "After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries' futures. And that's the only solution that will succeed over the long term. "
There can be little doubt that the president has been consistent on this. There can be plenty of doubt, however, about whether conditions and specific circumstances will shift in unpredictable ways. If U.S. jets are targeting ISIS locations in Syria, for example, and American pilots are shot down, a mission that intended to stay off of Syrian soil can change quickly.
The United States maintains embassies in 169 countries around the globe, and in roughly a fourth of them, the ambassador's office is currently empty. The main problem is Senate Republicans creating needless delays, regardless of the consequences for U.S. foreign policy.
The problem is especially striking in Turkey, which is critical to U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, most notably against Islamic State. The Obama administration is giving Turkey the full-court diplomatic press, which is proving to be tricky -- there is no U.S. ambassador to Turkey because Senate Republicans haven't allowed a vote on President Obama's nominee. (The White House was forced to dispatch the Bush/Cheney ambassador to Turkey in a temporary capacity because of the immediacy and urgency of the situation.)
Al Kamen reports today that the delays finally ended, at least in this limited case.
The Senate on Wednesday, moving at what can be called warp speed in the post-"nuclear option" world, confirmed seven more Obama nominees -- including career Foreign Service officer John R. Bass as ambassador to Turkey, a country critical to the effort to defeat the Islamic State militant group.
The Senate held a roll call vote on the nomination -- before voting 98 to 0 to confirm him.
The GOP also graciously allowed a unanimous confirmation vote on career diplomat Thomas Frederick Daughton's nomination to serve as U.S. ambassador to Namibia. He only had to wait 443 days for the vote on his confirmation -- which literally no one ended up opposing.
John Bass' becoming ambassador to Turkey didn't take nearly as long -- he only waited about 100 days -- but the fact he, too, enjoyed unanimous support raises the question of why he couldn't have been confirmed sooner in light of Turkey's geo-strategic significance.
The answer, of course, is that Senate Republicans' feelings were hurt when Senate Democrats restored minority rule on nomination votes, which may seem ridiculous, but which happens to be true.
Just how often do Republicans delay nominees they support? You might be surprised.