Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) hasn't been shy about his intentions. The two-time failed presidential candidate has spent several weeks acting like a 2016 aspirant, talking like a 2016 aspirant, and telling supporters he'll soon become a 2016 aspirant. Sources close to Romney told reporters it was a matter of "when," not "if."
And yet, many of us kept asking ourselves the same question: "Romney's not actually going to do this again, is he?" Those lingering doubts, we learned this morning, were correct.
Romney has spoken to supporters on a conference call, reading a statement explaining his decision. "It is best to give other leaders in the party the opportunity to become our next nominee," he said. "I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case."
Today's announcement brings the Republican full circle. Remember, Romney swore up and down he would not join the 2016 field, saying as recently as September, "[M]y time has come and gone. I had that opportunity. I ran, I didn't win. Now it's time for someone else to pick up the baton."
At one point last year, asked about a third attempt, Romney's exact words were, "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. People are always gracious and say, 'Oh, you should run again.' I'm not running again."
More recently, he apparently changed his mind, moving closer to the race, only to change it once more, closing the door this morning.
Let's unpack this morning's big news with a little Q&A.
The perception of the Republican Party as the anti-deficit party used to be 100% true. A couple of generations ago, the GOP actually saw the deficit as a legitimate concern, and shaped their policy agenda accordingly. During the Eisenhower era, Republicans kept very high tax rates in place, first approved to pay for WWII, in the name of fiscal conservativism. Many Republicans balked at JFK's tax breaks out of fear of higher deficits.
Obviously, those eras are long gone. The GOP's shift began in earnest under Reagan, but became almost ridiculous under George W. Bush -- an era in which Republicans put the cost of two wars, a Wall Street bailout, massive tax cuts, and Medicare expansion on the national charge card for some future generation to worry about.
But once the Obama era began, GOP leaders decided they cared about the deficit again. It was impossible to take seriously -- we're talking about literally the same people who ignored the deficit in the previous decade -- but Republicans actively pretended they had both credibility and genuine concerns about budget shortfalls.
It's hard not to notice, however, that much of the new congressional Republican agenda has a common thread. See if you notice what these measures have in common. On health care:
A Republican bill to change how Obamacare defines a full work-week would raise the deficit by $53.2 billion over the next decade.
The official budget scorekeeper of Congress says the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, would increase Medicaid costs by as much as $400 million.... CBO officially estimates that the bill increases federal deficits by $75 million between 2014 and 2018, and $225 million between 2014 and 2023.
Senate Democrats threatened Thursday to block action on legislation funding the Homeland Security Department until Republicans jettison House-passed provisions that reverse President Barack Obama's key immigration policies.... The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would increase the federal deficit by $7.5 billion over a decade.
How would Republicans prevent these proposals from increasing the deficit? With offsetting cuts? Higher taxes? Neither, actually -- GOP lawmakers are content to approve their priorities regardless of the impact on the budget shortfall.
When it comes to respecting diversity in a pluralistic society, this was an unusually discouraging week on many fronts, but one story in particular stood out in a disheartening way.
This was a week in which we saw a white county official in Virginia refer to a black newspaper reporter as "boy." It was a week in which a Republican on the Nebraska Board of Education refused to resign after calling President Obama a "half-breed" and railing against "queers and perverts." It was a week in which South Dakota police identified one of the men accused of pouring beer on and shouting racial slurs at Native American children at a hockey game.
And it was a week in which we saw this story out of Texas.
A Republican representative of the Lone Star State had a very specific message for Muslims visiting her office on Texas Muslim Capitol Day: Declare allegiance to the United States and "renounce Islamic terrorist groups."
In recess with the House until Monday, State Rep. Molly White wrote on her Facebook page that she left instructions with her employees on how to greet Muslim visitors. "I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws. We will see how long they stay in my office," White wrote on Thursday morning.
The local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations specifically organized the Texas Muslim Capitol Day event in Austin yesterday, which brought roughly 100 participants to the Capitol, and which apparently prompted state Rep. Molly White (R) to be about as insulting as possible to the participating Texans.
After unexpectedly strong economic growth in the third quarter of 2014 (July through September), optimism about the recovery became more widespread. No one expected the figures to be quite as robust in the fourth quarter, leaving us to wonder just how much of a moderating effect we'd see.
The U.S. economy grew by a 2.6% annual pace in the fourth quarter, slowing from a 5.0% pace in the third quarter, according to a preliminary government estimate released by the Commerce Department Friday. Economists polled by MarketWatch predicted GDP would grow by a seasonally adjusted 3.2%.
Consumer spending, which is a main source of economic activity, rose 4.3% following a 3.2% rise in the third quarter. This is the biggest gain since the first quarter of 2006. But growth slowed because of slower business and government spending and higher imports.
When expecting GDP growth above 3%, it's obviously disappointing to see a quarterly tally at 2.6%. Under normal circumstances, 2.6% is relatively "meh," but it stings a little more, not just because of higher expectations, but also because of the quarter that preceded it.
That said, it's worth emphasizing that this is a preliminary tally, which will be revised twice over the next two months. Indeed, let's not forget that the preliminary assessment for the third quarter was 3.9% before it was ultimately revised up to 5%.
In other words, today's report is a litle disappointing, but it's not the final word on the subject.
This week's drama involving the American Family Association and Bryan Fischer was not, surprisingly enough, the result of some outrageous comment from the right-wing activist, at least not directly. Instead, the story began with an announced trip to Israel.
The AFA announced that the organization was taking Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and dozens of RNC members on an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel. The nine-day excursion is scheduled to begin tomorrow, and at first blush, it may not seem especially controversial. After all, Americans travel to Israel all the time.
The problem, as noted by Israeli and American media alike, is the Republican National Committee's willingness to associate itself with the American Family Association and its notorious, hateful spokesperson, Bryan Fischer. Especially in light of Fischer's record -- he's characterized all non-Christian faiths as "false religions"; he's said minority faiths do not have the right to exercise their religious beliefs in the United States; he's said all immigrants to America should expect to convert to Christianity -- shouldn't the RNC keep its distance?
It was questions like these that led the American Family Association to announce this week that Fischer is no longer the group's official spokesperson. Indeed, the Republican National Committee, after days of silence on its controversial partnership with AFA, told "The Rachel Maddow Show" yesterday:
"We don't agree with Bryan Fischer's comments and are glad the AFA has severed ties with him."
That's the whole statement in its entirety. The problem, of course, is that we also learned yesterday that the Republican National Committee's statement isn't true.
Senator Claire McCaskill talks with Rachel Maddow about a new U.S. policy to classify information about how, and how much money is spent in support of the Afghan security force, and what questions she has for the new nominee for Secretary of Defense. watch
Rachel Maddow poses the question, if the presumed Democratic nominee for president in 2016, Hillary Clinton, decides not to run, who would make the next most electable candidate for Democrats to put forward. Rachel has someone in mind. watch
Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center, talks with Rachel Maddow about the American Family Association's record of religious bigotry and intolerance that calls to question the RNC's judgment in accepting a trip to Israel with them. watch
* Afghanistan: "Three contractors working with the international coalition in Afghanistan and an Afghan national were killed Thursday in a shootout on the military side of a Kabul airport, a spokesman with the International Security Assistance Force said."
* Change I can believe in: "President Barack Obama doubled down on his State of the Union vision for a new 'middle class economics' on Thursday with an op-ed in The Huffington Post vowing to completely reverse government spending cuts made in 2013. 'My Budget will fully reverse the sequestration cuts for domestic priorities in 2016,' he writes."
* Middle East: "Israel's defense minister said on Thursday that his country had received messages through United Nations channels that Hezbollah did not plan any further action after its missile strike the previous day that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded seven."
* ISIS: "The wife of the Japanese journalist being held hostage by ISIS made an impassioned plea for his release Thursday as an apparent deadline passed for a prisoner swap. Rinko Goto, wife of Kenji Goto, said in a statement: 'I fear that this is the last chance for my husband.'"
* Egypt: "Militants struck more than a dozen army and police targets in the restive Sinai Peninsula with simultaneous attacks involving a car bomb and mortar rounds on Thursday, killing at least 25 people, including civilians, officials said."
* Good thinking: "The North Dakota Industrial Commission called Wednesday for better monitoring of pipelines and higher standards for those that cross major bodies of water as crews continue cleaning up two major pipeline spills that affected the state's waterways."
* Dubious secrecy: "[A]s the Obama administration is seeking to declare the long war in Afghanistan officially over, at least from an American standpoint, the move to classify data about the Afghan forces removes one of the most crucial measures for assessing the accomplishments of the international coalition there. And it raises stark questions about the state of the fight against the Taliban, coming after a year in which the Afghan forces took record-high casualties as they battled heavy militant offensives."
We don't yet know what the Supreme Court will do in the King v. Burwell case, but we have a fairly good sense what will happen if the Supreme Court sides with Republicans. In effect, there will be chaos that could do considerable harm to insurers, families, state budgets, the federal budget, hospitals, and low-income children.
It sounds melodramatic, but the fact remains that if the GOP prevails, more Americans will literally go bankrupt and/or die as a result of this ruling.
With this in mind, I couldn't help but find some sardonic humor in the House Republicans' request for information from the Obama administration yesterday.
Senior House Republicans are demanding that the Obama administration reveal its contingency plans in the event that the Supreme Court scraps Obamacare subsidies in three dozen states. [...]
"Specifically, we are examining the extent to which the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other relevant agencies of the federal government, are preparing for the possible consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of King v. Burwell," wrote the lawmakers.
The fact that the GOP lawmakers didn't appreciate the irony was itself unfortunate, but the simple truth is that the underlying question -- what happens if the Supreme Court takes this stupid case seriously and guts the American health care system? -- is one Republicans should be answering, not asking.
Three weeks ago, the Republican-led House easily approved legislation to move forward with construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This afternoon, the Republican-led Senate did the same.
The Senate voted Thursdayto build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, despite a long-standing veto threat from the White House.
Nine Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus to support the bill.
The final outcome, which was never in doubt, was 62 to 36.
Charles Gaba joked that the total number of senators who voted for the project easily surpasses the total number of jobs created by the project. That's funny, and it has the added benefit of being true -- a State Department review concluded that the Keystone project, once completed, would create roughly 35 permanent, full-time in the United States, largely in refinery employment.
It's not common for 62 senators to invest quite so much energy in the creation of 35 jobs, but here we are anyway. Indeed, the real economic benefits will probably be felt in Alberta, leading Josh Green to joke that it's "kind of nuts" that congressional Republicans decided to start 2015 by "fighting for the Canadian economy."
Regardless, with the proposal now having passed both chambers, the bill now heads to the White House, where it will receive President Obama's veto. The president will first have to blow the dust off the box holding the veto pen -- he hasn't used it since 2010, and it will be only the third veto of his presidency. Among two-termers, Obama has made fewer vetoes than any president since Abraham Lincoln, though this may not remain true much longer in light of GOP dominance on Capitol Hill.
Towards the end of 2014, there were some concerns among environmentalists that Senate support for Keystone might be strong enough to muster a veto-proof majority. That's evidently not the case -- proponents would need 67 votes to override Obama on this, and as of today, those votes just aren't there.
For those familiar with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, he's probably best known as the "Ten Commandments judge." But looking back over Moore's career, the way in which he became a right-wing cause celebre matters.
Back in the 1990s, Moore was just a local judge in Alabama, who insisted on promoting Christianity in his public courtroom. When First Amendment proponents challenged his practice of using his bench to advance his religion, Moore said he had the legal right to ignore federal court rulings.
This quickly made him a star in far-right circles, and he parlayed his notoriety into becoming the chief justice of state Supreme Court. In 2003, however, Moore was ultimately kicked off the bench for -- you guessed it -- ignoring federal court rulings he didn't like and insisting that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Alabama's state government. (Voters didn't care, and in 2012, following a couple of failed campaigns, Moore was re-elected as chief justice.)
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore has released a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley saying that he intends to continue to recognize the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and urging the governor to do so. [...]
Moore said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade "raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction" over the Alabama amendment.
Moore's letter, which is available in its entirety here (pdf), may be predictable, but it's also wildly wrong and a little dangerous. The Republican judge's argument is that a federal court may consider Alabama's ban on marriage equality unconstitutional, but Alabama doesn't have to care.
Moore not only intends to ignore the ruling, he desperately wants Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) to believe states are not bound by federal court rulings.