Daily Kos

As you watch this or read the transcript, keep in mind that from 2001 to 2003—during which time the Bush administration launched two wars, one of which we are fighting to this day, and two rounds of tax cuts for the wealthy—Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was George W. Bush's budget director. Yet now he is blaming President Obama for allegedly creating a debt bomb:

Well, you know, he's been the president of this nation for the three years in which we have drifted ever closer to the biggest peacetime crisis we may have ever faced. There's no doubt it. It's a mathematical certainty. [...] To me the central question of this election is why such an administration deserves a second chance.

The fact that Mitch Daniels apparently has forgotten we are at war in Afghanistan—even though he served in the White House when we began the war more than a decade ago—is a fitting tribute to the Romnesia that has infested the Republican Party.

Daniels talks about our fiscal challenges as if they are problems of President Obama's creation, but the fact is that it's the Bush administration that cut taxes too low, it's the Bush administration that destroyed the economic growth upon which any sound fiscal policy depends, and it's the Bush administration that wasted hundreds of billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama isn't the one who should step aside—it's Daniels and Romney and the whole gang of Republicans who want to take us back to the way things were under W. Their policies didn't work then and they won't work now. America can't afford to go back.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ:

The Catholic Church's U.S. hierarchy warned Tuesday that without quick action by Congress, it will sue the Obama administration for mandating that insurance plans provide birth control to women without a co-pay.

"[F]orcing individual and institutional stakeholders to sponsor and subsidize an otherwise widely available product over their religious and moral objections serves no legitimate, let alone compelling, government interest," lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote in a letter to federal regulators.

Talk about sore losers. The bishops had their chance to weigh in on the Obama administration's new policy to require health insurers to cover birth control without co-pays. The Obama administration generously carved out a boatload of exemptions for them to address their "concerns." The bishops even got their puppets in Congress to introduce bills on their behalf—which the American people overwhelmingly opposed. They even got themselves invited to the boys-only congressional hearing on birth control—because who understands birth control better than a bunch of supposedly celibate men?

At the end of the day, though, they lost. They made their case that basic health care for women violates their "religious liberty" and makes Jesus sad—and they lost. They launched a charm offensive to "set the record straight," arguing that the Catholic Church totally loves women's health care and has been "the most effective private provider of such care anywhere around," and people better stop saying mean stuff about them or they won't be able "to live out the imperatives of our faith to serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others." And no one bought it.

You'd think, after such a resounding "fuck off" from the American public, the bishops might leave women's health care alone and go back to focusing on those important things they claim to care about. But when the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), led by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and the president of the bishops' conference, met to decide whether to accept defeat or keep whining, they of course decided to keep whining, even as they concluded:

Prayer is the ultimate source of our strength—for without God, we can do nothing; but with God, all things are possible.

Well, apparently their prayers didn't work, so they've decided to scrap the God plan in favor of litigation:

"We believe that this mandate is unjust and unlawful – it is bad health policy, and because it entails an element of government coercion against conscience, it creates a religious freedom problem," wrote Anthony Picarello, USCCB associate general secretary and general counsel, and Michael Moses, associate general counsel. "These moral and legal problems are compounded by an extremely narrow exemption that intrusively and unlawfully carves up the religious community into those that are deemed 'religious enough' for an exemption, and those that are not."

That would be the same Anthony Picarello who introduced the world to the laughable Taco Bell theory—that the boatload of exemptions to this mandate do not cover someone who opens a Taco Bell and thinks his employees should not be allowed to use birth control because of Jesus 'n stuff. Yeah, he's a real legal eagle, that one.

Given that one federal court has already ruled against the bishops' absurd argument that their definition of religious liberty trumps all else, any future lawsuits are most likely destined for the same fate. But since stopping women from having access to affordable health care has now become the Most Importantest Issue Evah!, little things—like being completely wrong—probably won't stop the bishops from continuing to stamp their feet like petulant two-year-olds who don't want to take a nap.

Because that is totally what Jesus would do.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Jed Lewison Meg Whitman never said she liked to fire people, but on the same day that news of her plans to lay off 30,000 Hewlett-Packard employees leaked to the press, Mitt Romney felt inspired to lavish praise on her managerial skills and to wistfully lament that she lost her gubernatorial campaign:

I wish Californians had elected Meg Whitman. She would have been more successful and explained to Californians the need to cut back on spending and eliminate unnecessary programs.

Well, Mitt, the good news is that after you follow Whitman's lead and lose in November, you too can head back to the private sector and fire tens of thousands of workers. You know, job creation.

Scott Brown has a little JPMorgan Chase problem:

Also a potential issue: When Brown got all those donations from JPMorgan Chase, it coincided perfectly with when Chase officials were pressing Federal Reserve officials for a loophole in Dodd-Frank provisions meant to limit risky trading.

All of which smells slightly fishy to the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with six government agencies, seeking to find out whether Brown was involved in helping JPMorgan Chase with its lobbying.

In a news release, the party said that Mr. Brown’s re-election campaign had received at least 30 contributions in February from employees of JPMorgan and the company’s federal political action committee. The New York Times reported last week that JPMorgan executives had met with Federal Reserve officials that month to express concerns about the restrictions on banks’ proprietary trading—known as Volcker Rule—that were called for in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law.

The Times reported that the company had lobbied over months for loose restrictions that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 billion loss that JPMorgan reported last week. (According to people with knowledge of the losses, that figure is now reported to be at least $3 billion.)

Brown's defense in all of this, when he's not trying to change the subject, is that he voted for Dodd-Frank. But he only voted for the bill after having negotiated a big loophole in the Volcker Rule provision allowing big banks to continue to invest money in risky hedge funds and private equity firms.

At the time, HuffPo's Shahien Nasiripour wrote about one possible, prescient, scenario explaining how this small change would allow banks to place bets with billions of dollars more than was envisioned by the original Volcker rule proposal.

Using JPMorgan Chase, the nation's second-largest bank by assets with more than $2.1 trillion, as an example, the bank would be able to invest an additional 40 percent of its cash, or an extra $1.1 billion for a total of $4 billion, in the activities that Volcker wanted to prohibit banks from engaging in, according to the firm's latest annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

JPMorgan Chase has a lot of reasons to reward Scott Brown that we know about. Hopefully this request from the Democrats in Massachusetts will shed some more light on just how much more there is to the picture.

Help counter JPMorgan Chase, just a little. Please contribute $3 to Elizabeth Warren on Orange to Blue.

Hello, human diary. It is I again, Mitt Romney, your better.

Today has not been a good day. I mentioned before that the previous Republican occupant of the White House had endorsed me; for some reason this led to me having to have a phone conversation with him today. I am still unclear why. He is a nice enough fellow, and I attempted to bond with him over our mutual love of elevators, and riding in elevators, and putting things into elevators. I believe he enjoyed my banter. (I also invited him to come view our many fine horses, but he was strangely quiet during that part of the conversation.)

I mentioned to an audience of commoners yesterday that if my wife and I were going to move to any place in America, I would move to their state. This was a brilliant move on my part, especially because I was able to correctly remember which state I was in at the time. Note to self: Do not repeat this trick too often, when reporter units are present.

Speaking of reporter units, Eric F. has instituted a new plan. The old plan was to block them from attending certain events or asking questions; they responded to this in a negative fashion. The new plan is for me to engage them in human banter. My understanding is that I need to appear likable, even though few of these reporters are in my peer group when it comes to wealth or the number of sports team owners they are acquainted with. I told several of them they were the wrong height; they appeared to take this as a joke, which further confuses me.

Nonetheless, I am determined to impress the American common class with my wit and banter capabilities. I have practiced ceaselessly, and believe I am improving rapidly.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Late Night Snark: Gay JP Morgan Commencement Frisking Edition

"Rush Limbaugh criticized President Obama's support of gay marriage, accusing the president of leading a 'war on traditional marriage.' Limbaugh wants it to mean something if he ever gets traditional-married for the fifth time."
---Seth Meyers
-
"This is the true measure of how far we've come as a nation. In, like, five years the prime talking point from Republicans about people who support gay marriage has gone from 'It will destroy society via turtle fucking' to 'Oh, of course you’re for it, you'll say anything popular to get re-elected.' That...is progress.
---Jon Stewart
-
"President Obama and Mitt Romney both gave commencement speeches over the last few days. Obama was like: 'You can be whatever you want to be.' Romney was like: 'I can be whatever you want me to be.'"
---Jimmy Fallon
-
"The average college graduate now leaves school $27,000 in debt. But the good news is that now it means they're more than qualified to work as financial advisers at JPMorgan."
---Jay Leno
-
"Mitt Romney once lost $2 billion. Then he found it in another pair of pants."
---David Letterman
-
"There is no greater ally in the fight against violence than the NYPD and their 'Stop and Frisk' program, which allows New York police to search anybody they find suspicious. Since this is New York, I believe they look for people who are acting strange, and then stop everybody else."
---Stephen Colbert

Five years ago:

"The elections are heating up. In a recent interview, John McCain said the last music he bought was The Beach Boys, while Mitt Romney said the last music he bought was Roy Orbison. Apparently, McCain and Romney are both running for president in 1964."
---Conan O'Brien

Bar's open. Your west coast-friendly edition of  Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is telling reporters that if he survives his June 5 recall election, he'll be more inclusive. Just not that much more inclusive, y'know?

"I still think people elected me before in November 2010 and they'll elect me again because they want me to fix things," Walker said. "They want me to keep the focus and attention on fixing things. We're just going to make sure we've got a more comprehensive and inclusive process to get there."

What about further anti-union legislation, like a Right to Work (for Less) bill? Walker won't comment on whether he'd sign or veto such a bill if the legislature passed it.

So, basically, Scott Walker is saying that if he wins the recall he'd be kinder and gentler about doing the exact same stuff he's been doing. More like how he signed the repeal of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act in secret than how he introduced his anti-union budget repair bill by going to the press saying he was willing to call in the National Guard.

If you don't want Scott Walker signing any more bills, however inclusively, please give $3 to Tom Barrett to help defeat Walker on June 5.

Sam Stein:

When it comes time to score Mitt Romney's first general election ad, the independent arbitrators will rank it as a "negative" spot.

The ad, released on Friday morning and set to air in key swing states, outlines the specific policies that Romney would pursue in the Oval Office, from lowering taxes to signing off on the Keystone pipeline. Discussing the spot while on the trail Thursday, Romney declared that, "it will be a positive ad about the things I would do if I were president."

But the ad also includes several sharp contrasts with the president. And because it mentions Obama by name, when it comes time for grading, it will not get the positive label Romney suggested.

As you can see above, the ad features upbeat music and tries hard—perhaps too hard—to sound as though it's being positive, but of the three core promises Romney makes for day one of his imaginary administration, two are clear attacks on President Obama: first on the Keystone XL pipeline (which Obama has not ruled out eventually approving) and second on Obamacare. The third pledge—lower taxes on the wealthy, who Romney calls "job creators"—isn't offered as a contrast, however, so you could grade that as a positive message. On the other hand, while promising to double down on the Bush tax cuts might not count as an attack ... it does qualify is pretty damn stupid. Maybe Romney should stick to the attacks. It worked for him during the primary.

Reposted from Comics by Tom Tomorrow

Tom the Dancing Bug.  Follow @DailyKosComics and find out the instant a comic is posted!

The other day George W. Bush, or as Mitt Romney calls him, He Who Must Not Be Named, gave Mitt a rousing endorsement in the form of a four-word "I'm for Mitt Romney" muttered from behind closing elevator doors.

Given that, I would have liked to be a fly on the wall for this one:

Bush and Romney spoke with each other after the former president offered his fleeting support for the Republican candidate in an elevator this week, a person on Romney’s campaign tells ABC News.

The Romney aide wouldn’t disclose details of the call and wouldn’t say if Romney thanked Bush for his endorsement.

That's some top-secret phone calling right there. He won't even say whether Mitt thanked Bush?

"Hi George. Look, I'm pretty sure we talked about this, and I thought I was pretty clear on how you needed to not say anything for the next six months."

"Sorry, Mitt. It just slipped out. Want me to take it back?"

"Jeez ... no, no, that'd probably look worse. All right, we'll just go with it. But now please, please promise me you won't say anything supportive of me from now on? I mean Christ, George, your favorability ratings are still three points behind leprosy."

"Yeah, but I think I'm gonna be vindicated anytime now. You seen how much brush I've been clearing lately? I fuckin' hate brush. Little thorny terrorists, all of them."

"Fine, George, whatever. Listen, I have to go. Just please, take a vow of silence or something. Now's not the time."

Yeah, I like that version pretty well. The other version would be that Bush and Mitt actually get along fine and have a lot of the same ideas, on things like tax cuts, hurting poor people and not really giving a flying damn about any of that foreign policy stuff unless they're forced to by outside events, and that Mitt's actually sucked in a lot of old Bush advisers because hey, their advice all worked out great the first time around, but that version's just too scary to contemplate.

The fight over the "replace" part of "repeal and replace" in the Republican Party is now very public. Yesterday's news put the conflict in spotlight. On the one hand, you had budget guru Paul Ryan proclaiming that Republicans wouldn't offer an actual plan, but instead a "vision" of reform, and on the other Politico reported a leak of a plan Republican leadership (which Ryan is supposed to be part of) is working on to "draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place."

That got a group of Republican staffers, conservative activists, think group types and leadership staff in a major email pissing match obtained by Politico.

Rather than sending out news releases or rushing to cable TV for a rant, conservatives blasted House Republican leadership on a private Google email group called The Repeal Coalition. [...]

Wesley Denton, an aide to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), questioned whether the “GOP now against full repeal?”

“Should we change the name of this [listserv] to ‘partialrepealcoalition’ or ‘someofobamacareisprettygood’?” Denton wrote to the group.

Brian Worth, a GOP leadership staffer responsible for coordinating with outside groups, shot back that “the House has already passed a full repeal bill.”

“Has the Senate passed that bill yet?” Worth asked Denton, in the email chain.

Russ Vought, a former House Republican staffer who is now at Heritage Action for America, bluntly said, “that has absolutely nothing to do with it.” The “House GOP is going to cave after winning an election on full repeal … and before winning the next election to finish the job.”

“Unreal,” he said.

All of which puts Speaker John Boehner in his usual bind—do what is popular with the public, like make sure they can't be excluded from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or toe the extremist line, as articulated by one commenter in yesterday's listserv blow-up: "forcing insurance companies to cover folks with pre-existing conditions 'would destroy the private insurance market.'”

No surprise how Boehner reacted:

"The speaker issued a statement Thursday to reaffirm his support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

"Repeal and replace" got them the House in 2010. The infighting over "replace" just might be what dooms them in 2012.

We are in the second half of the second round, which means we'll now start choosing the quarterfinal matchups. The bracket is here. Today's winner will face off against the GOP debate audience booing the gay soldier.

1. FOR EVERY WOMAN CAIN HARASSED, THERE ARE THOUSANDS HE DIDN'T

"I value my character and my integrity more than anything else. And for every one person that comes forward with a false accusation, there are probably, there are thousands who would say none of that sort of activity ever came from Herman Cain."

So there you have it! "Your honor, I didn't kill this man, because there are probably thousands more who would testify that I never murdered them."

As a punchline—the conservative audience cheered wildly in response.

2. MITT ROMNEY'S BFFs

Mitt, salt of the earth:

Asked by an Associated Press reporter as he was greeting NASCAR fans [at the Daytona 500] whether he follows the sport, Romney said: “Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners.”

Romney admitted shortly thereafter that perhaps that wasn't the best way to connect with voters.

During a stop at his campaign headquarters in Livonia, Mich., a reporter asked Romney whether he realized that comments accentuating his wealth were hurting his campaign.

"Yes. Next question," Romney simply stated.

So he never did it again. Except that he did it again.

"Well, you know I’m surprised to hear that Denver’s thinking about him, they’re -- I don’t want him in our neck of the woods to Miami or to the Jets," Romney said. "But I’ve got a lot of good friends, the owner Miami Dolphins, and the New York Jets — both owners are friends of mine."

It's been tough on Mitt. Why can't the voters be as suitably impressed about his coterie of friends as his country club mates?