Show StoriesRSS

select from

E.g., 11/24/2014
E.g., 11/24/2014
Sarah Palin speaks at CPAC, March 8, 2014 in National Harbor, Maryland. Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty.

Palin identifies the key threat to America's future: Americans

11/21/14 04:26PM

The rules as applied to Sarah Palin haven't changed. As we talked about over the summer, the former half-term governor of Alaska remains a deeply silly person whose opinions are not to be taken seriously. When news organizations routinely make a fuss about her random missives, they're lending credence to a former officeholder who doesn't deserve it.
 
But every now and then, one of Palin's tirades stands out as newsworthy.
 
The right-wing personality released a new online video today, complaining about President Obama and immigration, offering the usual lines in a style that can charitably be compared to a teenager delivering a report about a book she hasn't read (via Simon Maloy).
 
But then Palin added this:
"We'll survive this president. The question is (overdramatic pause) can we survive the people who voted for him, twice?"
I don't know, can we?
 
Look, I realize that Palin holds the president in contempt. It's not entirely clear why, but she's not an Obama fan. I get it.
 
But this struck me as interesting because Palin seems to be arguing that her most pressing concern about America's future is the president that disgusts her; it's Americans themselves.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (L) grabs the arm of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)  as President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address in front of the U.S. Congress, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 28, 2014.

House Republicans finally file anti-Obama lawsuit

11/21/14 03:27PM

It took them long enough. Four months after announcing their intention to sue President Obama, House Republicans finally followed through. But while immigration policy is obviously the hot-button controversy of the day, and the GOP is certain the White House's policy is illegal, the new litigation has nothing to do with immigration. Jane C. Timm reported:
House Republicans on Friday filed a long-anticipated lawsuit against the White House, alleging the Obama administration abused its power by making unilateral changes to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
 
The lawsuit comes just hours after President Obama enacted sweeping changes to the immigration system, enraging conservative lawmakers and setting the stage for an all-out war between the Republican Party and the president over the limits of his executive authority. The legal action threatens not only the president's healthcare overhaul, but could change the power of executive authority forever.
How we got to this point continues to be a story unto itself. As we talked about last week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) first announced his plan to sue the president back in June. A month later, the Speaker's office formally unveiled the legislation to authorize the litigation. A month after that, House Republicans agreed to pay a D.C. law firm $500 an hour, in taxpayer money, to handle the case.
 
Things went downhill from there. Republicans hired a law firm to oversee the litigation, but the firm changed its mind in September and dropped the case. GOP leaders then hired a second firm, only to learn a month later that it dropped the case, too. This week, Republicans hired a new lawyer, George Washington University legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who filed today.
 
Of course, what really matters is what the case is about and whether it's likely to succeed.
A man jogs past the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 30, 2013.

GOP gets mixed message from party leaders

11/21/14 12:53PM

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), a relative moderate among congressional Republicans, knew many of his GOP brethren would react strongly to President Obama's immigration policy, but Dent urged the party not to fly off the handle. "Don't take the bait, and don't have a hysterical reaction," the Pennsylvania Republican said. "We can be strong, rational and measured."
 
As Robert Costa reported, Dent is hardly the only Republicans worried about hysteria from within the ranks.
For Republicans the roiling debate over the president's decision is not only a fight with the White House, but a test of whether they can contain some of the unhelpful passions among their swelling majorities in both chambers. The task is keeping on-message and away from the controversial and sometimes offensive comments that have traditionally hindered attempts to bolster support for the party among Hispanics.
 
Coupled with the desire to avoid the heated rhetoric is an effort to avert another showdown over government funding, weeks after the GOP made gains in the midterm elections and a year after a 16-day shutdown significantly damaged the party's brand.
Both House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Washington Post report added, spent time yesterday "urging calm in their ranks."
 
The article came on the heels of a related Politico piece that noted Republican leaders are urging the party not to talk about presidential impeachment, "fearing it would give Democrats a message to rally around as the president's party is split over the hugely controversial move."
 
So, how's this working out? Not too well, and whether GOP leaders understand this or not, they're partly to blame.
Republican candidate for the United States Senate Scott Brown speaks at a campaign rally at Gilchrist Metal Fabricating in Hudson, N.H. on Oct. 5, 2014.

Following defeat, Scott Brown returns to his Fox home

11/21/14 12:00PM

Several years ago, Paul Krugman introduced us to a useful phrase: "One important pillar of conservative political dominance, I believe, is the phenomenon sometimes called 'wingnut welfare': loyalists are always assured of decent employment, no matter how badly they perform."
Long shot. Senator. Television personality. Within a few percentage points of becoming a senator again. Now, television personality again.
 
Scott Brown, the former US senator from Massachusetts who made a run for the Senate from New Hampshire this year, is rejoining FOX News.
A network official confirmed to the Boston Globe that Brown, fresh off his four-point defeat to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) a couple of weeks ago, will again be a Fox News contributor.
 
These gigs can be quite lucrative. Dylan Byers reported, "In his previous run as a contributor with the network, Brown earned a total of $136,538 from Fox, according to a personal financial disclosure document filed with the Senate Ethics Committee."
Ira Hansen

Nevada Speaker's racially charged rhetoric sparks uproar

11/21/14 11:27AM

Following up on yesterday's report, Republican Ira Hansen, the Speaker-designate in Nevada's state Assembly, garnered national attention this week after the public learned he wrote a right-wing column for many years, featuring controversial remarks about African Americans, women, Latinos, and gay people. The controversy is clearly growing.
 
Late yesterday, newly re-elected Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) issued a statement criticizing his own party's legislative leader.
"I wholeheartedly disagree with Assemblyman Hansen's past public statements on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. This abhorrent kind of speech is unacceptable. He will have to answer questions regarding his previous statements himself."
The governor did not call for state lawmakers to choose a new Assembly Speaker, though the calls for such a change appear likely.
 
Indeed, Jeffrey Blanck, branch president of the Reno-Sparks NAACP, responded, "We understand that the caucus has many newly elected members who may not be as familiar with Mr. Hansen's past as we are. They need to know he has beaten the drum of intolerance for decades." Blanck urged lawmakers to choose a "less divisive" Speaker.
 
For his part, Hansen said in a statement, "I am deeply sorry that comments I have made in the past have offended many Nevadans. It is unfortunate that these comments, made almost 20 years ago as a newspaper columnist and talk radio host, have been taken out of context and are being portrayed as intentionally hurtful and disrespectful. These comments were meant to be purposely provocative in various political, cultural and religious views. I have the utmost respect for all people without regard to race, gender, religious or political beliefs."
 
Given his published record, Hansen's claims about universal respect will probably be difficult for many Nevadans to believe.
 
Making matters slightly worse, another Nevada Republican lawmaker said last year he'd allow slavery if that's what his constituents wanted -- and Speaker-designate Hansen recently put him in charge of a powerful legislative committee.
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks at the Union League Club of Chicago on Aug. 21, 2014 in Chicago, Ill.

Paul Ryan's poor memory fails him again

11/21/14 10:51AM

I've long marveled at Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) unusually poor memory, and his latest complaints about immigration policy suggest his recall troubles are getting worse (via Jon Chait).
"We've gone to the president and said, 'Give us time to do immigration reform, to work on the issue this year. We want to get this done.' And this is the reaction he has to that?" said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the 2012 vice presidential candidate. "He had two years with a super-majority of his own party, and he didn't lift a finger. And now he won't give us a few weeks?"
It takes a truly talented individual to pack in this many falsehoods into a single paragraph.
 
"Give us time to do immigration reform"? Well, Republicans have controlled the House for four years, during which time they haven't even held so much as a hearing on a piece of legislation. More to the point, the Senate passed a popular, bipartisan immigration bill 512 days ago, and soon after, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised the lower chamber would act on the issue. The Republican leader then broke his word and killed the reform effort.
 
In other words, Obama gave Republican lawmakers "time to do immigration reform," and the GOP did nothing. Does Ryan not remember this?
 
"He had two years with a super-majority of his own party"? Actually, no, Democrats had a super majority in the Senate for four months, not two years. It's a big difference.
 
"He didn't lift a finger"? Actually, Democrats tried to pass the DREAM Act, which used to be a bipartisan policy, when they controlled Congress. Republicans killed it with a filibuster.
 
"And now he won't give us a few weeks?" Well, President Obama not only gave Republicans all kinds of time, he also received no guarantee -- from Ryan or any other GOP leader -- that another delay would lead to real legislation. So what in the world is Ryan talking about?
 
It gets worse. Ryan also complained this week that Obama's decision to govern on immigration policy means Republicans won't govern on their own priorities.
New Jersey Gov. Christ Chrisie talks immigration reform during a press conference at the Republican governors' conference in Boca Raton, Fla., Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014

Christie still afraid of his own shadow on immigration

11/21/14 10:12AM

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was in South Florida this week for a party gathering, and like most of his Republican brethren, he was eager to condemn President Obama's immigration policy. But the Palm Beach Post asked the governor an interesting question.
A reporter asked Christie if it was fair to criticize the president without offering a proposal of his own.
 
"This is a ridiculous question," Christie responded. "Because I won't lay out my plan if I were president, that precludes me from criticizing the guy who asked for the job twice and was elected twice and who promised in 2008 that he would fix this problem when he had huge majorities in the Congress to be able to do it?
Well, for those who care about the details, when Democrats had "huge majorities," Republicans still killed bipartisan measures like the DREAM Act with a filibuster. But putting that aside for now, Christie's defense for his own evasions is arguably half-right.
 
The governor wants to be able to take verbal shots at the White House's policy without presenting a proposal of his own, and to a certain degree, that's kosher. At least for now, Christie is a struggling, scandal-plagued governor, not a presidential candidate, so it stands to reason that he won't have a detailed immigration policy proposal on hand.
 
The trouble, though, is that Christie wants to take pot shots at Obama while also refusing to even give his opinions about the basics of immigration policy -- and that cowardice is harder to dismiss.

Democrats had a Twitter trick of their own

11/21/14 09:35AM

During this year's midterm elections, some Republicans came up with a creative trick to get around election laws. As Chris Moody uncovered, GOP operatives posted polling data to dummy Twitter accounts as a way of using social media as a sort of dead drop -- allies could receive the lucrative data without literally coordinating with Republican campaigns.
 
Paul Blumenthal reported yesterday, however, that these kinds of tactics weren't limited to Republicans.
In 2012, the Democratic Party shared information about advertising buys through a seemingly unconnected Twitter account called AdBuyDetails. This account, which posted tweets from Aug. 31 until Oct. 23, 2012, sent out data on ad buys made by Democratic House candidates in tight races across the country.
 
The purpose of the account, according to a source with knowledge of its creation, was to make that information public and thereby get around restrictions on information access built into an internal app used by top Democratic Party officials to share crucial campaign data.
In fairness to Dems, the 2012 tactic isn't exactly the same thing as what Republicans did this year, but the intended purpose of the tweets was obviously quite similar.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (R) speaks with Speaker of the House John Beohner (R-OH) in Washington in 2012.

A party in search of a policy

11/21/14 08:38AM

If anger were a legitimate substitute for public policy, Republicans would be in excellent shape in the middle of a debate on immigration. The GOP has stockpiled enough rage, fury, insults, and red-hot disgust to last a lifetime. There isn't a shred of doubt in anyone's mind that the entirety of the Republican Party is experiencing genuine, 100%, Grade A outrage.
 
What Republicans don't have is a policy.
 
Or anything resembling a serious, substantive approach to the issue at hand.
 
A few days ago, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), a strident, right-wing voice in his party on immigration, sat down with Mark Halperin, who asked what the congressman would do about the nation's immigration challenges. Huelskamp dodged, so Halperin, to his credit, followed up, pressing the Kansas Republican to explain what he'd do about the millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Huelskamp dodged again. So Halperin asked a third time, and the Republican would only say, "I want to know how many folks are here. I want to secure the border."
 
It was uncomfortable to watch -- the far-right congressman was clearly lost -- but it was a cringe-worthy reminder that Republicans still don't have a coherent immigration policy they're willing to share out loud. Ezra Klein had a good piece on this overnight.
Republicans aren't just the opposition party anymore. They are, arguably, the governing party -- they will soon control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, and more governorships. And the governing party needs to solve -- or at least propose solutions -- to the nation's problems. And that means the Republican policy on immigration needs to be something more than opposing Obama's immigration policies. It needs to be something more than vague noises about border security. [...]
 
There are 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country right now. Congress allocates enough money to deport roughly 400,000 of them annually. Our policy towards the 10.6 million unauthorized immigrants we're not deporting is that we don't have a policy. Democrats support a path to citizenship. Republicans don't support anything.
Quite right. There's a striking asymmetry, not just between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to presenting policy solutions, but between Republican responsibilities and Republican intentions -- they're a post-policy party with an aversion to governing, which is a problem for a party that has been given broad authority by voters to shape policy and govern.
President Barack Obama announces executive actions on U.S. immigration policy during a nationally televised address from the White House, Nov. 20, 2014 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Jim Bourg/Pool/Getty)

'We were strangers once, too'

11/21/14 08:00AM

It's not every day that a leader can make an important, material difference in the lives of roughly 5 million people. It's what made President Obama's announcement last night such a breakthrough moment -- with congressional Republicans unwilling or unable to act, the president found a way to improve the immigration system on his own, changing the national landscape for millions of families.
"We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we're going to offer the following deal: If you've been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you'll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law."
I saw some suggestions last night that Obama extended "legal status" to undocumented immigrants. That's incorrect -- the White House policy extends temporary status to a limited group of immigrants and shields them from deportation threats. They'll be eligible to work legally in the United States, but as Obama noted in his remarks, further action would require statutory changes that only Congress can approve.
 
Indeed, one of the striking things about the president's speech was the degree to which he anticipated critics' arguments, explaining in advance why they're incorrect.
 
Republicans will say Obama's been lax on border security, so he reminded the nation that he increased border security and pushed illegal border crossings to a four-decade low. Republicans will say Obama hasn't worked in a bipartisan way with Congress, so he reminded viewers that he worked with both parties on the popular and bipartisan Senate bill. Republicans will say Obama's actions are unprecedented, so he reminded everyone that his new actions are "the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me."
 
Republicans will say Obama's policy is "amnesty," so the president explained, "Amnesty is the immigration system we have today -- millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That's the real amnesty -- leaving this broken system the way it is."
 
All of which is wrapped up with an emotional appeal that dovetails with the substantive merits: "Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger -- we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too."
 
Will the policy help? Clearly, yes. Is the policy fair? Indeed, that's the point. Is the policy pro-family? Obviously. But is the policy legal?

Immigration plan and other headlines

11/21/14 07:45AM

Pres. Obama goes to Las Vegas today to sign two presidential memoranda about his immigration plan. (Politico)

Key elements of Obama's actions on immigration. (AP)

Some in GOP fear their hardliners will alienate Latino voters. (NY Times)

Democrats used Twitter, too, to coordinate with outside groups. (Huffington Post)

Details emerge about the gunman who shot into a college library in Florida. (USA Today)

Massachusetts town backs off tobacco ban after public outcry. (Washington Post)

Another African nation enacts law jailing gays for life. (AP)

read more

Pages