For some reason, despite his rock-ribbed conservatism, Tom Coburn has a reputation among the MSM as a "sane" conservative. Maybe it's his courtly manner, I don't know. The man is an OB-GYN who wants to take away womens' control over their own bodies, so I've never seen him as sane. But whatever.
Coburn came out recently as a Default Denier, claiming that the consequences of a default would not be as terrible as President Obama has indicated:
"There's no such thing as a debt ceiling in this country because it's never been not increased, and that's why we're $17 trillion in debt. And I would dispel the rumor that's going around that you hear on every newscast that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we'll default on our debt -- we won't. We'll continue to pay our interest, we'll continue to redeem bonds, and we'll issue new bonds to replace those."
This morning, Coburn has admitted that default might be a catastrophe, but that it will be manageable.
Follow me below the fold.
Mother Jones has the second set of video clips from the Romney fundraiser last May. In Part I, as you know, Romney wrote off the 47% of the electorate that he claims pays no taxes and is dependent on government and just wants more free stuff. In Part II, Mitt says that the Israel-Palestine problem cannot be solved with a two state solution and asserts that he would simply try to "kick the can down the road" during his presidency. Notably, the Republican platform endorses the two state solution.
There are several other clips, but the clip on Israel-Palestine is the most interesting.
Apologies for the short diary.
Time constraints necessitate a brief diary, but I thought this was worth posting -- a brief report in on today's PA Supreme Court argument on PA's controversial Voter ID law.
The Court hearing the appeal is split 3-3 between Democrats and Republicans -- a seventh judge (a Republican) is currently disqualified -- and heard the same arguments that were presented by the plaintiffs challenging the law that were presented to Commonwealth Court Judge Simpson, who upheld the law based on principles of deference to the legislature, despite what he acknowledge to be problems with the law.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that Simpson applied the wrong level of scrutiny to the law, and should have required the state to show that the restrictions in the law were narrowly tailored to achieve the purported legislative purpose of deterring voter impersonation fraud.
According to a report in The Nation, the Democratic appointees on the Court were receptive to these arguments, and questioned why the law -- which was adopted in March of this year -- should be implemented for the upcoming 2012 election given the varying reports on how many people did not have access to state-sanctioned ID, and how little had been done by the state thus far to provide voters with such ID. A lawyer for the state reportedly acknowledged, in response to a question from the bench, that the confusion over the law could be eliminated by implementing it over the course of several elections, as the PA Bar Association had recommended.
Keep reading below.....
Remember how Mitt attributed the different per capita incomes of Israel and Palestine on culture? Remember how after he was criticized for those comments, he denied that he'd made them, insisting that
“I did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy”
“I certainly don’t intend to address that during my campaign.”
You remember that, right?