Blog For Arizona

Meet the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration is now up and running. Check out its new web site here.

I have low expectations for any meaningful election law reforms to come from this commission, mostly because the Republican Party's go-to lawyer for voter suppression, Ben Ginsburg, is co-chair of the commission. In my view, Ginsburg there to ensure nothing happens.

White House press release. President Obama Announces His Intent to Appoint Individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration:

For Immediate Release

May 21, 2013

President Obama Announces His Intent to Appoint Individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to appoint ten individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.  The Presidential Commission on Election Administration was created following President Obama’s State of the Union pledge to identify non-partisan ways to shorten lines at polling places, promote the efficient conduct of elections, and provide better access to the polls for all voters.

• Robert F. Bauer  –  Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Benjamin L. Ginsberg  – Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Brian Britton – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Joe Echevarria – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Trey Grayson – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Larry Lomax – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Michele Coleman Mayes – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Ann McGeehan – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Tammy Patrick – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
• Christopher Thomas – Member, Presidential Commission on Election Administration

President Obama said, “The right to vote is one of the most essential rights provided by the Constitution.  As I said in my State of the Union Address, when any American, no matter where they live or what their party, is denied that right simply because too many obstacles stand in their way, we are betraying our ideals.  We have an obligation to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without unwarranted obstructions or unnecessary delay. I am pleased that these committed individuals have agreed to offer their expertise to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and I look forward to working with them in the coming months.”

Making the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have posted about this topic from time to time whenever a member of Congress introduces a bill for a constitutional amendment that would make the right to vote a fundamental constitutional right. This is important, because fundamental constitutional rights are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review by the federal courts. Currently the right to vote, which is not expressly guaranteed in the Constitution, is generally reviewed under the rational basis standard of review.

Under the strict scrutiny standard of review, most of the attempts to restrict voting rights that we have seen in recent years would not pass constitutional muster.

John Nichols writes at The Nation, Congressmen Seek Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Vote:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a point of emphasizing during the Bush v. Gore arguments in December 2000 that there is no federal constitutional guarantee of a right to vote for president. Scalia was right. Indeed, as the reform group FairVote reminds us, “Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.”

Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison want to do something about that.

The two congressmen, both former state legislators with long histories of engagement with voting-rights issues, on Monday unveiled a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote in the Constitution.

The Beltway media villagers declare 'the hunting of the president'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The self-important pompous assholes of the Beltway media elite have their noses in a snit. Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog sets it up, D.C. To Obama: Don’t Mess With “This Town”:

Well, it doesn’t get much more official than this: an VandeHei/Allen “Behind the Curtain” column announcing that D.C. (“the town”) is “turning on” Barack Obama, and there will be nothing but venom coming from any direction for the foreseeable future[.]

* * *

Too bad, voters, and all those who have an interest in their federal government doing something constructive; Obama has to have his spanking from “D.C. stakeholders,” so enjoy it or look the other way.

What amazes me the most about this column is the forthright announcement that the MSM are going to make explicit common cause with the GOP[.]

Wait, they don't do that already? POLITICO is part of the right-wing noise machine.

This open partisanship is excused by the fact that in “this town” (among the “Establishment Democrats” who are a “D.C. Stakeholder”) Democrats aren’t bothering to defend Obama. Which Democrats are we talking about here?

* * *

Yes, MoDo is your representative Democrat. When you’ve lost her, you’ve clearly lost the Blue States altogether.

Benghazi! 'A tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

There has been a remarkable amount of bad journalism this week from the corporate "lamestream" media, taking its cue from the hysterical conspiracy mongering conservative media entertainment complex cult on "Benghazi! Benghazi!! Benghazi!!!". This is the right-wing noise machine's business model, as Jonathan Bernstein pointed out in The real lesson of Benghazi:

Part of what’s happening is, as Jamelle Bouie pointed out today, the strong demand within the conservative marketplace for scandal. But there’s more than that; it’s not just a demand for scandal, but how easily the customers accept anything presented to them. The result — and Alex Pareene is very good on this today — is that they don’t bother putting together a “coherent or convincing narrative.”

Pareene usefully contrasts Benghazi and other Obama scandals to the Bill Clinton scandals of the 1990s .  . . With Obama, there’s no need for these scandals to make sense; the conservative press will run with them either way. And there might even be an advantage to incoherence. After all, if the accusations are gibberish, the neutral reporters will tend to ignore them — and then conservatives can go on conservative talk radio and Fox News and charge the rest of the press of ignoring these extremely important charges.

Andrew Sabl asks the right questions that the lazy good for nothing Beltway media villagers are not asking. On Benghazi—An honest plea for specific charges:

Look, I’m not a Benghazi expert. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that there’s something here that the media aren’t telling me. But before I evaluate the case, I need to see some concrete charges. My challenge to conservatives is to tell me, very simply, the following:

(1) What, in your view, was the crime? Who did what and which law did it break? No crime, no cover-up (in the usual sense).

But the idea seems to be that what was “covered up” was not crime but incompetence. (That stretches the former meaning of “cover-up,” but never mind.) So:

Norm Ornstein blasts the Green Lantern-ites of the Beltway media

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Ed Kilgore at the Political Animal blog has a good summary of political scientist and high priest of Beltway centrism Norm Ornstein's column in the National Journal, The Myth of Presidential Leadership, blasting the Beltway media for their Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency in this post, Busting the Green Lantern Myth Once and For All:

If there was any doubt left that the spasm of punditry about Obama’s inability to “work his will” on Congress like his predecessors was fundamentally lazy, the American Enterprise Institute’s very authoritative Norm Ornstein pretty much lays the subject to rest in a column at National Journal:

[A]t nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obama’s failure to lead. Of course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership task—not building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not “working his will” the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.

Now, after the failure to get the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I have grown increasingly frustrated with how the mythology of leadership has been spread in recent weeks. I have yelled at the television set, “Didn’t any of you ever read Richard Neustadt’s classic Presidential Leadership? Haven’t any of you taken Politics 101 and read about the limits of presidential power in a separation-of-powers system?”

The Beltway media is an epic failure - The Green Lantern fantasy persists

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Oh lord, these Beltway media villagers are some of the most pathetic creatures imaginable. I'm not sure if it is their own personal failings, or the corporate media culture which produced them.

I recently posted The Beltway media is an epic failure - The Green Lantern fantasy returns. Undeterred, the Beltway media persisted with its Green Lantern fantasy today at President Obama's press conference. Greg Sargent writes, Why the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power persists:

At today’s press conference, President Obama spent a fair amount of time pushing back on what some of us are calling the “Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power.” This theory — which seems to hold broad sway over many in the press — holds that presidents should be able to bend Congress to their will, and any failure to do so proves their weakness and perhaps even their irrelevance.

What accounts for the persistence of this theory? The answer, I think, lies in the tendency of reporters and analysts who are trying to remain a neutral, nonpartisan posture to feel comfortable making process judgments, but not ideological ones.

President Obama at 'Nerd Prom'

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (aka "Nerd Prom") is an annual event we should dispense with, but until then, I've got to give the people what they want. Here are some of the best lines from President Obama's stand-up comedy routine for the self-obsessed Beltway media villagers. Remarks by The President at The White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:

• Of course, everybody has got plenty of advice. Maureen Dowd said I could solve all my problems if I were just more like Michael Douglas in “The American President.” (Laughter.) And I know Michael is here tonight. Michael, what’s your secret, man? (Laughter.) Could it be that you were an actor in an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy? (Laughter.) Might that have something to do with it? (Applause.) I don’t know. Check in with me. Maybe it’s something else. (Laughter.)


• And of course, the White House press corps is here. I know CNN has taken some knocks lately, but the fact is I admire their commitment to cover all sides of a story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate. (Laughter and applause.)


• The History Channel is not here. I guess they were embarrassed about the whole Obama-is-a-devil thing. (Laughter.) Of course, that never kept Fox News from showing up. (Laughter.) They actually thought the comparison was not fair -- to Satan. (Laughter and applause.)

President Obama at the Planned Parenthood National Conference

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama became the first sitting president ever to address a Planned Parenthood event this morning, speaking at the health care group's national conference.

From the Transcript of prepared remarks (excerpt):

[O]bviously this is a special national conference, because it’s been nearly a hundred years since the first health clinic of what later would become Planned Parenthood opened its doors to women in Brooklyn.  And for nearly a century now, one core principle has guided everything all of you do -- that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health.  (Applause.)  It’s a simple principle.  

So what I see in this audience, extraordinary doctors and nurses, and advocates and staff who work tirelessly to keep the doors at health centers all across the country going, then I'm reminded of those very early efforts and all the strides that we've made in subsequent decades.  And I also think about the millions of mothers and daughters and wives and sisters, friends and neighbors who walk through those doors every year. 

Somewhere there’s a woman who just received a new lease on life because of a screening that you provided that helped catch her cancer in time.  Somewhere there’s a woman who’s breathing easier today because of the support and counseling she got at her local Planned Parenthood health clinic.  Somewhere there’s a young woman starting a career who, because of you, is able to decide for herself when she wants to start a family.  (Applause.)

One in five women in this country has turned to Planned Parenthood for health care.  One in five.  (Applause.)  And for many, Planned Parenthood is their primary source of health care  -- not just for contraceptive care, but for lifesaving preventive care, like cancer screenings and health counseling. 

President Obama at the West, Texas memorial service

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama paid tribute to first responders, many of whom were volunteer firefighters, at a memorial service to the victims of the Texas fertilizer plant blast that killed 14 people on April 17.

Transcript of prepared Remarks by the President at Memorial Service -- Waco, TX (excerpt):

Most of the people in West know everybody in West.  Many of you are probably descended from those first settlers -- hardy immigrants who crossed an ocean and kept on going.  So for you, there’s no such thing as a stranger.  When someone is in need, you reach out to them and you support them, and you do what it takes to help them carry on.

That’s what happened last Wednesday, when a fire alarm sounded across a quiet Texas evening.  As we’ve heard, the call went out to volunteers -- not professionals -- people who just love to serve.  People who want to help their neighbors.  A call went out to farmers and car salesmen; and welders and funeral home directors; the city secretary and the mayor.  It went out to folks who are tough enough and selfless enough to put in a full day’s work and then be ready for more. 

And together, you answered the call.  You dropped your schoolwork, left your families, jumped in fire trucks, and rushed to the flames.  And when you got to the scene, you forgot fear and you fought that blaze as hard as you could, knowing the danger, buying time so others could escape.  And then, about 20 minutes after the first alarm, the earth shook, and the sky went dark -- and West changed forever.

Barbara Bush: 'We’ve had enough Bushes' - damn straight!

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The matriarch of the "Bush dynasty" bluntly tells the truth on NBC's Today show. Barbara Bush on Jeb run: 'We've had enough Bushes':

Amid the celebration surrounding the opening of son George W. Bush's presidential library Thursday, former first lady Barbara Bush brushed aside talk of a Jeb Bush run for the White House in 2016.

Appearing in an interview from Dallas on NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Bush was asked if she thought that Jeb, the former governor of Florida, should seek the presidency.

"He's by far the best qualified man," Mrs. Bush said, "but no."

"We've had enough Bushes," she said, saying "it's not just four families, or whatever."

Damn straight! No "Bush dynasty."

Another view of Race to the Top

by David Safier

A new book and educational campaign, Closing the Opportunity Gap, is being launched today. One of the book's 21 authors is Linda Darling-Hammond, Obama's education advisor during his 2008 campaign and a possible choice as his Ed Secretary. Obama made a serious blunder when he went with Arne Duncan instead.

From the first chapter of the book, visualizing Race to the Top as a literal race up a stairway:

“To visualize how unfair this system has become, imagine two children asked to race to the top of a stairway. One child is well nourished, well trained, and well equipped; the other lacks all these basic resources. But, instead of designing a system around the needs of this second child, her stairway (akin to the minimal opportunities and resources available at her school) is steep and slippery. Meanwhile, the first child’s stairway is replaced with an escalator. Holding these two children to the same standards may allow for a comforting ‘no excuses’ sound byte, but it does nothing to help that second child achieve.”

Some of the areas of improvement suggested by the authors: Provide High-Quality Early Childhood Education; End Segregation in Housing, Schools and Classrooms; Provide Crucial Funding and Resources; Provide More and Better Learning Time; Focus on Childhood Health; Focus on Teacher Experience and Supports; Provide Access to libraries and the Internet; Provide Tutoring; Create Safe and Well-Maintained School Environments; Improve Policies on Student Discipline; Understand Student Cultures and Schooling; Change the Focus of Testing and Accountability; Address the Needs of Language Minorities.

Their suggestions cost money, of course. But they predict a $50 billion annual savings from the economic benefits of closing the opportunity gap and $200 billion in societal savings from, for example, lowering crime and incarceration rates.

If Congress members had kids in Head Start . . .

by David Safier

"The nation will not stand for airport delays!" Congress yells, and the Obama administration considers ways to get furloughed air traffic controllers back on the job. After all, important people -- including Congressional frequent fliers who spend 3 or 4 days in D.C., then wing their way homeward for the long weekend -- can't be made to wait a few extra hours in airports.

But it's not a problem if we ignore the needs of all those unimportant little people, like preschoolers who can't get into Head Start programs because of the sequester. And we can ignore the equally inconsequential needs of poor folk too, people who will no longer be served by Meals on Wheels because of budget cuts. Early childhood education? Nutrition? They don't weigh nearly as heavily as the inconvenience endured by people who can afford to pay good money for plane tickets then can't depend on getting to their destinations on time.

You can imagine the ads that will run against legislators who resist getting the air traffic controllers back on the job. But don't expect much blowback from cutting government services to the most vulnerable. That won't cost anyone enough votes to worry about.

President Obama at the Interfaith Service in Boston

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama delivered remarks at the "Healing Our City: An Interfaith Service" at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, dedicated to those who were wounded or killed in Monday’s bombing of the Boston Marathon. His speech was a celebration of the "Hub" of the universe and the people of Boston.

After the service, President and Mrs. Obama stopped by Boston's Cathedral High School to thank some of Boston's first responders and volunteers for their tireless efforts over the past few days, and then the President visited patients, their families and hospital staff at Massachusetts General Hospital, while the First Lady stopped by Boston Children’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. (h/t White House blog).

Read the Transcript of prepared remarks.

Video below the fold.

It's time to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes

Posted  by AzBlueMeanie:

Can we seat a Nuremberg Tribunal-style panel of judges now to hold the architects of illegal torture accountable for their crimes in the name of America? (Statutes of limitations do not apply to war crimes).

The New York Times today reports  "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that 'it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture' and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it." U.S. Engaged in Torture After 9/11, Review Concludes:

The sweeping, 577-page report [Document: Constitution Project’s Report on Detainee Treatment] says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

Sandy Hook victim's mother delivers the Weekly Address

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

From the White House blog, Weekly Address: Sandy Hook Victim’s Mother Calls for Commonsense Gun Responsibility Reforms:

This week’s address is delivered by Francine Wheeler, whose six year old son, Ben, was murdered alongside nineteen other children and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, four months ago. Now, Francine – joined by her husband David – is asking the American people to help prevent this type of tragedy from happening to more families like hers. Since that terrible day in December, thousands more Americans have died, and thousands more families have suffered the pain of losing a loved one to violence.

Now that the Senate has agreed that commonsense gun safety reforms deserve a vote, they must finish the job and pass those reforms to protect our children and our communities. Now is the time for all Americans to help make this a moment of real change.

Transcript. Video below the fold.

Obama's 3-pronged assault on the Party of No

by David Safier

Intentionally or not, Obama and the Democrats are putting the squeeze on Republicans in Congress, breaking down the GOP's united wall of resistance to everything a Democrat might support. Some not-too-crazy Republicans who are sick of being bullied by their batshit-crazy right wing are being peeled off with gun and immigration legislation. The next assault on the GOP's united front will likely be the confirmation fight over Sri Srinivasan who the Obama administration hopes will fill an open slot on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That's three battles the obstructionists have to fight simultaneously, fragmenting their efforts and diluting their message. Chances are, they're going to lose on some or all of the issues.

It's too early to say for sure, but it looks like the filibuster promised on any gun legislation by a bloc of Republican senators is going down. Enough Republicans are planning to join Democrats to get over the 60 vote mark. Meanwhile, immigration legislation is being pushed by Republicans who are -- gasp! -- working together with Democrats like Chuck Schumer to forge a bipartisan bill. Just the fact that Republicans are taking contrary positions on those two pieces of legislation is exposing cracks in the GOP wall of resistance. If legislation is voted on in the House and the Senate, Republicans will be forced to make public declarations of their positions on the issues which could sink their hopes of attracting voters in the middle who are for gun control legislation and comprehensive immigration reform. Whatever bills come to the floor will probably be far short of what we want -- they may even be voted down -- but Republicans are going to be weakened simply by allowing a vote.

A moment of clarity: Tea-Publicans have no interest in governing responsibly

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I have said before that I believe President Obama is terrible at negotiation. For a Harvard educated attorney, he frequently violates the first rule of negotiation: never negotiate against yourself. His opening bid is frequently where the other side would like to end up at the end, which only encourages the GOP to get greedy and to move the goal line where they want to end up at the end even farther to the right.

But there is a counter-intuitive argument that some have adopted to explain President Obama's negotiation style. They argue that he is Mr. Spock playing 11-dimensional chess, demonstrating that there is literally nothing he could offer Republicans -- even things they themselves have said they want -- to induce them to compromise. Even if this were true, I am left to ask "to what end?"

This tactic will not get the president the "grand bargain" he claims to desire. All the while it undermines the legitimacy of Democratic Party principles by playing this game on a field determined by the GOP -- Mr. President, please stop using the GOP message framing and giving legitimacy to their arguments, which have no legitimacy in the real world of economics. Faith based supply-side "tricke down" GOP austerity economics is an unmitigated disaster, and has been entirely disproved and discredited. Allowing this to continue is no "bargain," it is insanity.

Yet that is where we find ourselves today. Greg Sargent writes, Why Obama wants a Grand Bargain:

The news of the morning is that President Obama will propose a budget next week that includes specific cuts in Social Security and Medicare along with new revenues — an effort to bring Republicans back to the table for a “Grand Bargain” to replace the sequester.

States' Rights Leads to Inequities in Healthcare

by Pamela Powers Hannley

This map exemplifies what is wrong with letting states' rights. State-by-state decisions lead to inequities, discrimination, legal inconsistencies, and redundant bureaucracies. 

The map-- created by The Advisory Board Company-- shows how the states stack up (so far) regarding implementation of the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion. How does this patchwork quilt of policies make sense? Why should people in New York get better, more affordable care than people in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, or even neighboring New Jersey? 

Letting states decide who gets medical care is absurd. Tell me again why we don't have universal healthcare? Oh, I forgot, healthcare is about making money-- not keeping people healthly, preventing disease, or reducing unnecessary premature death.

To read the full story about implementation of the Affordable Care Act, go to ObamaCare In Plain English: What It Means For You. It's a very well written and thorough explanation of what is unfolding. 

Obama: "I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote."

by David Safier

Obama's weekly address is about legislation to control gun violence. His message: "We have a real chance to reduce gun violence," and "we have an obligation to try."

It's a quiet message presented gently. He simply lists the gun measures and states, "I urge the Senate and the House to give each of them a vote." I wish it were louder and stronger, but that's the tone he struck.

Here's the transcript. You can watch the video below the fold.

The Iraq War: 10 years later no one has been held accountable

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War -- an unnecessary "war of choice" built upon a mountain of lies and deception, fabricated intelligence, and media propaganda -- that was illegal under international law and treaties because Iraq did not pose an "imminent threat of harm" to the United States.

To this day, not one of the architects of this unnecessary and illegal war, whether the Neocons in the conservative think tanks, members of the Bush-Cheney administration or Congress, members of the Tony Blair government in Britain, military contractors and military leaders of the Pentagon, the spectacularly failed intelligence agencies, or members of the propagandist media have been held to account for their crimes under the law. Not one.

Budget Battle: Can the Rich Afford to Pay Higher Taxes?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Since the Tea Party took over the House of Representatives after the disastrous 2010 election, you'd think the most pressing job facing the Congress was to lower taxes on the richest Americans. (Feather-bedding the 1% is right up there with squashing our civil liberties, suppressing voter turnout, grandstanding about cutting "entitlements" (AKA earned benefits), supporting Wall Street banksters, and protecting Citizens United and the obscene campaign finance system we have.

Just look how many marches, blog posts, letters to the editor, calls to representatives, and Occupations it took to overturn the Bush Era Tax Cuts on people who make more than $400,000 a few months ago. (And it still probably wouldn't have happened if it weren't for three percentages that changed public opinion-- 99%, 1%, and 47%.) More on taxes and budgets after the jump.

Paul Ryan: Why Propose Stale Budget Policies We Voted Against in November?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Does Congressman Paul Ryan not realize that the Romney-Ryan ticket lost in November? 

And that President Barack Obama (who sounded like a progressive in the last days of the campaign) won by a larger margin than any other president in recent history-- including John Kennedy, Ronald Raegan, and Bill Clinton? 

The November election was a much a referendum FOR Obama as it was AGAINST Republican austerity and their ideas to balance the budget on the backs of Americans-- rather than forcing the 1% to pay their fair share.

Or does Ryan-- and the other Wall Street shills in Congress-- just think that if they propose the same stale, trickle down economics and middle class austerity ideas over and over again that eventually we will acquiesce and say, "Oh, yeah, go ahead and screw the 99%. Obviously, the robber barons... er... your corporate masters... er... the 1% really need additional tax breaks more than we need Social Security or Medicare."

From the New York Times: Ryan Budget Plan Aims to Roll Back Obama Agenda 

From The Nation: Paul Ryan's Bumper-Sticker-Slogan Budget 

From the Huffington Post: Paul Ryan Budget: House GOP Unveils Blueprint To Slash Medicaid, Medicare And Repeal Obamacare

Paul Krugman: Paul Ryan's Budget Plan 'Has Gotten Even Crueler'

 

Koch Brothers Organize to Stop Medicaid Expansion in Arizona, Nationwide

by Pamela Powers Hannley

In recent months, a handful of Republican governors have softened their stances on Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. Showing a bit of financial savvy and (dare I say) compassion for the millions of poor Americans who would be covered by this, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and others have decided to take the feds' funds and allow expanded healthcare coverage for their citizens who can't afford insurance. 

Unfotrunately for the people who would benefit from Medicaid expansion, Big Brother Brothers don't like it when their puppets... er... politicians brake ranks with the 1%. Americans for Prosperity-- the Koch Brothers' astroturf  group-- is organizing the citizenry to fight against their own self interests to defeat Medicaid expansion.

This battle is coming to Tucson on Thursday, March 7, 2013. Americans for Prosperity has organized a public forum on Medicaid expansion at The Loft Cinema, 6:30-8:30 p.m. After a showing of "Sick and Sicker", an anti-Obamacare propaganda film, there will be a panel, which is heavily packed with Tea Party types-- like former State Senator and perpetual blow hard Frank Antenori, State Representative Ethan Orr, and Tom Jenney, Arizona Director for Americans for Prosperity. The sole Democrat on the panel is State Senator Steve Farley. (Go, Steve!)

If you believe that healthcare is a human right and if you believe that "We the People" should take care of each other (and not fight over crumbs left by the 1%), come testify at this forum. This is your chance to tell your story. If you support Medicaid expansion in Arizona, you can also go to this link on the AHCCCS website add your name as a supporter. Comments and healthcare stories can be sent to Share@azahcccs.gov.

Flyer and details about Americans for Prosperity's efforts in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida after the jump.

Sequester Casts a Shadow

By Karl Reiner

The $85 billion across-the-board federal spending cuts for the current fiscal year have gone into effect.  When the White House and the balky Congress agreed to the sequester cuts in 2011, it was supposed to be a prod to negotiating a better approach to deficit reduction.  The consequences of the blunt cut to federal spending were too appalling to consider.  The sequester deal was the incentive driving the working out of a better arrangement.

It failed because a factionalized Congress, presiding over a depressingly slow economic recovery, has lost its moorings. The fear and anger that fuels the tea party and anti-government groups has driven the Republicans to forgo governance and opt for simplistic solutions appealing to the far right.

Obama administration to file amicus brief to overturn California's Prop. 8

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Obama administration will file a brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry to overturn California's Prop. 8 before the deadline later today. Pete Williams at NBC News reports, Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court:

Administration officials say the Justice Department will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriage to resume in California, wading into the protracted legal battle over Proposition 8 and giving gay-rights advocates a new court ally.

After first suggesting it would not get involved, the Obama administration will file a friend-of-the-court brief late today in support of the two gay couples who launched the fight over the issue four years ago, the officials said. Today is the last day for filing briefs in support of the couples' position.

* * *

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in late March to decide the fate of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution approved by 52 percent of California voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriages in the state and went into effect after 18,000 gay couples were legally married earlier that year.

Related: Now it is 100 Republicans to sign brief to the Supreme Court arguing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally wed.

UPDATE: 172 of 199 House Democrats, and 40 of 55 Senate Democrats, sign amicus brief urging Supreme Court to strike down Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

[The constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 is pending before the Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).]

[The constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is pending before the Court in United States v.Windsor (12-307).]

UPDATE: Lyle Denniston at Scotus.blog.com reports that the Obama administration timely filed its amicus brief: The Obama administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court (.pdf) to rule in the case of California’s Proposition 8 that same-sex marriage should be required in eight more states, beyond the nine that already permit it, although it stopped short of explicitly calling for the Justices to extend the right to the entire nation. ”California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8.”

Sen. John McCain debases the U.S. Senate, embarrasses Arizona

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

You will recall that during the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing for Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, Sen. John McCain made a complete ass-hat of himself:

[Iit was disconcerting to watch this Neocon war monger demand that his former senate colleague Chuck Hagel genuflect before him and to praise "Senator Surge" as a demigod (his media sycophants were unavailable?) Chuck Hagel refused, insisting that Iraq was "the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam." Good for him. Chuck Hagel is right, and John McCain is wrong.

Sen. "McNasty" is still embittered that his old friend, Chuck Hagel, who endorsed him for president in 2000, later endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008. Hagel was also highly critical of the Iraq war and the "surge" for which McCain was a principal cheerleader. This is a personal vendetta by Sen. McNasty against Hagel.

Obama in Preschool Land

by David Safier

I'm a sucker for photos of Obama with children. When he's around kids, "No Drama Obama" turns into a Wild Thing, and he pretends to be caught in a young Spiderman's web. He lights up and gets in touch with his inner goofy.

Talking Points Memo has 7 photos from Obama's visit to a Georgia preschool today. Two are below. (And I have to add a description of one of the photos, where the most powerful man in the world "walked over to group of kids who were playing with blocks, and asked, 'Can I help?' The children greeted him and asked him to play with them.")

Presidential exploding fist bumps: a history

by David Safier

Though there were many wonderful moments in the SOTU speech, what will probably live on from the night in meme memory is this: Obama's pre-speech exploding fist bump with Republican Senator Mark Kirk, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a stroke.

My extensive research revealed, this was not Obama's first Presidential exploding fist bump. Though there may have been others, witness Obama in Afghanistan, 2012.

 

And for the history buffs, here is a "History of the Exploding Fist Bump: Great moments in douche bag history."

I knew the highbrow folks who read BfA would want to know the whole story. You're welcome.

Obama: "They deserve a vote."

by David Safier

Absolutely right.

“It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. . . . Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun. . . . Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence — they deserve a simple vote.”

A simple vote. Let each member of Congress be counted.

Three Ring Circus Response to SOTU Address

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Have you heard the joke about how the Washington, D.C. media villagers and Beltway bloviators got together for a conclave and selected freshman Tea-Publican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as their "savior" of the GOP? No really, this happened. You didn't see the puff of white smoke from the chimney of the National Press Club?

Last week the far-right Tea Party darlin' was selected the Republicans' "savior" by Time magazine; and he was selected to deliver the GOP response to President Obama's State of the Union addresses tonight. The Beltway media has published several glowing pieces about the GOP's new "savior" over the past several days.

I am sure that this blasphemy comes as bit of a shock to the Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists who are the base of "God's Own Party," and who want a theocracy with Jesus Chirst as their lord and savior, not the son of Cuban émigrés. It is just another example of how completely out of touch the Beltway media is with the rest of the country outside of the Beltway.

President Obama's immigration reform speech in Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The first thing you should know is that the immigration reforms outlined today by President Obama in a speech in Las Vegas, Nevada are remarkably similar to the immigration reforms he outlined in a speech in El Paso, Texas in May 2011, a Blueprint for Building a 21st Century Immigration System (pdf).

Here is the Fact Sheet from today's speech. FACT SHEET: Fixing our Broken Immigration System so Everyone Plays by the Rules.

Here is the transcript of prepared Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform. (excerpts):

Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants.  We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history.  And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000.  (Applause.)

Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities.  And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever.  (Applause.) 

PDA at the Inaugural Peace Ball (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

No, this is not a picture of the Peace Ball. I was just trying to get your attention. That's Barack and Michelle, of course. After the jump, check out Loneprotestor's video of the Peace Ball.

(Update) GOP war on voting: Rigging elections to thwart the popular vote

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Alan Abramowitz, Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and senior columnist for Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, writes today Republican Electoral College Plan Would Undermine Democracy:

After losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections and seeing Barack Obama sweep to a surprisingly easy reelection victory in 2012, Republican leaders and strategists are understandably worried about their party’s prospects in future presidential contests. There is no doubt that the GOP faces major challenges as a result of the nation’s shifting demographics and a growing Democratic advantage in the Electoral College.

Democratic presidential candidates have carried 18 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 242 electoral votes in all four elections since 2000, and another three states with 15 electoral votes in three of those elections. In addition, three of the five states that have voted twice for each party since 2000 — Colorado, Nevada and Virginia, with a total of 28 electoral votes — clearly appear to be trending Democratic. That gives Democrats a base of 24 states plus the District of Columbia in which they have the advantage going into the next presidential election. Those states have 285 electoral votes — 15 votes more than needed to win the presidency.

* * *

Several Republican governors and state legislative leaders in key battleground states have recently expressed support for a plan to change the method of awarding their state’s electoral votes from the current winner-take-all system to one in which one vote would be awarded to the winner of each congressional district in the state and two votes would be awarded to the statewide winner. In the aftermath of the GOP’s 2012 defeat, this plan appears to be gaining momentum and was recently endorsed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. On Wednesday, a bill to apportion electors by congressional district advanced through a subcommittee in the Virginia Senate.

The return of the Star's Creative Headline Writing Team?

by David Safier

There was a time when nary a week went by without me going after a horrible headline in the Star. People who "read the head" and passed on the story too often got a wildly distorted idea of the article's contents. But I've stopped writing those posts, because the Star's headlines improved considerably.

So I'm not going to rant and rave about today's bad headline in the Opinion section (not too much anyway), only comment on it and hope it's a bug, not a feature. The Star's head on Doyle McManus' LA Times op ed reads:

From combative Obama, a clenched fist

"Clenched fist." I searched for the word "fist" in the column, then I searched for "clenched." Not only were they nowhere to be found, but there was no language nearly as aggressive as the phrase "clenched fist." "Combative"? Good choice for the head. The word is in the 4th paragraph. But "clenched fist"? Not even close.

McManus' column says Obama's "combative" tone in his Inaugural Address could make it hard for him to win the Republican votes he'll need to pass his agenda. Fair enough. I don't think singing, Barry White-like, "I'm so in lo-o-ove with you" while looking into John Boehner's eyes would have helped encourage Republicans to meet Obama halfway, but that's OK. McManus makes a reasonable point.

But "clenched fist"? There's nothing anywhere near that threatening.

Immigration Reform questions for Obama from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Good questions from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network...

Key Questions for the White House on Immigration Reform 

1.  It is widely reported that the Obama administration has deported unprecedented numbers of immigrants, and it is widely suspected that the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a self-imposed a deportation quota.  Is there a deportation quota?  If so, where does it come from, and will it be reduced or eliminated as part of the President’s proposal on immigration reform? [More good questions after the jump.]

Americans for Prosperity responds to Inaugural Address

by David Safier

The Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity wasn't delighted with Obama's Inaugural Address. They thought it was "a harshly ideological, aggressively partisan speech more appropriate for the campaign trail than for the solemn occasion of his inaugural ceremony."

Unlike, say, Reagan's first inaugural address:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

[snip]

It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

[snip]

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government.

[snip]

It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise.

Nothing harshly ideological or aggressively partisan in Reagan's words. Unless, of course, you're one of those big government, tax and spend liberals who are ruining this country, and who cares about them?

Self-evident

by David Safier

There's lots to mull over in Obama's second inaugural address, but I keep coming back to his opening words where he referred to the statement from the Declaration of Independence that some truths are "self-evident." Then he went on to enumerate those self-evident truths, which every American should know. Except that most of the truths he enumerated as he expanded on the central concept of the Declaration -- about how we have to care for everyone, assure the equality of opportunity for all, look out for the environmental health of the nation and the world -- are hardly self-evident to Republicans.

Professor Obama taught the nation a lesson about self-evident truths, and in the process, he shamed the opposition at the same time he threw down the legislative and executive gauntlet. Those of you on the other side of the aisle have a lot to learn about what makes this country great, he told them, and I, working with Democratic legislators and the American people, will be steadfast in moving this nation toward making more of those self-evident truths a reality, because, in his words, "history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing."

It's telling that Obama chose the term "self-executing," seeing as how he's the head of the Executive Branch of government. The choice of language by the Wordsmith in Chief is rarely casual. He's saying it is his personal duty as President of the United States to make sure the self-evident truths are put into execution. As he's shown since the election, he plans to push his agenda forcefully. No more Mister Nice Guy. For him to reach out to Republicans, they need to reach back to him.

President Obama's Second Inaugural Address

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

President Obama's Second Inaugural Address, full text of prepared remarks.

Video below the fold.

We elected Barack Obama to be the People's President (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Today, President Barack Obama, our 44th president, started his second term.

Last November, in overwhelming numbers, a diverse coalition of Americans said we want this black man to be our president for another four years-- not that hollow representative of the 1%, that child of privilege, that flip-flopping liar with the hidden corporatist agenda.

President Obama won the presidency by a larger majority than John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, and he did so by inspiring a rainbow of Americans that he can better lead all of us through these challenging times to a better, stronger, fairer America. He continued the theme of togetherness in his inaugural address-- specifically calling for unity, while giving a nod to groups who elected him-- gays, Latinos, blacks, women, middle class workers.

We, the people, believe that induring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war...

This morning during the mainstream media banter leading up to the inauguration ceremony, corporate talking heads-- one after another-- parroted their gloom-and-doom meme about Obama's second term. Don't believe them. We the people will build our future-- not the media talking heads, not the corporatists, not the Congress, not the state legislatures, not the courts. We the people must take responsibility to be the change we want to see in our country.

During the next four years, there will be times when we agree with President Obama and times when we don't. But we must remember that we the people chose him, and only we the people can help him be the best president he can be.

Our work is not over. This country faces many social and economic challenges. As the President said this morning, we must move forward together. In the coming years, let's help the President and our elected officials make the right choices-- choices that will further equality, justice, and liberty for all Americans. We elected Barack Obama to be the People's President. Let's help him earn that title during the next four years. Watch the video below and remember how hard we worked for today and how jubliant we were on the evening of November 6, 2012. 

President Obama sworn into office for a second term

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Today's Inauguration event is ceremonial -- President Obama was sworn into office on January 20, just as the Constitution requires. And Chief Justice John Roberts brought index cards to make sure that he got the oath of office right this time!

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts administers the oath of office to President Barack Obama during the official swearing-in ceremony in the Blue Room of the White House on Inauguration Day, Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013. First Lady Michelle Obama, holding the Robinson family Bible, along with daughters Malia and Sasha, stand with the President. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Here is the official White House portrait for President Obama's second term (photo by Pete Souza).

 

New US immigration report reveals 'formidable' & expensive machinery to secure border

by Pamela Powers Hannley

A detailed new report release by the Migration Policy Institute reveals the sophistication and cost-- both human and monetary-- of the United States' immigration policy in recent years.

According to the nearly 200-page report, the US system is based upon 6 pillars: border enforcement; visa controls and travel screening; information and interoperability of data systems; workplace enforcement; intersection between criminal justice system and immigration enforcement; and detention and removal of noncitizens. Each area is described in detail. 

The report includes a wealth of information about the intricacies of the Department of Homeland Security and how immigration enforcement intersects with the criminal justice system, the FBI, and the CIA. Probably the most dramatic finding is:

The US government spends more on its immigration enforcement agencies than on all its other principal criminal federal law enforcement agencies combined. In FY 2012, spending for CBP [Customs and Border Protection], ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and US-VISIT reached nearly $18 billion. This amount exceeds by approximately 24 percent total spending for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Secret Service, US Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which stood at $14.4 billion in FY 2012.

Judging by resource levels, case volumes, and enforcement actions...immigration enforcement can thus be seen to rank as the federal government's highest criminal law enforcement priority.

Whoa. More key findings after the jump.

The New New Deal ... a book by Michael Grunwald

book review posted by John Denker

The New New Deal is a recent book by Michael Grunwald. It is very interesting, important, informative, readable, thorough, and persuasive. It revolves around the so-called Stimulus Act of 2009. There are three parts to the story: (1) The economic collapse and the election in the autumn of 2008; (2) the drafting and passage of the Stimulus Act in the winter of 2008–2009; and (3) the implementation and the consequences from 2009 to 2012.

I wish everybody would read this book, in order to know what was done and how well it worked. This is important, because many of the same policy issues are still with us, in connection with today’s fiscal negotiations and in the longer term, forever. We need public support for making the right decisions.

Steve Benen called this “the best book on the Obama presidency to date.” It injects some desperately needed reality into the discussion.

<...more...>

LBJ: "We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days before the gun lobby gets organized."

by David Safier

Here's a cautionary tale from the days after Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968, written by Joseph Califano, President Johnson's top assistant for domestic policy.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, President Johnson pressed Congress to enact gun control legislation he had sent to Capitol Hill years earlier. LBJ ordered all of us on his staff - and urged allies in Congress - to act swiftly. "We have only two weeks, maybe only 10 days," he said, "before the gun lobby gets organized." He told Larry O'Brien and me, "We've got to beat the NRA (National Rifle Association) into the offices of members of Congress.

Unfortunately, it took time for Congress to act, and LBJ's proposed legislation from three years earlier was watered down before passage. Califano hopes Obama and the Democrats take this story as a spur to quick action.

Obama's pained remarks in the wake of this latest school shooting echo Johnson's anguish a half-century ago. But Obama has a unique opportunity: a lame-duck session of Congress. If he learns from the lesson of LBJ - two weeks to get action - and takes advantage of the fact that many members can vote their conscience without fear of retribution by the gun lobby because they are not seeking re-election, this nation may "complete the task" of passing comprehensive gun controls. That's an opportunity that is worth grasping out of the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in Newtown, Conn.

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange: Free speech warriors or terrorists?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Yesterday and today, Private Bradley Manning testified in his own defense in a military court. Manning has been imprisoned for 921 days without a trial because he allegedly sent secret US documents to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published thousands of pages of previously classified material.

Are Assange and Manning free speech warriors who wanted the world to know about the secret dealings of the US government (as well as other governments)? Or are they terrorists?

Whatever your viewpoint, it will be fascinating to see how this story unfolds now that Manning is allowed to talk.

Check out this very detailed Huffington Post story by Assange, who is in exile in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Two Years of Cablegate as Bradley Manning Testifies for the First Time

Governor Brewer Signals Support of Comprehensive Immigration... and Then Walks it Back

By Michael Bryan

hat tip to Crooks & Liars:

Perhaps Governor Dingbat's staff should just stop allowing her to do live interviews.

Brahm Resnick interviewed Brewer post-election and prodded her regarding the softening in her party nationally on comprehensive immigration reform after the drubbing her ticket got among Latinos (a 44% gap on the Presidential line). He asked Brewer if she would now be open to a comprehensive immigration deal now that her enforcement first position has so thoroughly alienated Latino voters.

"But here's the thing," Resnik pointed out. "With John Boehner and Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and [Maricopa County Attorney] Bill Montgomery -- what he said in particular was, 'You know what? We can do both at once. We can secure the border and do comprehensive immigration reform.' Is that something you're on with? Because it sounds like you are just a secure-the-border-first person."

"What ever works," Brewer replied. "If we can do both at the same time, I'm fine and dandy with that. But we cannot resolve these kinds of issues today and then have the problems still existing."

Well, that's certainly a new tune for Brewer.

Of course, she didn't really mean it. On Sunday, KPNX reported that Brewer's office had contacted Resnick after the interview was recorded on Friday to walk back her support for comprehensive immigration reform in concert with securing the border.

Spokesman Matt Benson said, "the governor still believes in securing the border first," Resnik wrote. "He added that she was willing to 'come to the table' to deal with all immigration issues. Later Friday, the governor's office issued a statement reaffirming her 'secure the border first' stance."

It should not come as a surprise that Brewer's head remains buried in the sand. Toward the end of the interview she clearly implied that the Obama Administration intentionally leaves the Tucson sector "unsecured" in order to whip up racial animus to secure the Latino vote.

When asked if the GOP, and the AZGOP especially, deserved any blame for alienating Latinos, she replied, "No, President Obama, in the last four years, they've had four years to get our borders secured and they refused to do it, but yet we know they can. We know that they can secure the borders. Why won't they secure the border? Because they wanted that out there because they knew that they could turn it into an issue of all about racism."

Say what? So Obama has purposely left the border insecure (despite cleverly covering his tracks by plowing more billions into enforcement, deporting at a record clip, and radically expanding manpower on the border) in order to alarm white folks so much that they'll go batshit, pass a bunch or racist legislation and piss off Latinos, so that in turn Latinos will feel so disrespected by the GOP that they'll vote for him in droves? Now we're deep in the crazy...

Reality adjustment just isn't in the cards for politicians like Brewer and Arpaio. They are incapable of acknowledging that their belief that the Obama Administration and Dems are exploiting racism is nothing more than projection of their own racist motives onto the opposition. The AZGOP has been successfully exploiting racial animus and the fears of white America to win elections for several cycles now. Expecting them to stop now and support a reasonable resolution is like expecting a Coatimundi to ditch its own tail rings.

If the GOP wants a fresh start with Latino voters, they can only do so with fresh GOP politicians who didn't cut their teeth on denigrating Latinos and scaring the shit out of white voters (with headless corpses in the desert, for example...) to get elected. Of course, that disqualifies nearly every currently elected AZ GOP pol... 

See the video after the click...

Interesting Exit Poll Data in Arizona

By Michael Bryan

Reviewing some very nice data from exit polling posted on The Arizona Conservative, I came across a few interesting factiods that are informative about the thinking of Arizona's electors. I suggest a look. You may find some interesting insights of your own for the comments.

First, was this:

Not terribly surprising that those voters who believed that Obama was primarily responsible for the current economic problems would vote for Romney. Very surprising, however, that 15% of those who blamed Bush would nonetheless vote for more of the same from Romney. Maybe those folks think that Bush wasn't sufficiently "supply sided" in his economic policies and want Romney to finish off the middle class?

Also interesting that 31% of those who think Romney favors the wealthy still voted for him: I guess that those 31% think they are in the 1% who would have benefitted of Romney's agenda? I don't think that math works... which demonstrates the brilliance of conservative propaganda.

Also interesting to me was this:

At first, I could not figure out why fully 44% of those who want Arizona to recognize same-sex marriage would vote for Romney, who opposes such policies. Then I realized that, of course, they were voting for Romney despite his position. They want same-sex marriage recognized, but it is not a high enough priority to overcome their support for Romney on other issues. In other words, these are 'fiscal conservatives' who believe (wrongly...) that Romney would be a superior choice on other (more salient) issues, but who now support marriage equality. That's an strong resevoir of support for marriage equality inside the GOP coalition. It may not be a strongly motivating value in a candidate campaign, but it could be decisive in an issue-oriented campaign, such as a ballot question.

Chris Hayes had a segment on his Saturday show about Arizona's exit polls and racialized politics that was very thought provoking. See that clip after the click...

Friday fun: Obama sings 'Can't Touch This' (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Yes, indeed, President Barack Obama sings M.C. Hammer's Can't Touch This after the jump.

Chris Rock urges white voters to vote for a 'white guy you can trust'-- Barack Obama (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

These days, there is a poll for every statistic you want to promote. Some polls have shown that undecided white men-- unlike women, blacks, gays, Latinos, and those elite smart people-- are leaning toward Mitt Romney for president.

Comedian Chris Rock has recorded a special message for those undecided white folks. See the video after the jump.

Presidential Predictions!

By Michael Bryan

I always enjoy going out a limb and proving myself a terrible electoral prognosticator. In that spirit, here are my predictions for Tuesdays Presidential Election.

Electoral maps generated by RealClearPolitics dandy Create Your Own Map tool. Play with it at peril of your afternoon disappearing in a clatter of obsessive clicking. You've been warned...

Squeaker Obama Scenario (15% likelihood):

In this scenario, nearly every swing state in which the polling is arguably close other than Ohio goes for Romney: Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa all defy polling predictions. Obama still wins so long as he holds in Ohio. That's how very difficult it is for Romney to win the Presidency at this point.

Slightly More Comfortable Obama Scenario (15% likelihood):

If Obama wins in swing states he's held consistent leads in, such as New Hampshire, Colorado, and Iowa he walks away with the race by 8pm Eastern Time when polls close in the Midwest. 

Blowout Obama (likelihood 69.9%):

I consider this to be the most likely final map for this election. Obama wins all the close swing states and blows Romney away decisively. I can forsee the possibility that Romney will take Florida through voter access manipulation and the sort of electoral corruption in close races that the GOP excels in, which takes Obama down to Nate Silver's predicted outcome of Obama at just over 300 electoral votes. I'm a little more optimistic than Nate. If it were legal to bet on election outcomes, my money would be on Obama with a 300 electoral vote floor. The race can be called as soon as the polls close on the East Coast.

The Nightmare for America's Furture Scenario (likelihood 0.1%):

The world is an unpredictable place and even solid predictions may go awry. Suppose that Romney wins Ohio and sweeps nearly all the other swing states, including Florida and Virginia. Then he might be able to sweak out a victory in the electoral college. In which case, the Mayans were right: the world effectively ends in 2012 - at least for America.

If you don't think your vote counts, watch this... (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote in 2000. In the historic recount of Florida's vote, he lost that state by 537 votes--out of more than 6 million cast.

Check out this historic video of an alternative universe where President Al Gore became president.

Gore State of the Union