Show StoriesRSS
Filibuster ends Gillibrand's sex-assault bill
As the crisis of sexual assaults within the U.S. military has intensified, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has pushed for a new policy that would place these assault cases in the hands of prosecutors, not commanders, who would decide which cases to pursue. The proposal has come up several times in recent months, but has struggled to overcome filibusters.
Gillibrand and her allies thought they had a real shot at success today, but once again, the super-majority just wasn't there.
Military commanders will keep their authority over sexual assault prosecutions, after the Senate blocked a proposal to radically overhaul the way the military justice system deals with serious crimes.This is a major setback for New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat, who has spent much of the last year holding hearings, talking to survivors, and collecting support for her proposal, which would have removed decisions about serious crimes like sexual assault from the chain of command and placed it with military prosecutors. The vote on whether to move forward failed to cross the 60 vote threshold, 55-45.
Note, the bill had 55 supporters -- a clear majority -- but because obstructionism has become the norm, Gillibrand needed five more senators. Also keep in mind that while most Democrats supported the bill and most Republicans voted against it, there was some crossover, and the final breakdown did not fall neatly along partisan lines.
The Senate, however, considered another bill on the subject this afternoon that fared far better.
Paul Ryan and the brown bag
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) covered a fair amount of ground in his speech this morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but there was one story in particular that stood out.
"This reminds me of a story I heard from Eloise Anderson. She serves in the cabinet of my friend Governor Scott Walker. She once met a young boy from a poor family. And every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program. But he told Eloise he didn't want a free lunch. He wanted his own lunch -- one in a brown-paper bag just like the other kids'. He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown-paper bag had someone who cared for him."That's what the Left just doesn't understand."
I've read this a few times, hoping Ryan had some other subtle subtext, but I'm afraid the congressman really is as confused as his anecdote suggests.
The child may have wanted a lunch in a brown-paper bag, but -- and I hope Ryan pauses to really pauses to think about this -- his family is poor. The boy "didn't want a free lunch," but -- and this is key -- he didn't want to be hungry, either.
It's true that Republican policymakers could take away that free lunch the child received at the school, but that doesn't mean the boy's family will suddenly have more money to pack a healthy lunch in a brown-paper bag.
What's more, it's also true this kid may come from a struggling family, but it doesn't mean he lacks "someone who cares for him"; it means he and his family lack the resources needed to send him to school with a good meal. Robert Schlesinger added, "A kid with a brown paper bag does have someone who loves them; but the kid without the brown paper bag, the one whose parent either won't or can't -- because they're working hard to get ahead and give themselves and their families better lives -- deserves a society that loves and cares for them too."
That's what Paul Ryan just doesn't understand.
The GOP's elusive economic agenda
A few weeks ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote a National Review piece, touting the Republican "policy agenda" on the economy. There was just one glaring problem: Cantor's piece never got around to mentioning the policies in this elusive agenda.
To be sure, Cantor identified some legitimate areas of concern for the middle class -- stagnant wages, rising tuition costs, etc. -- but offered nothing in the way of possible solutions. Jay Bookman responded, "Cantor attempts to disguise a mere description of the problem as a solution to the problem, and the ploy is transparent.... When your party's fundamental political policy is that government cannot and should not help, you can't cobble together a credible "policy agenda" on how government can help. You just wave your hands, mumble phrases and hope nobody notices."
But people are noticing. Republicans are benefiting from the weak economic recovery -- the public has not yet blamed their policies, which undercut growth and job creation -- but David Nather noted today that the GOP economic plan doesn't exist in any meaningful way, and congressional Republicans are going into the 2014 midterms with very little substance to offer.
[T]hey don't all think they need [an economic plan] and those who do can't agree on a unified view. But some prominent Republicans are warning their compatriots that they need to get their act together -- because just running against the Obama record isn't going to be enough. [...]But it's one thing to run against the "Obama/Mark Pryor economy" -- or the Obama/any-red-state-Democrat economy -- and another to lay out the positive alternatives. Some Republicans and influential conservatives are warning the party that if they don't lay out alternatives, they'll miss a big opportunity.Their argument: Voters are ready to listen to Republicans, but they'd better have something to say.
I'm not convinced the electorate will notice the GOP's unwillingness to produce substantive economic ideas, but for the sake of the larger debate, it'd certainly help the discourse if Republicans took policy seriously enough to get past "we're against whatever Democrats are for."
Alabama advances 6-week abortion ban
Efforts to restrict reproductive rights are ongoing in several states, but no state is being quite as ambitious as Alabama. Yesterday, the Republican-led state House approved four bills on abortion, including one that would prohibit women from terminating an unwanted pregnancy just six weeks after conception.
The bill would make exceptions if the pregnancy endangers the woman's life or if a fetus would be stillborn or die shortly after birth but does not make an exception for rape or incest.An unborn fetus is "a life regardless of the painful, painful circumstances," McClurkin said.Physicians would be required to check for a fetal heartbeat. Doctors who perform an abortion without documenting the heartbeat could be charged with a Class C felony, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
In case it's not obvious, women sometimes don't know they're pregnant until after six weeks. In practical terms, then, Alabama state law would expect women to seek an abortion before they might know they want one.
The restrictions still have to be approved by Alabama's Republican-led state Senate and Republican governor, but proponents of the bills are optimistic.
Of course, the likelihood of such proposals surviving a court challenge is poor, though state policymakers appear intent on going forward anyway.
What's more, let's not overlook the other three bills that passed the Alabama House yesterday, which for reproductive-rights advocates, are no less offensive.
U.S. response to Ukrainian crisis takes shape
Even President Obama's most aggressive critics aren't calling for a military response to the crisis in Ukraine. Plenty of voices on the right are demanding the White House do "something" and act "tough," but practically no one is calling for the administration to start moving U.S. troops into position for possible action.
So what do Obama's critics want to see? The preferred prescription is usually far less specific, but it usually involves calling for some combination of visa restrictions and economic sanctions.
Which, as it turns out, is exactly what the president has been preparing, as the White House announced this morning.
The State Department will place visa restrictions on individuals "threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine."President Obama has also ordered financials sanctions to be set up against those "responsible for activities undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine," following days of threats that the United States may use economic pressure to move Russia towards a diplomatic solution.There's no list of targeted people or companies yet, but a senior administration official tells NBC that it puts them "on notice they could be targeted for sanctions." As for visas, the administration has made it clear that both Russian and Ukrainian individuals will be affected by the move and see their visas revoked.
The policy will not require congressional action; Obama made the move by way of an executive order. Whether or not congressional Republicans will pretend to find this outrageous -- they recently decided they're against presidential executive orders, but only Obama's orders and only when the GOP disapproves of the underlying issue -- is unclear.
Regardless, the administration's moves raise questions about the sincerity and coherence of conservative criticism. Many of the responses Republicans have demanded -- financial support for Ukraine, G8 meeting boycott, sanctions, visa restrictions -- are the same responses the Obama administration supports.
So what is the political argument about, exactly?
A 'smoking pistol' in the Willingham case?
Several years ago, John Cole described the Cameron Todd Willingham case as a story that "reads like a Grisham novel -- allegations of murder and arson, the execution of an innocent man, corrupt politicos." As it happens, the real-life story appears to have a new chapter.
As long time readers may recall, Texas executed Willingham a decade ago, after he was convicted of killing his daughters in a deliberate house fire. Prosecutors secured a conviction thanks to the testimony of an "expert" whose credibility and findings were later torn to shreds.
But that's really just the start. As controversy surrounding the case grew, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, created to consider the competence of those who offer forensic testimony, hired an actual arson expert to consider the evidence, but before the panel could proceed, Gov. Rick Perry (R) started firing commission members before they could discuss the case.
But wasn't there a jailhouse informant who said Willingham confessed to him? There was, but in the latest twist, "newly discovered evidence suggests that the prosecutor in the case may have concealed a deal with a jailhouse informant whose testimony was a key part of the execution decision."
In recent weeks, as part of an effort to obtain a posthumous exoneration from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry, lawyers working on Mr. Willingham's behalf say they have found evidence that [jailhouse informant Johnny Webb] gave his testimony in return for a reduced prison sentence. Evidence of an undisclosed deal could have proved exculpatory during Mr. Willingham's trial or figured in subsequent appeals, but Mr. Webb and the prosecutor at trial, John Jackson -- who would later become a judge -- explicitly denied that any deal existed during Mr. Webb's testimony.
If you're starting to think Texas executed an innocent man, you're not the only one.
Lindsey Graham, still digging
Republican efforts to blame officials in the United States for the Ukrainian crisis reached a strange level on Tuesday, when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued Russia's invasion can be traced back to the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
Almost immediately, political observers of all stripes were eager to know one thing: what in the world Graham was thinking.
Yesterday, the senator defended his argument with CNN's Dana Bash.
"The point I'm trying to make is that there's been too many times in the last six months where the President has told people, 'if you don't do what I say, there'll be consequences,' and nothing's happened," Graham told CNN.
As Graham sees it, President Obama has barked orders to foreign nations, demanding that they do as he says or face adverse consequences. The South Carolina Republican believes those threats were hollow, which in turn undermined U.S. credibility, which in turn renewed Putin's interests in Ukraine, which in turn inspired an invasion.
Or something.
The problem with Graham's defense is that it doesn't make much sense.
Jobless claims improve to 3-month low
Initial unemployment claims have been stuck at a discouraging level lately, but according to the new figures from the Labor Department, last week offered a welcome break. The weather, however, may have contributed to the progress.
The number of people who applied for U.S. unemployment benefits fell by 26,000 to 323,000 in the week ended March 1, marking the lowest level since late November, the Labor Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to total 335,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. Like other economic reports, claims have been distorted by a harsh winter.... A better way to gauge the trend in claims is the four-week average that reduces the effects of weather and other unusual factors. The monthly average posted a much smaller decline of 2,000 to end up at 336,500, and it's shown little change in 2014.
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.
Issa's 'dead end'
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) no doubt thought he was making a smart political move by scheduling another IRS hearing. The "scandal" stopped being interesting many months ago, but there's an election coming up, and fundraising letters to be sent out, so Issa likely hoped a new hearing would serve some larger partisan purpose.
Indeed, the California Republican seemed to have a plan: he'd demand testimony from Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS' tax exempt division; she would assert her Fifth Amendment rights; and Issa would share his righteous indignation for the cameras. It's a custom-made stunt for the right, generating plenty of "IRS official takes the Fifth" headlines.
But Issa just couldn't control himself. Instead of the political world chattering about a discredited controversy, everyone is now shaking their head about Issa cutting off microphones and refusing to let Democrats speak at the hearing. Issa stopped pushing the story and quickly became the story.
The conservative chairman soon after sounded like a man acknowledging defeat.
A reporter than asked Issa if he was still "confident" the investigation would "get to the bottom of this.""It may well be we have gotten to the bottom of it," Issa said. "At this point, roads lead to Ms. Lerner. The witness who to took the Fifth. That becomes -- she becomes one of the key characters at this point. Had she been willing to explain those emails which were provided through separate subpoenas, then we could have perhaps brought this to a close. Without that, it may dead end with Ms. Lerner."
And it's at this point that even Issa's Republican allies may have to wonder whether the committee chairman was the right person for this job in the first place.
Ahead on the 3/5 Maddow show
Tonight's guests include:
Mark Mazetti, correspondent for the New York Times, author of “The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth”
Steve Strunsky, reporter covering the Port Authority for the Star Ledger newspaper of New Jersey
Looking forward to a great show tonight -- and here is executive producer Bill Wolff with a preview of tonight's show: