Justin's Political Corner

Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell.

Actually, by “those” I mean Republicans, and by “the Obama administration” I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.

The hearing convened Wednesday by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) produced a riveting narrative of the chaotic events in Libya last September. But what was the supposedly unforgivable crime?

Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so. But the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.

House Republicans who voted to cut funding for State Department security should understand that their philosophy — small government is always better — has consequences. Bureaucrats have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they will be wrong.

Well, then, maybe the transgression is that administration officials, for some unfathomable reason, willfully lied when they said the attack was in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and disseminated on the Internet.

The problem is that there were, in fact, tumultuous anti-American demonstrations taking place in cities throughout the Muslim world because of the video. President Obama labeled the Benghazi assault an act of terror almost immediately — as Mitt Romney learned in the second presidential debate — but it was hard to imagine that the attack was completely unrelated to what was happening in Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum and Jakarta.

I knew when the moment the GOP screechers were screaming about Benghazi back in September 2012 (and will go on forever), it was just another manufactured scandal to harm Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats.

h/t: Eugene Robinson at WaPo

Wednesday’s Congressional hearing on Benghazi is actually part two of the Benghazi show. Season two in the DVD box set, if you will.

Previously, on Benghazi!

Hillary Clinton, in her last appearance before Congressional committees as Secretary of State, was supposed to collapse at the feet of her GOP inquisitors, helpless before them as they posed for the cameras and delivered Fox-generated storylines. In reality, Clinton’s testimony resembled Neo from the Matrix, batting away nonsense and helping to remind the world why she has a historical legacy of her own apart from her husband.

Now with the latest dog and pony show, we will be treated to more GOP harrumphing and more Fox News alerts that will largely be about old, well-worn nonsense that the conservative media will treat as bombshells but turn out to be nothingburgers.

Pardon my grizzled cynicism, but I have seen this storyline before, with Clinton and Whitewater and breathless mumbles of scandal from the mainstream press that turned out to be nothing.

It’s all as fake as the claim that a tiny Arkansas land deal was an abuse of power. I’ve seen this show before, it sucks and it’s a perversion of our government. In other words, standard issue conservative politics.

More proof that the right-wing fearmongering about Benghazi is just a disgusting attempt to weaken Hillary Clinton’s chances for the Presidency or even the Democratic Party nomination in 2016.

H/T: Oliver Willis at The Daily Banter

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said he’s considering a run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 — and will spend the latter half of this year focusing on whether a White House bid is feasible.
 

“By the second half of this year, I need to be spending a lot more energy and time giving serious consideration and preparation to what if anything I might have to offer should I decide to run for president in 2016,” O’Malley, 50, told the Baltimore Sun’s editorial board on Wednesday. 

“The primary reason I think that my name has been mentioned occasionally in the company of such greats as Hillary Clinton, great public servants such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden is because of the accomplishments that we’ve had and the effectiveness that we’ve had through two administrations here in Baltimore and also at the state,” O’Malley added. 

“And so over the course and especially the latter half of this year, I need to properly allocate the attention, the time, the thought power, the brain power necessary to give the serious consideration to that weighty responsibility that it deserves.”

O’Malley, who is serving his second term as governor, just completed a legislative session in Annapolis that included passage of a new gun law that imposes some of the toughest restrictions in the nation. 

The bill mandates fingerprinting for people purchasing handguns, bans dozens of types of semiautomatic rifles and imposes a 10-round limit on magazines.

That gun bill and other legislation approved during O’Malley’s administration — including the legalization of gay marriage and the approval of in-state tuition to young illegal immigrants — are highly popular among Democratic primary voters. 

O’Malley also touts Maryland’s decision to repeal the death penalty and the imposition of higher gasoline taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure as achievements that could endear him to Democrats. 

“For the last 90 days I’ve been very much focused and very much absorbed with the very difficult things that we had to get done in this session,” O’Malley told the Sun. 

But O’Malley, though well known in Democratic circles, has a low national profile. 

A survey by Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling earlier this month found O’Malley with just 1 percent support among Democrats for the 2016 nomination. 

O’Malley was viewed favorably by 10 percent of those polled, and unfavorably by 12 percent. But fully 78 percent of voters weren’t sure. 

H/T: The Hill 

ST. LOUIS   •   Three-and-half years out, the race for Missouri governor has begun.

Democratic state Attorney General Chris Koster confirmed Tuesday that he is planning to seek the state’s top office in 2016, when fellow Democrat Jay Nixon — who just won his second term six months ago — will be forced out by term limits.

“We are making the necessary preparations and building consensus around the state toward that end,” Koster told the Associated Press in Jefferson City.

A Koster spokeswoman said later on Tuesday that he would have no further comment.

Koster made the comment in response to reporters’ questions, not as part of any formal announcement. Still, it essentially confirmed his long-expected candidacy and, with other recent events, had all the hallmarks of a coordinated party decision.

It came on the heels of Democratic state Treasurer Clint Zweifel’s announcement this week that he won’t seek the governor’s office in 2016, effectively clearing the field for Koster.

“The early move by the Democrats will allow the Republican Party three-plus years to define the ultra-liberal empty suit that is Chris Koster,” Missouri Republican Party Executive Director Shane Schoeller said in an emailed statement. “We now have a clear target.”

But to Democratic consultants like Jack Cardetti, the political benefits of having a clear party favorite and a possibly uncontested primary far outweigh any drawbacks.

“It helps with fundraising, with garnering political support, it helps with strategy,” said Cardetti, who noted Koster’s proven statewide electoral strength in his two campaigns for attorney general.

It also could put Republicans on the defensive and force the party to scramble for a 2016 standard-bearer. No clear one has yet emerged.

“They certainly have plenty of time to coalesce around a candidate,” said Cardetti. But until they do, “a lot of (donors) will be sitting on their hands,” waiting for a likely nominee.

Democrats are in an odd electoral position in Missouri, where they hold control of most statewide positions, but have been decimated in the Legislature. All of it is against the backdrop of a state electorate that has moved rightward in the past few years.

Democratic officials interviewed Tuesday repeatedly referenced the extraordinary importance the party is placing on unity, as a means of keeping the seats they’ve got and making inroads in Jefferson City.

That caution has been evident in the absence of virtually any public discord between major Democrats on the question of 2016, even as Zweifel and Koster rose as possible gubernatorial rivals.

Before Zweifel confirmed that he won’t run, he quietly informed top Democrats, including Nixon and Sen. Claire McCaskill, according to Zweifel spokesman Mike Pridmore.

Schoeller, the state GOP executive director, responded in his emailed statement: “Clint Zweifel stepping aside for Chris Koster is no great surprise following recent trends by Missouri Democrats. Of late, the Democrat playbook is to speak like a Republican then act like a liberal.”

No matter who the Republicans ultimately nominate to run, that candidate is likely to have the help of someone who has run against Koster before: Ed Martin, now chairman of the Missouri Republican Party. He was the party’s 2012 nominee for attorney general when Koster was seeking his current second term.

Martin tried to tie that contest to national ideological issues like Obamacare, where Republicans have a clear advantage among Missourians. Koster avoided that battle and made it a debate about professional qualifications and accomplishments. He ended up winning by 15 points.

In an emailed statement Tuesday, Martin characterized the potential GOP gubernatorial field in enthusiastic, if vague, terms. “Republicans have a bench as deep as the 1927 Yankees!” Martin wrote.

That bench may include John Brunner, the wealthy businessman who lost the Republican U.S. Senate nomination to Todd Akin last year before Akin went on to defeat against McCaskill. State auditor Tom Schweich has also been mentioned as a possible candidate. And Missouri has five Republican U.S. House members, several of whom could be serious contenders for the asking.

h/t: STLtoday.com

In conservatives’ preferred vision of America, we are a white Christian nation. And it is true that in the not too far distant past, we were, at least in numerical terms, an overwhelmingly white Christian nation.  In 1944, 80 percent of adults were white Christians.  But things have changed a lot since then.  Today only about 52 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024, that figure will be down to 45 percent. That means that by the election of 2016, the United States will have ceased to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians, who have been such a critical part of the GOP base, only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

Part of this of course is the inexorable march of race-ethnic change.  The white share of the population is declining at a rate of about a half percentage point a year and is expected to continue to do so for the next several decades.  But the other part of the shift away from white Christians is less well-understood: the rise of religious diversity.

There are two components to the rise of religious diversity: (1) increasing numbers of Americans who practice a non-Christian faith; and (2) increasing numbers of Americans who are secular or unaffiliated with any religion.  A recent Pew report sheds light on these important trends.

Part of the reason for this rapid growth is generational.  Pew’s study notes that, among the youngest Millennial adults—those born 1990-1994, over a third (34 percent) have no religious affiliation.

There are significant social and political implications to these trends.  Pew and other data consistently show how liberal the unaffiliated are, particularly on social issues.  And they vote that way: in the 2012 exit poll, the unaffiliated supported Obama over Romney, 70-26.  In addition, those of non-Christian faiths supported Obama by 72-27.  To add to conservatives’ woes, their strongest group, white evangelical protestants (78-21 Romney) actually declined by 2 percentage points in the 2007-2012 time period.

h/t:  Ruy Teixeira at Think Progress Election

Riding a wave of publicity following his epic filibuster of John Brennan, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) admitted in an interview published Thursday that he is considering a presidential bid in 2016.

“We’re looking at it very seriously,” Paul told Politico. “I think our party needs something new, fresh and different.”

h/t: TPM LiveWire

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) surprised immigration observers by reversing his own recent position and coming out against a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. According to excerpts of his new book, obtained by the Huffington Post, Bush’s position is a hard “no” on citizenship, except for certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country before they were 18. He does, however, leave open the prospect that undocumented immigrants could return to their native countries and apply for a green card through revamped legal channels, a route that could eventually lead to citizenship. 

Angling for 2016, perhaps?

h/t: TPM LiveWire

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, previewing Sen. Marco Rubio’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, Fox News political analyst Karl Rove labeled Rubio “the American experience” and declared him “probably one of the best communicators since Ronald Reagan.”

Over-the-top praise of Rubio on the network is nothing new. Rubio’s increasingly prominent role in the national political conversation is thanks, in part, to the help of Fox News, which has served as his primary cheerleader since his 2010 Senate campaign. 

In recent weeks, Rove in particular has showered praise on Rubio and his role in the debate over immigration reform. His comparison of Rubio to Reagan on The O’Reilly Factor wasn’t even the first time he had done so on Fox’s airwaves this month; he made similar comments during a February 4 appearance on Special Report. 

Rove isn’t alone in his adoration of the Florida senator. Fox personalities have fawned over Rubio on-air for years, boosted his 2010 Florida Senate run (including helping him fundraise on-air), hosted him for dozens of primetime appearances on the network, and repeatedly touted him as an ideal vice presidential pick for former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

When Marco Rubio declared his intention to run for the Florida Senate seat left open by Mel Martinez, he trailed Gov. Charlie Crist — then still a Republican — by a huge margin and seemed like a longshot candidate.

Less than a year and a half later, Rubio was elected comfortably. According to Rubio, his meteoric rise in the race is thanks in no small part to Fox News political analyst Karl Rove.

Appearing at a fundraising breakfast for Rove’s Crossroads political groups at the 2012 Republican National Convention, Rubio claimed it was “big news” when Rove personally donated money to his Senate campaign because it meant that ”someone of his stature would actually take a bet on someone who was such a long shot.”

Rove’s help for Rubio extended well beyond sending personal checks; the Crossroads groups poured nearly $3 million (by Rove’s accounting) into the race. During his fundraising pitch for Crossroads at the RNC, Rubio specifically praised the ads Rove’s groups ran in his favor, saying “you would turn on the TV and there were ads that created a clear distinction, and did so in ways that were meaningful.”

Rove wasn’t the only Fox personality that helped Rubio’s Senate run — the network practically went all-in for him.

During his Senate run, Rubio was also formally endorsed — in addition to being praised on-air — by several Fox personalities, including former contributors Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum. In addition to endorsing Rubio, Fox host Mike Huckabee gave material support to his campaign in the form of a $5,000 donation from his political group, Huck PAC.

h/t: MMFA

Late last week, democracy scored two important victories over a Republican plan to rig future presidential elections by changing the way electoral votes are counted in several key blue states. Two Virginia Republican state senators spoke out against the plan, effectively killing it. And Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R) attacked the election-rigging scheme as trying to “change the rules of the game.”

In Michigan, however, which is the bluest of the six blue states where the election-rigging plan has been discussed, state House Speaker Jase Bolger (R) appears quite open to rigging his state’s electoral college votes to benefit Republicans.

In other words, Republican voters in Michigan are upset that Democrats win elections simply because there are more of them. And Bolger wants to fix that by giving the few Republicans more votes than the majority.

h/t: Ian Millhiser at Think Progress Justice

WASHINGTON — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) did not rule out allocating the state’s electoral votes proportionally Saturday.

“It’s an interesting idea,” he told a Newsmax interviewer at the National Review Institute Summit in Washington after speaking at a lunch. “I haven’t committed one way or the other to it. For me, and I think any other state considering this, you should really look at not just the short-term but the long-term implications. Is it better or worse for the electorate?

Said Walker, “Some might argue that it would give more opportunity for candidates to jump in; others suggest it might reduce it.”

“I think we have to very careful in changes like that. But I think it’s worth looking at,” he said.

h/t: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/scott-walker-electoral-vote_n_2558362.html