The rise of Liberal Catholics? (Or really, how they never went away in the first place)

Via Lawrence on the Last Word:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Finally, something Megan Fox did I can watch without shame or loss of pride! Even though its a year old. (VIDEO)

Great catch by @steveweinstein.

After surviving the horrors of Transformers 1 & 2 (on HBO only, never in the theaters), I finally have a piece of Megan Fox footage I can watch without shame.

Hot for Teachers w/ Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green from Megan Fox

I'm just sorry I missed it when it came out. My bad.

But think, this was out there when y'all were going to the ballot box, and the problem's not only still there, its gotten worse.  Way to go people who didn't help re-elect Democrats.

Keith is back doing "You're Not Doing It Right Television" again. Thomas Ricks answers him the day before (VIDEO)

Ummm, does Keith ever listen to his guests, or does he only listen to them when they're on his show?  Are his guests just situationally convenient?

What am I saying?  Of course, they were situationally convenient, it's Television for pity's sake.

So here's Keith, sans Network until later this Spring (Spring having started on Monday), with his first "Special Comment" post MSNBC:



Keith even pulled a Dennis Kucinich:

After that Imperial period of a few days, a President – this one included – is required to either call it off, or justify why it must continue, or maybe even follow the Constitution and get approval from Congress by explaining the threat to this country that rationalizes the continuing action. Especially when we now have American pilots bailing out over hostile territory.

Ummm...ahhh...

Okay, Keith at least paid tangential attention to the War Powers Act of 1973.

But Keith apparently doesn't read his former Countdown guest Thomas Ricks's column, because he addressed this the day before:

Everybody's going all wobbly over Libya, except those who never liked the idea in the first place. Tom's advice: Calm down. We have done what we set out to do in Libya. We kicked the door down, and with radars and SAM sites degraded, have made it possible for lesser air forces to patrol the skies over Qaddafi.

We should now say, OK, we have created the conditions, time for you all to have the courage of your convictions. The goal now for the United States, I think, is a negative one: To not be conducting a no-fly zone over Libya 5 years or even 5 months from now. If the French and Italians want to park the good ships Charles de Gaulle and Garibaldi off the Libyan coast, good. And if the Arab states want to maintain an air cap over Benghazi, fine. Step right up, fellas.

As for the American military, let's knock off the muttering in the ranks about clear goals and exit strategies. Fellas, you need to understand this is not a football game but a soccer match. For the last 10 years, our generals have talked about the need to become adaptable, to live with ambiguity. Well, this is it. The international consensus changes every day, so our operations need to change with it. Such is the nature of war, as Clausewitz reminds us. Better Obama's cautious ambiguity than Bush's false clarity. Going into Iraq, scooping up the WMD, and getting out by September 2003 -- now that was a nice clear plan. And a dangerously foolish one, too. The clearer we are now about command and control, rules of engagement and other organizational aspects of the intervention, the harder it will be to pass if off. Better they do it in their own way than we make it so they can only do it our way.

Thomas Ricks, valuable Military expert during the Iraq War. Libya comes up, and its Thomas Ricks who?

A nice explanation of what goes on in a Nuclear Reactor (VIDEO)

Via Ta-Neishi Coates, but of course I picked it up reading Ezra Klein.

This is of course, the beauty of the web and, specifically, the beauty of YouTube.  Now, we are no longer totally depending on the Nightly News to come out and with their 20 second segment on how a Nuclear Reactor works.  Now, an independent expert, who's not necessarily TV friendly (though I'd put this guy on the air) can put up his or her own video, and share his or her expertise.  Best of all, that expert can take as long as they want to explain something and its available to the viewer 24 hours a day, on demand, for free (provided you have internet access).

What if Qaddafi had succeeded? What if we had another Rwanda on our hands, and we sat on our hands and did nothing? (VIDEO)

It has been interesting, seeing the fault lines of who's for and who's against the operation in Libya. Republicans, depending on who you ask, (and what time of day it is) are either for or against it. Same with Democrats and Liberals. VoteVets doesn't seem comfortable with the operation, yet Steve Clemons and other Foreign Policy officials seem to on board with the idea and necessity, though they have their doubts about success.

Myself, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of going into this operation without a solid way out, but as Thomas Ricks explained yesterday:

I grow weary of talk of an "exit strategy." It is a canard and a false concept. Can anyone remember the last time there actually was an exit strategy going in that actually worked? Military actions aren't interstates.

What he's saying is true. Battle strategy lasts only up until the moment you make contact with the enemy. You can't dictate how that's going to go any more than how you're going to leave. Any illusions to the contrary are the products of deluded minds who've never fired a shot in battle.

Oh, and for the record, I've never fired a shot in battle either, so...

At the same time, despite Smeagol's calls for Impeachment, Butters' demands that we "take the lead" or general Congressional demands that the President get Congressional permission first (which wasn't needed...Congress having abrogated its responsibility in these matters years ago), there's another thing that's escaped the attention of the Pundit-class:

What if Qaddafi had succeeded? What if we had another Rwanda or Balkans on our hands, and we sat on our hands and did nothing?

One of the things that annoys me about all the Congressional demands in this matter, is that it's not about process, it's about C.Y.A., covering (your...or in this case their) ass. They're only questioning it now because the outcome is uncertain, but you can bet your ass that if the Libyan mission comes off successfully (definition of success, TBD), Congress-critters and Senators will be lining up to take credit.

If the President had done nothing, these same people would be lining up to demand he take action. Why did he let this happen? (Notice, there wouldn't be any discussion of Congressional process after blood had been spilled). Why did the President let all those noble Libyans die in the streets like dogs?

But in the meantime, the President was faced with a choice. I don't think he wanted to interfere, for good or for ill in Libya. Then he started getting pressure from the French (and I'm pretty sure, the Italians) both of whom do major business in Libya. And then Qaddafi started to mow down civilians, and threatened to have his own apocalypse in Benghazi.

So the President acted. American Planes and Tomahawks are doing the things that the French, Italians and maybe Qataris can't do. We're paving the way. We're taking out Qaddafi's Anti-Aircraft batteries and support systems. We're making it impossible for him to shoot back. We've stopped the slaughter in Benghazi. We're providing logistical support and I do believe that by this weekend, we'll be done. Partly because there won't be anything left to shoot at, and partly because it'll be up to the rebels at that point.

Funny, I wrote all that...then I clicked over to watch Rachel Maddow's interview with Steve Clemons (Publisher of the Washington Note), and he pretty much said the exact same thing. But credit to him and the other Foreign Policy-types on the Left. Methinks they said it better, and said it first.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Switching gears ever so slightly. Of all the people I'd thought would be against this thing, Juan Cole was at the top of my list (as an Ohio State Fan, I'll forgive his unfortunate association with that University). To be fair, he's not cheerleading this thing from the sidelines. At the same time, he seems rather clear eyed about what's been going on in Libya, and the differences between it and Iraq:

1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.

2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.

3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.

4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).

5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.

6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.

7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last “days, not months” before being turned over to other United Nations allies.

8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.

9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.

10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.

If Reason No. 10 is true, then I do have to ask, why isn't it the mission of the United States to take Qaddafi down, especially if it imperils the Arab 1848 we've all been watching from afar?

Courtesy @EllnMllr. Where exactly did the Kock Brothers "make it rain" this year, and for who? (IMAGE)

Courtesy of Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation. Koch Brother's money...apparently, it's not just for Republicans anymore. I see some blue dots around there.

But look how much money has hit the South.

Powered by Tableau

And Dan Boren (D-OK), why am I not surprised.

More on the legality of the Libyan Mission...

Courtesy of @awienick, we have yet another viewpoint of the legality of the mission in Libya:

The clear legal authority for actions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council lies within the United Nations Participation Act.

Title 22, Section 7, § 287d. Use of armed forces; limitations

The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution, providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein...

I had actually never heard of the United Nations Participation Act before this, but it's U.S. Code now. It's Law.

Suffice it to say that this is only a matter of the legality of the attacks on Libya, not about whether you think they're right or wrong. There's a clear argument to be made against these attacks, and its one that I'm not only willing to hear it, I may even agree with...a little.

But as far as Kucinich's statement that this is an impeachable offense, that notion seems to be complete and utter nonsense.

In case you ever wondered why I can't stand Dennis Kucinich, here he is calling for Obama's Impeachment.

Yeah, it happened:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says President Obama should be impeached over the Libya campaign.

A short while ago a couple of our reporters were asking questions on the history of the War Powers Act and the necessity for a declaration of war for the president to go to war.

[Josh Marshall of TPM] explained that the current constitutional rule is that a president doesn't have to do anything to send the military into battle. Except in cases where the ruling party believes an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) sets the party up well for the next election campaign.

That last sentence was a bit of snark from Josh, but was factually correct. The President and Congress have been battling over this for decades. It focuses on the War Powers Act of 1973.

So what is the War Powers Act of 1973? Well...

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

That paragraph came from Wikipedia. The text of the Law can be found at the above referenced link.

Also, Wikipedia mentioned this:

The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it became law. In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Because it limits the President's authority in the use of force without an official resolution or declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the Presidential position that the Resolution is unconstitutional.

Thus, the President consistent with the War Powers Act did this today:

Obama has now sent a letter to leaders of Congress defining the mission, in keeping with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requiring a report to Congress within 48 hours of commencing military action, and it contains rebuttals of both lines of criticism.

Obama is taking criticism from the right for failing to articulate “regime change” as a goal of the mission. But his letter to Congressional leaders unapologetically sticks to the narrower definition of the mission as tailored to halting violence and preventing a humanitarian disaster:

These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners...

United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

My ultimate problem with Kucinich is that I...I...

What am I doing?

Jesus, why am I going to write something new when I wrote up this very point last August?

I probably agree with Dennis Kucinich 98% of the time (the idea for a Department of Peace is just ridiculous) but it doesn't mean I like him, nor does it mean I trust him. The same goes for the others. Watching the Professional Left's behavior over the last two years has frankly been the thing that turned me into a Liberal who hates other Liberals.

I think there is a responsibility for those of us on Left to hold the President accountable, as he has asked. But there is also a responsibility for those of us on Left to deal in facts, to understand that ideology is a way of looking at the world, not a purity checklist (again, Republican behavior), to understand how, where and why a piece of legislation goes wrong, to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and most of all, to keep working.

In short Dennis's call for the President's impeachment was a Ideological purity test, and had nothing to do with the reality of law. Like it or not, and I know a lot of Liberals don't like it, the President is...well, being consistent with the Law.

If Kucinich wants to do something about this (and I really doubt that he does, it's all about the Kleig lights for him), he can rally for Congressional Action in the 30-60 day time period.

The Fireside Chat for March 19th, 2011 (VIDEO)

Even as the President maintains his focus on international crises in Japan and Libya, he discusses his trip to Latin America to open up markets for US products.

The Economist: "Shoe-Thrower" Index

Interesting. How accurate it turns out to be is another matter, it is (after all) the Economist.

SINCE our "shoe-thrower’s index" was published on February 9th, Bahrain and, most prominently, Libya, have continued to witness further unrest and demand for regime change. The index attempted to predict where trouble across the Arab world was most likely to arise by applying a subjective weighting to factors such as the length of time the leader had been in power, GDP per person and the level of democracy. We have added two further indicators that were not included in the original—the adult literacy rate and the percentage of people who are internet users—and made the whole index interactive. You can apply your own weightings to each variable to see which country may be the next to experience political upheaval. The index is presented with the weights used in the original version, but differs slightly from that version as some figures have been updated.

Rachel does a very good job of explaining the difference between Three Mile Island, Chernobyl...and what's going on now (VIDEO)

Here I am, trying to take a week off (from work), and Japan keeps pulling me in:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Fireside Chat for March 12th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President pays homage to former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, commends the great strides that have been made to create a more equal American society, and reaffirms his resolve to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Breaking: The Arab League endorses a Libyan No-Fly Zone...

With this level of cover, NATO Support, European allies support, and now actual Arab support, I think this means, a No-Fly Zone is gonna happen.

This may not be as bad as I earlier feared now. With Arab League support, one supposes that there will be ground support for downed aircraft should it come to that.

And I would appreciate it, if people (rather, pundits) would wait a spell before making broad pronouncem--

--oh, that's right. They've got papers to sell.

Not...good... (VIDEO)

I think this counts as an Oh-my-God-moment:

An explosion rocked one of Japan's nuclear power plants Saturday, causing a portion of a building to crumble, sending white smoke billowing into the air and prompting Japanese officials to warn people in the vicinity to cover their mouths and stay indoors.

In what may become the most serious nuclear power crisis since the Chernobyl disaster, the explosion followed large tremors at the Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 reactor Saturday afternoon, injuring four workers who were struggling to get the quake-stricken unit under control.

Earlier, Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency had warned that the reactor, whose cooling system had been crippled by the giant earthquake on Friday, could be nearing a meltdown and that two radioactive substances, cesium and radioactive iodine, had already been detected nearby.

The President's Press Conference for March 11, 2011 (VIDEO)

A message from Jon Erpenbach (D-WI). What's Next...

Far be it from me to...ahem...amend one of Jon Stewart's bits, but...

Actually, his bit last night about GITMO's non-closure was pretty good...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
MoveOn.Aww - Trials Resume for Guantanamo Detainees
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

...but it left out a detail that Adam Serwer (this time writing at Greg Sargent' Plum Line blog) reminds everyone about:

Gitmo isn't open because the administration doesn't want to close it, although its efforts in this area are ripe for criticism. It's still open because Republicans in Congress successfully frightened Democrats in Congress out of giving the administration the necessary funds to close it when they had control of Congress. In the process, they've managed to obscure the original reason detainees were brought to Gitmo -- to keep them away from the scrutiny of the federal courts. Once the Supreme Court held that federal courts had jurisdiction and even habeas rights, the facility was useless for that purpose. Republicans are determined to keep it open not because we can't safely imprison terrorists in the U.S., but because they feel its ongoing presence vindicates Bush in the eyes of history.

Well, Florida, you wanted Rick Scott...you got him. And frankly, you deserve it..

Great piece from the New York Times.  Well, Florida...what goes for Wisconsin, goes for you.

This is what you get when you vote America's greatest Medicare Fraud in as Governor, because you wanted to send a message to Washington.  What's going to happen to you was preventable.  You had a chance to vote for Alex Sink, and instead, you get this:

In his first two months in office, [Governor Rick Scott] has irritated the State Senate’s powerful Budget Committee chairman by selling two state jets without legislative permission, a constitutional no-no. The governor wanted the sale done quickly (he uses his own plane), and he succeeded.

He annoyed the ambitious Senate president, as well as a host of leaders in conservative states, by trying to kill off a database to track the fraudulent distribution of addictive prescription drugs before it was up and running. He did so without consulting lawmakers, calling the monitoring system an invasion of privacy.

Most recently, Mr. Scott rejected $2.4 billion in federal stimulus money to build a high-speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando, which he saw as too big a financial drain on state taxpayers in the long term.

His refusal to take the money prompted new bouts of discord; a staunch conservative Republican from central Florida joined forces with a Democrat in filing a lawsuit last month, and 26 lawmakers signed a letter to the federal transportation secretary urging him to basically ignore the governor and send the money anyway. (The State Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Scott’s favor on Friday.)

As State Senator Arthenia L. Joyner, a lawyer and the Democrat who took Mr. Scott to court, put it at a news conference about the suit: “It’s necessary at this time, I think — because our governor’s new — to let him know this is not a monarchy. He’s not a king. This is a democracy.”

Mr. Scott’s go-it-alone style of governing was on display vividly last month when he chose to unveil his two-year budget 200 miles from Tallahassee, in the rural town of Eustis, at a rally jammed with Tea Party supporters. Mr. Scott, who wants to promote business in the state and drastically reduce the government’s reach, proposes slashing $4.1 billion in spending and cutting property and corporate income taxes.

It didn't have to be this way.

At least Wisconsin's got a recall measure.

The Fireside Chat for March 5th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President calls for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a budget that cuts wasteful spending without sacrificing job creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure.

Rachel Maddow asks "What's next? Hire Dog The Bounty Hunter to go get them wayward Democrats?"

Apparently...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Story of the Citizens United Case, now with animation! (VIDEO)

I've never heard of "The Story of Stuff" before this, but...you can bet I'll be paying attention to them from now on. This was good stuff.

Now I'm going after MoveOn? What the hell kind of Friday is this?

I got this Email from MoveOn (a solicitation for funds, of course) that read:

Dear MoveOn member,

Republican politicians in Wisconsin have gone mad with power.

Yesterday, the state Senate president issued arrest warrants for the brave Democratic state senators who left Wisconsin to stop the attacks on workers. And Republicans have locked down the Capitol building, even denying access to firefighters responding to an emergency call.

Here's my problem. There's nothing factually wrong with the opening of that letter. The hyperbole might hook you if you...you know...haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Wisconsin. And let's be honest, Liberals have been paying attention.

Yeah, the State Senate is calling for the Democrats arrest, and something was voted on to that effect.

But here's a couple things MoveOn left out, because reminding you of these facts don't make for good fundraising.

One, the Senate unanimously voted on a resolution to arrest the fleeing Democrats. A resolution is not a law. It does not have the power of law. Only a Law is a Law. A resolution is a way for a Legislative body to say, in effect, we really, really, really feel strongly about this...but can't do nuthin' about it.

For the State Senate to pass a law, there needs to be a quorum...also known as minimum number of Senators in attendance. If you recall, that's kinda the reason the Democrats went on the run in the first place.

Two, the head of the Wisconin Police Union isn't so sure such a law (if it were passed) would be Constitutional:

"It's unclear to me on what constitutional authority Senate Republicans think law enforcement officers can take state lawmakers who have not committed a crime into custody," James Palmer, the head of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, told me by phone moments ago.

The GOP proposal would not allow for the arrest of the missing Dems, but would allow for lawmakers to be taken into custody by the Senate sergeant-at-arms if they don't return to the capitol by today at 4 p.m.

"I don't see how a sergeant-at-arms would have that authority," said Palmer, whose union represents all municipal police officers. "I don't see how any individual, law enforcement or otherwise, has the authority to detain another individual if there's no probable cause to suggest that he committed any crime."

Palmer's union endorsed Governor Walker's opponent in the gubernatorial election. But one local paper, the Wisconsin State Journal, also raised the possibility today that the move may be unconstiutional.

So good luck with that, State Senate!

Three. You can look at what happened with the Firefighters being denied access to the State Capitol as totalitarian overreach, or you can look at it as I look at it...as a lawsuit waiting to happen.

If Scott Walker is hell bent on keeping protestors out of the State Capitol (something already in violation of court order and the State Constitution), he better pray that no one gets seriously hurt during his hamfisted rule. If someone, a Legislator say, has a heart attack in the Capitol, and is denied care by Walker's edict, then Walker, and the State are going to get sued for an amount of money that's going to make their current budget shortfall look like chicken-feed in comparison.

That may be why a Judge told Walker to back off and open up the Capitol this morning.

Also, having Police roughing up a Democratic Assemblyman going into the Capitol to get his clothes doesn't help your look.

Listen, I respect MoveOn and what they do, but we don't need bull@#$% hyperbole. Leave that to the teabaggers. Facts are plenty for Liberals/Progressives.

All they had to do was write an email, saying basically. Look, we're trying to get some of the State Senators recalled, and we need your financial help to do it (something they eventually got around to saying)

TPM: Actual excellent news from Ohio's Union battles...

Ohio, I expect you to get out there and sign, sign, sign:

As the Ohio state House prepares to take up the controversial collective bargaining and union rights provisions contained in the just-passed state Senate Bill 5, union supporters and Democrats are looking ahead to a battle that will put the legislation in the hands of people they say are on their side: the voters of Ohio.

Though they plan to fight SB 5 tooth-and-nail as it works its way through the Republican-controlled House, leaders of the SB 5 opposition tell TPM that they don't expect to win there. There are 59 Republicans in the House and just 40 Democrats, meaning there's little chance for a repeat of the drama seen in the Senate, where SB 5 passed by just one vote.

But, thanks to the eccentricities of Ohio law, passage in the House doesn't mean SB 5 is guaranteed to go into effect. Though they more than likely can't stop it in the legislature, the opposition can potentially block its implementation by promising to take it on at the ballot box. That means the fight over SB 5 could extend for months -- maybe even all the way to November, 2012.

Union leaders and Democrats have already begun shifting their focus to a referendum fight, which would require union supporters to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures in the days following an expected signing of SB 5 by Gov. John Kasich (R).


Once that's done, the law could be placed on hold (meaning it wouldn't go into effect at all) while Ohio waits to see what voters have to say about SB 5. And that's a fight the Democrats say they can win.

But the best news, that this will be decided in November of 2012?  Just when I started to worry about Ohio going going Republican in 2012, this happens.

Right in the middle of the President's re-elect, energized and pissed off Union Voters going to the ballot box to stuff SB 5 back in Kasich's face...oh and by the way, pulling the lever for Obama at the same time.

(Still, just like Wisconsin, I'm not thrilled with Ohio voters for putting Kasich in, in the first place.  Again, this didn't have to happen.)

As I said...actual excellent news.

I'm going to take a moment, and bash my fellow Liberals in Wisconsin...but just for a moment.

This has just been contrarian March, hasn't it?  First off, I've got to admit that Dr. Paul Krugman (king of all things economic and numerical) has made a solid political observation.

A quick note on polling and voting: as more and more polls come out showing that the public does not, in fact, hate public workers and their unions, there’s been a stock answer — namely, that the real poll took place in November, so who cares what a thousand or so people say now.

Aside from the fact that this reveals a complete failure to understand the statistics of polling, what it really gets wrong is what the election represented. Voters were not, in fact, asked to vote on what Republican governors like Scott Walker are now trying to do; in a real sense what we’re seeing is a case of bait and switch.

And here again, I find myself flashing back to the Bush years. In 2004 Bush won a national election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists; as soon as the election was done, he declared that this gave him a mandate to … privatize Social Security. Not so much, it turned out.

The one thing I've got to say is that as much as I stand with my Union Brothers and Sisters in Wisconsin, I'm also mighty pissed at the voters of Wisconsin.

Why?  They let this freak, Scott Walker, get into office in the first place because they were "trying to send a message" to President Obama that they were pissed about the Economy.

(Oh, and for record, Milwaukee (especially you, Sherry)...you're excused from this. You knew what this freak was like.  You did your best to never let him see the inside of the Governor's office except with a tour guide.)

Politicians always view their mandates in the affirmative. The next time a Politician admits: "Yeah, I know I won by four points, but the voters were really turned off my opponent and voted for me as a protest" will be the first time.

Everything, even decisions won by a handful of votes is automatically become a "mandate" and a green light to do what they want.

Perhaps you might recall something I wrote back in September:

...voting in Congressional Democrats, as lame as they are, are not Barack Obama's reward for doing a good job. They are not points accumulating in some political video game you're playing in your head. You are not, as you deluded jack-offs seem to think, sending any kind of a message this way. Either you want a Liberal or Progressive Agenda to succeed or you don't. If you do, you first vote for the best candidate in the primaries. You can fall in love all you want during the primaries. You can vote for the most progressive, green, uber-Liberal man or woman you want.

But when the General Election happens, you fall in @#$%ing line.

Hopefully, your dream Candidate has made it to the General Election as the Democratic Nominee, but if he or she hasn't, then guess what?: the people have spoken however lame that may be. And you better get on board, because you the opposition is never going to give your ideas the time of day. Better a Blanche Lincoln, as worthless a Senate Candidate as she may be than whatever neo-Teabagger wingnut that's running against her.

But Liberals never figure that out until its waaaay too late.

Well, it's March now, and watching what's going on in Wisconsin, it's waaaay too late...again.

Betcha wish you voted, but nooooo.  You just had to send a protest vote. You managed to lose one of the more genuinely committed Liberals in the nation, one Russ Feingold. You decided to stay home.

So how's this all working out for you?

Fingers crossed, I still think we're gonna win this thing in Wisconsin...but I wanted to be on the record: it didn't have to be this way. 

Thomas Ricks' six handy tips to remember before imposing a No-Fly Zone

Thomas Ricks (author of Fiasco) has some helpful hints to those (like me) who were (notice I'm using the past tense) advocating for a no-fly zone:

1. Imposing a no-fly zone is an act of war. For example, it would require attacking Qaddafi's air defense systems-not just anti-aircraft guns and missile batteries, but also radar and communications systems. We may also need some places out in the desert to base helicopters to pick up downed fliers. So, first question: Do we want to go to war with Qaddafi?

2. Hmmm, another American war in an Arab state -- what's not to like?

3. How long are we willing to continue this state of war? What if we engage in an act of war, and he prevails against the rebels? Do we continue to fight him, escalate -- or just slink away? And what do we do about aircrews taken prisoner?

4. And if we are going to go to war with his government, why not just try to finish the job quickly and conduct air strikes against him and his infrastructure? In this sense, a no-fly zone is a half measure, which generally is a bad idea in war. Why risk going to war and losing? That is, if we are willing to do air strikes, why not go the whole way and use ground troops now to go in and topple a teetering regime? I actually would prefer this option.

5. See what I mean?

6. No, the Iraqi no-fly zones are not a good precedent to cite. I actually went out and looked at the operation of the northern no-fly zone in October of 2000. I came away thinking that one reason that no American aircraft were shot down in the Iraqi no-fly zones was because Saddam Hussein really did not want to-that is, he did not want to provoke America. The anti-aircraft shots that were taken were wide on purpose. A better parallel might be Serbia, which (aided by a smart Hungarian national who now is a baker) managed to down an F-117 stealth fighter aircraft in March 1999 with an SA-3 anti-aircraft missile.

As General Mattis once said, if you're going to take Vienna, take f---ing Vienna.

Tip of the hat to Andrew Sullivan for first catching this.

Also explains why the administration hasn't exactly been leaping onto this idea with any sort of gusto.

TPM: Rep. Ron Paul: "Education is Not a Right" (VIDEO)

You can vote for who you want to, but this is who you're dealing with:

No one has a right to anyone's wealth, I don't have a right to come to you and say my poor kid needs 500 dollars for an education, an education is not a right, medical care is not a right.

-Ron Paul

Today

Republican in Wisconsin tells (most of the) actual truth about what's going on (VIDEO)

Great catch by Andrew Sullivan.



This guy seems to know what time it is, laying in to the State Senate Leader and the Governor, like he did. Still, this guy won't committ to shooting the bill down on principle. One must wonder at the end of the day what good is he.

UPDATE: 5:20pm Pacific: Also, "let's tackle this budget, but not raise taxes"? As much respect as I want to show this guy, how seriously can I take him when he says that.

He is a Republican, after all.

And now comes the part where I correct the correction, which itself was corrected...

Yeah, I don't know what the hell is going on anymore.

W.H. not ruling out attack on Libya

-- This was Carney’s response when he was asked if the White House is considering an attack on Libya: “We are actively considering a variety of options. We have not ruled any options out.”

The one problem I have with specific conservatives like Scott Walker and Newt Ginrich, it's not that I find their ideas appalling (which of course I do), its just their certainty that their ideas are the only ideas worth having, and therefore debate with them is pointless.

I don't want to be that guy.

As much as it's mildly embarrassing to correct a posting here or there, I'd rather be the type of blogger who looks you in your virtual eye and shrugs "I dunno", rather than make something up to make myself look good. If I take a guess, you'll know its a freaking guess.

And if I don't know, I'm gonna tell you...as I'm telling you now...I don't know.

Not that I don't appreciate MoveOn.org, but...

I got this in the mail (email) today:

The Wisconsin 14--the brave Democratic state senators who left the state to stop the Republican attacks on workers--are under increasing pressure to return to Wisconsin. And as soon as just one does, Republicans will be able to jam through their terrible bill.

Unfortunately, there have been credible reports over the last 24 hours that this is imminent.

There was an petition, which I signed, showing my support for the Wisconsin 14, but I knew better. How did I know better?

Well, there's this:

TPM just spoke to Wisconsin Democratic state Sen. Chris Larson, one of the fugitive Dems who has left the state in order to block the three-fifths quorum needed for a vote on Gov. Scott Walker's anti-public employee union proposals, regarding the state Senate GOP's newly-passed fines of $100 per day for the absent Dems. And the way Larson tells it, the fines don't faze him and his fellow Democrats.

"They've become increasingly desperate with these petty things that they're throwing out there," Larson said. "The next thing they're gonna throw out is we're gonna have to say 'Mother, may I' before anybody can talk."

And more importantly, this:

"Well, we'll have to see when we go back," said Larson. "We'll go over it with some lawyers. The fact is, it's giving - it's not making us think about it twice. We're focused on preserving workers' rights, preserving the way of life in Wisconsin without these huge cuts to rights. That's what we're focused on.

"If they want to throw out fines, if they want to call us names and if they want to take over our staff, they're doing everything they can to ignore what the real issue is, and that's that they're going too far with their power grab. The public is crying foul and calling them out on their power grab, and they're just ignoring it."

He also added: "What they do to us is of little consequence, compared to what they're doing to themselves right now."

Umm, does it sound to you like their return is "imminent"???

Nate and the Bonddad talk Oil, the Recovery, and the President's Re-Election...

First we have Nate's piece from this morning:

The price of oil is on the rise — above $100 a barrel in overnight markets — while President Obama’s approval ratings may be on the decline.

So far any change in the president’s standing has been modest, and it would be premature to conclude that higher gas prices are the cause. But if they continue to rise, what sort of threat might they pose to his re-election prospects?

There are two things we need to consider. First are the direct effects: do higher gas prices, by themselves, tend to significantly damage the president’s standing? Then there are the indirect effects: the way that higher fuel prices could ricochet onto the economic recovery, and impact variables like G.D.P. growth and inflation that have been shown to correlate with a president’s re-election chances.

Ultimately, Nate said there’s not a lot of evidence that oil prices are all that important for the President's re-election chances.

But what about the greater economy? For that, we turn to the Bonddad:

I believe the evidence is clear: the U.S. economy is in the middle of a recovery. We've had six straight quarters of GDP growth, a solid manufacturing sector and a recovering service sector. Other countries are growing, which is giving strong support to U.S. exports. PCEs are now higher on an inflation adjusted basis than pre-recession levels. The two laggards are employment (which is typical as it is a lagging indicator) and housing (which will be a problem area for the next year at least). So, will the current spike in oil prices derail the recovery?

I don't believe we are there yet for several reasons. First, the events in the oil market are only a week old. (although they seem to have gone on far longer). Second, I think the overall economic recovery now has legs -- the recovery is no longer fueled by government spending and inventory restocking but by broader based foreign and domestic demand. As previously mentioned, PCEs are up and increasing; retail sales (a smaller subset of this data) are also doing well. Businesses are investing and commercial real estate is coming back. While the increase in demand is still new, it is there. A broader economic recovery implies one that is harder to slow down by external shocks.

"To prepare the full range of options..." or not.

This blog maintains a sensibility roughly akin to one of my favorite TV Shows: Anthony Bourdain's No Resevations (only with Politics, instead of Food).

Like the Travel Channel star, I try to put our mistakes up there for all to see.

So you might recall me getting all beligerent and saying this:

What...did I say?

The United States is moving naval and air forces, including an aircraft carrier, into the Mediterranean Sea near Libya, U.S. officials said Monday, as the Obama administration and its allies consider how to respond to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's brutal efforts to suppress a widespread rebellion among civilians and army troops.

Yeah. About that...

I picked up a copy of the Guardian (ahem...scrolled through my RSS feed) and saw this:

Cameron backtracks on Libya no-fly zone plan as US distances itself 

David Cameron's suggestion of establishing no-fly zone over Libya and arming rebels shot down by US and France

Britain has backtracked from its belligerent military stance over Libya after the Obama administration publicly distanced itself from David Cameron's suggestion that Nato should establish a no-fly zone over the country and that rebel forces should be armed.

As senior British military sources expressed concern that Downing Street appeared to be overlooking the dangers of being sucked into a long and potentially dangerous operation, the prime minister said Britain would go no further than contacting the rebel forces at this stage.

Mea freakin' culpa on that one.

Also, last night's Haiti season premiere was pretty damn good. Depressing as all get out, but good and informative.

"To prepare the full range of options..." II

What...did I say?

The United States is moving naval and air forces, including an aircraft carrier, into the Mediterranean Sea near Libya, U.S. officials said Monday, as the Obama administration and its allies consider how to respond to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's brutal efforts to suppress a widespread rebellion among civilians and army troops.

The U.S. decision comes as Gadhafi appeared to be making a concerted effort to retake control of Zawiyah, a town about 30 miles west of Tripoli that has been in rebel hands since last week. Two people reached separately by phone said heavy fighting had broken out in the early evening as militias loyal to Gadhafi attacked from both the east and the west.

U.S. officials said no decision had been made about how the U.S. forces would be used, but that one option under consideration is the imposition of a no-fly zone designed to prevent Gadhafi from using aircraft as he fought the rebels.

That was from McClatchy.

And according to the BBC, it looks like we're going from thinking about it, to planning it:

Britain is working with its allies on a plan to establish a military no-fly zone over Libya, says David Cameron.

The prime minister said the threat of "further appalling steps" being taken by Col Muammar Gaddafi to oppress his own people was behind the talks.

He said he did not rule out "the use of military assets" in Libya and said the "murderous regime" must end.

Rare is the step we take without the Brits. There's a reason its the "Special Relationship".

The Fireside Chat for February 26th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President discusses the examples he’s seen across the country of how we can win the future, urging Congress to heed these examples in the budget -- to tighten our belts without eliminating investments in innovation, education and infrastructure.

Jon Stewart's (latest) Interview with Austan Goolsbee (VIDEO)

With Fort McHenry's continuing Goolsebee Coverage.

The Daily Show - Austan Goolsbee
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

There doesn't seem to be an unedited version of this Interview. (You might notice a heavy edit near the beginning of the segment).

Also, was it just me, was Jon a wee more skeptical in this interview than in previous ones. Things are looking up, Jon...just so you know.

And did Jon put the deficit on Obama?? What was that???

Where Rachel Maddow kicks the crap out of Politifact (because she had to) (VIDEO)

Wow.

I tend to really like Politifact and tend to not like Rachel so much (even though she's an ideological colleague). But watching this segment where Rachel was right and Politifact was wrong, wrong, wrong was horrifying:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Politifact stuff begins about 6:20 in the video.

Methinks John Nichols is just getting warmed up, and serious trouble may lay ahead for Scott Walker (AUDIO)

Because he's pissed off...and curious.

Yesterday, John Nichols of the Nation Magazine dropped a phone call to the Randi Rhodes show to talk about how Scott Walker may have committed a serious ethics violation in a State that has, in his words, the "toughest ethics Laws in the country":



Whoops.

Here's the opening bit from Mr. Nichols Nation piece that was mentioned:

When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker discussed strategies to lay off state employees for political purposes, to coordinate supposedly “independent” political expenditures to aid legislatures who support his budget repair bill and to place agent provocateurs on the streets of Madison in order to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, he committed what the former attorney general of Wisconsin says could turn out to be serious ethics, election law and labor violations.

While much of the attention to the “prank” call that the governor took from a blogger who identified himself as billionaire David Koch [1] has focused on the bizarre, at times comic, character of the discussion between a blogger posing [2] as a powerful political player on the right and a governor whose budget repaid bill has sparked mass demonstrations in Wisconsin communities and a national outcry, the state’s former chief law-enforcement officer described the governor’s statements as “deeply troubling” and suggested that they would require inquiry and investigation by watchdog agencies.

“There clearly are potential ethics violations, and there are potential election-law violations and there are a lot of what look to me like labor-law violations,” said Peg Lautenschlager [3], a Democrat who served as Wisconsin’s attorney general after serving for many years as a US Attorney. “I think that the ethics violations are something the [state] Government Accountability Board should look into because they are considerable. He is on tape talking with someone who he thinks is the funder of an independent political action committee to purchase advertising to benefit Republican legislators who are nervous about taking votes on legislation he sees as critical to his political success.”

Lautenschlager, a former legislator who has known Walker for many years and who has worked with many of the unions involved in the current dispute, says: “One of the things I find most problematic in all of this is the governor’s casual talk about using outside troublemakers to stir up trouble on the streets, and the fact that he only dismissed the idea because it might cause a political problem for him.”

You can find the rest here. (It's not behind a paywall, but don't be surprised if they ask you for your Email and zip code).

I've got to say, reading the piece, Nichols didn't write much more than was in the interview. Sometimes, you listen to a journalist on the TeeVee or the Radio, and hear about what they're working on, and you go in expecting a universe's worth of difference between what he or she wrote, and what they said...

...and there wasn't a universe's worth of difference.

That being said, one gets the distinct feeling that Mr. Nichols is just getting warmed up.

The original Faux David Koch call is here:

"Remember this the next time you hear some Republican bellyaching about why government should be run more like a business..."

Former Clinton Administration Economist, and currently University of California Professor, Brad DeLong, spotted this bit of Steve Pearlstein (of the Washington Post) wisdom:

Back when I was working at Inc. magazine in the mid-1980s, we loved nothing better when approaching a public-sector issue than to ask how the private sector would handle it. Faced with the situation in Wisconsin, we would have called up Tom Peters or Peter Drucker and posed the example of a new chief executive brought in by the shareholders (i.e., the voters) to rescue a company suffering from operating losses (budget deficit) and declining sales (jobs). Invariably, they would have recommended sitting down with employees, explaining the short-and long-term economic challenges and working with them to improve productivity and product quality in a way that benefits both shareholders and employees.

Now compare that with how Wisconsin's new chief executive handled the situation: Impose an across-the-board pay cut and tell employees neither they nor their representative will ever again have a say in how things will be run or get a pay raise in excess of inflation. A great way to start things off with the staff, don't you think? Remember that the next time you hear some Republican bellyaching at the Rotary lunch about why government should be run more like a business...

"To prepare the full range of options..." (VIDEO)

This is not the President saying it's "go" time, rather it's the President saying "I'm trying to determine whether or not it's "go" time".

When it comes to turning to Mercenaries from Chad, and using Air Power on demonstrators, I hope the Colonel's memory hasn't failed him.  There's are things America can do about that...and it can involve the user of cruise missiles.

Okay, now a D.C. Court has upheld HCR. You know what that means?

...absolutely nothing.

Still goin' to the Supreme Court, where Anthony Kennedy (and probably Anthony Kennedy alone will decide its fate).

Still the decision by Gladys Kessler was welcome news.

Why I still have very mixed-to-bad feelings about Michelle Rhee.

For every article about Michelle Rhee that I save in Evernote that's positive, there's at least one that's negative. In my gut, for me personally, I think she's a little too fascinated with herself.  (A chronic case of Ed Schultz disease, and in this case it's not a TV Show that's gone to her head, but a whole movie).

I think one of the points in this Slate piece summarized this doubt nicely:

The fact that Rhee is a hard-working Ivy League graduate makes the elite press respect her as one of their own. And Rhee's flair for the dramatic makes her irresistible. In his well-written and highly favorable biography, The Bee Eater, Richard Whitmire recounts that as a teacher in Baltimore, Rhee grabbed the attention of her students one day when she swatted a bee flying around the classroom and promptly swallowed it. As a chancellor, Rhee once told a film crew, "I'm going to fire somebody in a little while. Do you want to see that?"

If she's not careful (and Michelle Rhee often isn't), she can come off as..."Hey, if we just treat these brown kids rougher, they'll do better with less money!"

Why?  Because you say so?

I don't think Teacher's Unions are to blame for what's happening in Education.  I think it boils down to what usually ails progress in America, our fellow Americans.

We still keep falling for this bull@#$% about a free lunch.  We demand first class Government, with Third World Tax Rates.  We want the best, as long as we don't have to pay for it...ever.  We want to do things on the cheap, and are somehow shocked (shocked I tell you) that the kiddies grades and test scores are suffering.

Only we are that myopic, and Michelle Rhee didn't help.

At the same time, I think that Michelle Rhee's right about the problems we face.  I do think its too hard to fire problem Teachers.  I personally don't have problem with merit-based pay, but if we're going to do that, we really need to start paying Teachers like Doctors or Lawyers (Public Universities do it at the collegiate level).  And the notion of a Teacher spending even a fraction of their own meager pay to cover for supplies or books is obscene.

Still, I thought this paragraph really encapsulated my doubts about her, or at the very least, the rhetoric that blasts Teacher's Unions:

Most education researchers, though, recognize that Rhee's simple vision of heroic teachers saving American education is a fantasy, and that her dramatic, often authoritarian, style is ill-suited for education. If the ability to fire bad teachers and pay great teachers more were the key missing ingredient in education reform, why haven't charter schools, 88% of which are nonunionized and have that flexibility, lit the education world on fire? Why did the nation's most comprehensive study of charter schools, conducted by Stanford University researchers and sponsored by pro-charter foundations, conclude that charters outperformed regular public schools only 17 percent of the time, and actually did significantly worse 37 percent of the time? Why don't Southern states, which have weak teachers' unions, or none at all, outperform other parts of the country?

Someone might want to tell the Republicans that the "apology tour" never happened

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post took a moment (or more than a moment) to go over the "Apology Tour" meme the right is circulating. His conclusion?:

The claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.

Obama often was trying to draw a rhetorical distinction between his policies and that of President Bush, a common practice when the presidency changes parties. The shift in policies, in fact, might have been more dramatic from Clinton to Bush than from Bush to Obama, given how Obama has largely maintained Bush's approach to fighting terrorism.

In other cases, Obama's quotes have been selectively trimmed for political purposes. Or they were not much different than sentiments expressed by Bush or his secretary of state. Republicans may certainly disagree with Obama's handling of foreign policy or particular policies he has pursued, but they should not invent a storyline that does not appear to exist.

Note to GOP speechwriters and campaign ad makers: The apology tour never happened.

Four Pinocchios

Four Pinocchios...the equivalent of Pants-On-Fire from Polifact??

"Screw Us and We Multiply"

David Weigel has a collection of 11 Anti-Tea Party/Anti-Koch Brothers signs at his Slate.com site.  They're pretty damn good.  My favorite is of the Union Thug in pink.  The site is available here.

John-of-Orange is counting on you being stoopid. Do your country a favor. Don't be.

Okay. This from Reuters:

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner said on Tuesday that his chamber would be willing to pass a short-term, spending-cut bill to avoid a shutdown of the U.S. government.

And if you stuck to that, you'd say "yay" no Government shut-down.  The man who blends in with the furniture has compromised!  Boehner,you're my hero!

Which is why you really need to read Newspaper stories to the end. Because in the very next paragraph it kinda spoils things:

In a statement, Boehner said if the Democratic-led Senate refuses to vote on the spending-cut bill passed by the House on Saturday, the Republican-controlled House "will pass a short-term bill to keep the government running -- one that also cuts spending."

The House-passed bill would fund the government through September 30, but with $61 billion in spending cuts that Democrats denounce as excessive.

Huh?

Does anyone remember my posting from last week where John-of-Orange said:

House Speaker John Boehner today ruled out a short term extension of current levels of government funding, raising the prospect of a government shutdown.

The House tonight or tomorrow is expected to pass funding for the government through the rest of the year. But both chambers of Congress are out next week for President's Day recess. The current funding expires March 4th. Which means that in the five days Congress is back the week after next, the Senate must pass it's version the continuing resolution (CR) -- they're unlikely to accept the House bill as it's written with more than $100 billion in cuts -- and kick it back to the House. Then, if the House doesn't accept the Senate version, a compromise must be wrought and passed by both chambers. In the world of budgets, achieving this in five days is a lightening speed unlikely to be achieved. Democrats had been counting on a temporary extension of current funding while a deal is negotiated for the rest of the year, but Boehner's refusal today to give the process any more time forces Dems, and some Senate Republicans, to either accept deeper cuts than they'd like or face a government shutdown.

Wait-wait-wait. Lemme get this straight.

Last week, John-of-Orange says we won't accept a continuing resolution, so you're going to have to accept our budget with cuts Democrats (the majority in the Senate) don't like.

Only now, John-of-Orange is saying Fine! Fine! You win, we'll go ahead and pass a continuing resolution...with a but of cuts Democrats (the majority in the Senate) don't like.


I may not have gone to Law School or anything, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a compromise.

And now, Scott Walker stands (just about) alone...

Via Talking Points Memo. First Mitch Daniels of Indiana (whose Dems have also left the state), now Rick Scott of Flordia have decided that letting the Unions be is a pretty good idea.

And by the way, the Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader (a Republican, duh) has said he's not going along with Walker's end-around budget trick to force his Union Busting bill through.

Walker's running out of friends.

Bondad: Consumer Confidence is up, but there's reason to be a little careful.

There's some good news about Consumer Confidence, but Bonddad sounds a cautious note at the end:

The number is still pretty low by historical standards, so I'd be cautious to read too much into this move. In addition, with gas prices going up (and today's price spike) I think this number will come under strong downward pressure in the near future.

So, are the Republicans already overreaching?

Ezra asked this question this morning. Allow me to paraphrase if only slightly:

[In the case of Wisconsin], Republicans have chosen a hardline and are refusing significant compromise, even at the risk of terrible consequences. Will the public turn on them for overreach? Applaud their strength and conviction? Or not really care one way or the other, at least by the time the next election rolls around?

Truth is, we don't have an answer to this question, and won't until November of 2012. But there's a new national poll from the USA Today on the Wisconsin situation...and let me put it this way, that ain't applause Governor Walker's hearing:

The public strongly opposes laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions as a way to ease state financial troubles, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

The poll found that 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to one being considered in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.

Again, that's a national poll.

Ezra Klein: Unions, the counterbalance to Corporate Power

From Wisconsin is about power, not money:

America's various governmental entities are looking for ways to avoid defaulting on their debt - or at least defaulting on their debt to the powerful. That addendum is important, because one of the strategies that's emerging is to default on debt to the less powerful, the people who don't have the power to wreck our economy.

This is a crucial fact about the economy, and one often underplayed by economists: power matters. It's worth more, in many cases, than money. And that's what's really at issue in Wisconsin. It's why Gov. Scott Walker is uninterested in taking concessions from the unions on wages and benefits if they don't come alongside concessions on collective bargaining. What he wants isn't a change in the balance of payments. It's a change in the balance of power.

The deal Wisconsin made with its state employees was simple: Accept lower wages than you could get in the private sector now in return for better pensions and health-care benefits when you retire. Now Walker wants to renege on that deal.

Rather than stiff the banks, in other words, he wants to stiff the teachers - but the crucial twist he's added, the one that's sent tens of thousands of workers into the streets, is that he wants to make sure they can't fight back once he does it.

The reason you can't stiff bondholders is that they can make a state or country regret reneging on the deals they've made. They can increase borrowing costs far into the future, slowing economic growth and, through the resulting economic pain, throwing politicians out of office. That gives them power. An ordinary teacher does not have access to such artillery. Unless, of course, she's part of a union.

Unions - through collective bargaining, strikes and other means - give workers power. They make reneging on contracts with their members painful. They also make negotiations less lopsided.

They're not perfect, of course. They sometimes negotiate bad deals, or misbehave, or hand good money over to bad people, or put their short-term interests ahead of the public's long-term interests. But then, so do corporations and politicians.

But their power matters for more than just debt repayment. For all their faults, unions tend to see their constituents as not just their own members, but the "working class," broadly defined. That's why you'll find labor's fingerprints on everything from the two-day weekend to Medicare to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 - none of which require you to flash a union card before you can benefit from them. They act -- quite self-consciously -- as a counterbalance to corporate power.

There's more to this column of course, and I encourage you to go and read it, but this was the meat of the idea, in my mind.