Dinesh D’Souza Indicted for Campaign Finance Fraud
Also,
Federal prosecutors in New Jersey have issued grand jury subpoenas to Gov. Chris Christie’s re-election campaign and to the state Republican Party as part of a preliminary inquiry into accusations that aides to Mr. Christie shut down access lanes to the George Washington Bridge as political retribution, the lawyer for the campaign and the party said Thursday.
Pass the popcorn
It appears today is the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Here’s an eye-opening page of accounts of what happens when an abortion clinic picketer encounters an unwanted pregnancy. They want an abortion, of course, but they think their case is “different.”
Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those “other” women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call “sluts” and “trash.” Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for “convenience”.
I remember reading about an abortion provider who said that whenever a woman came to her for abortion and said, “I’m not one of those women who gets abortions,” the doctor said “Oh, OK, I don’t guess you need me then.” And the woman would be refused treatment. That sounds harsh, but on the page linked it says that anti-choice women who get abortions will sometimes turn around and sue the clinic for some trumped up reason.
The Right has the collective vapors because NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said,
“Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.â€
I take it that in context he was talking about Republican politicians intending to run for statewide office, not all wingnuts. But Sean Hannity says he is moving out of New York, to which I say, don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out.
They can all whine and hold their breath all they like, but it’s pretty much true that an anti-choice, NRA-friendly homophobe is not going to win a statewide office in New York. That’s a plain fact.
I’ve passed the 15,000 words mark in the ebook, and I think it’s going to take me another 10,000 words to say everything I want to say, although probably not more than that. So it’s cooking.
Meanwhile, here are a couple of things to read together. Charles Pierce quotes a Romney fundraiser who is still angry about “the hug” between Chris Christie and President Obama after Hurricane Sandy. The fundraiser thinks “the hug” gave the election to Obama. Pierce writes,
Part of me wants to point out that, apparently, the utterly self-centered cluelessness of the candidate spread pretty widely throughout all levels of the Romney campaign. (Christie was supposed to let his constituents fight each other for bottled water rather than accept help from the federal government? People on the Jersey Shore were supposed to live in lean-to’s until Willard closed on that new place in D.C.?) Part of me wants to point out that this is yet another indication that the prion disease afflicting the collective brain of the Republican party rages unabated. But a much bigger part of me wants to laugh and laugh until I fall down.
The point being that the clueless wonders who supported Romney never understood that elections are about governing. The whole governing thing seems to elude them.
At Salon, Elias Isquith argues that Christie’s tendency to stoop to governing now and then, or at least talking about it, is what’s behind the Tea Party’s intense dislike of him.
The difference in framing between how Christie’s describing his job and how, say, Sen. Rand Paul or Sen. Ted Cruz or Rep. Paul Ryan or even Gov. Scott Walker would describe their job is subtle but important. If Paul or Cruz or Ryan or Walker were bragging about their accomplishments in a victory speech — the moment above all others when a politician can “campaign in poetry,†as Gov. Mario Cuomo once said — they wouldn’t wax rhapsodic about their own management of the state. They wouldn’t make the point, as Christie did, that government is there to “give†and “work with†and “work for†its citizens.
On the contrary, they’d say something about “Getting government out of the way†or “Removing government’s barriers to liberty†or “Liberating the American spirit from big government’s red tape.†At most, theirs would be a grudging acknowledgement of the necessity of government, a recognition that much as they’d like to live in a world without an activist state, they’re willing to accept one, reduced to a minimum, all the same. Similarly, while Christie as governor has come to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and was too smart —and too pragmatic — to continue mounting a doomed bid to stop same-sex marriage from becoming a reality in his state, other top-tier Republicans, the ones the Tea Party actually likes, would more likely flaunt their ideological rigidity and relish the chance to fight a losing battle in the name of true conservative principles.
The rhetoric difference is also the difference between New Jersey and, say, Mississippi. You can’t win a statewide election in New Jersey by promising to shut down abortion clinics or promoting concealed or open carry laws or spouting homophobic nonsense. There’s a strong fiscal conservative streak in New Jersey, however, so yelling about the teacher’s union can get you some votes.
Nevertheless, if Christie hadn’t responded to Hurricane Sandy as he did, the state would have been done with him. He knew that. Everybody in New Jersey knew that. The fact that baggers nationwide can’t even fathom that tells me that Romney supporters aren’t the only ones who are clueless.
Among other things I’m still messing around trying to get a cheaper health insurance policy through the New York exchange. In December I gave up and paid my old premium for January. (I did finally get a notice from New York about my eligibility, dated December 26, advising me to be sure and sign up by December 23.)
Since I do qualify for a subsidy, there are four or five plans that would save me considerable money on premiums, and I’ve calculated I would still come out ahead even if I end up paying all of the deductible. And if I don’t need much medical care this year I could come out way ahead. Only one of them lists my doctor as a provider, though, and I just need to get hold of someone at my doctor’s office to confirm they are in that network. And no one’s ever there when I call. It’s always something. I’ve got to sign up by tomorrow, I understand, to be covered in February.
There’s still a lot of bitching and moaning about Obamacare in the headlines. Jonathan Cohn writes that the actual enrollment data isn’t that bad.
The long-awaited breakdown on the age of young enrollees (defined as under 34) came in at 24%, not catastrophic but well below the target of 40%. But as Cohn points out, the Massachusetts precedent showed that young-uns tend to enroll in this kind of scheme quite late, so let’s wait a while before panicking over the age mix.
Cohn also notes that about 79% of enrollees are qualifying for premium tax credits, a.k.a. purchasing subsidies, which is very much in line with CBO predictions.
The real news to me in his post is which of the coverage levels is proving to be most popular. For 60% of enrollees, it’s the “silver plans,†which are distinguished by protection from really large out-of-pocket costs. Health reforms of all varieties should take notice of that (particularly conservatives who think shifting more health purchasing from insurance to self-payment is the key to controlling costs).
The silver plans are the ones you can get with a subsidy, so that’s probably accounts for a lot of their popularity.
Is it me, or did the Right drop the “U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman is a Democrat” meme rather quickly? I’m not seeing much follow up, although I don’t know what’s being said on Faux News. The Wall Street Journal actually published a positive profile of Fishman.
Did it occur to someone that stirring up a U.S. Attorney scandal on behalf of Chris Christie might be counterproductive? Hmmm.
Meanwhile, it appears Christie may not get away with claiming he had no idea what was going on. See, for example,
Christie Tried to Slow Down Investigation
What Did Christie Know and When Did He Know It?
Bridge Scandal Papers Point to Cover-Up by Chris Christie Allies
When I went to bed last night, conventional wisdom was that Chris Christie was on the ropes. But now I see the Noise Machine magicians have pulled a distraction out of a hat:
CNN, likely reporting on an email received last night from Reince Priebus:
Paul J. Fishman, the U.S. attorney tasked with looking into New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s bridge controversy, has donated to several Democratic politicians and organizations, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Most notably, Fishman – who was nominated for the post by President Barack Obama in June 2009 – donated to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign on June 30, 2007. At the time of the contribution, Clinton was battling then-Sen. Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Fishman donated $2,300 to Clinton, according to the FEC.
You know how this will be spun on the right, don’t you? Eric Holder’s Justice Department is now investigating Christie after refusing to investigate blah blah blah blah blah. Now the right has a liberal enemy in this matter. Game on
Because there’s nothing righties love more than painting themselves as the innocent victims of evil liberal oppression. Yesterday, the baggers saw Christie as a RINO. Within a few hours he’ll be Holy Saint Martyr Christopher of Blessed Persecution, or something.
But do indulge me as I take a little trip in the wayback payback machine to an item in the Maha Archives:
Further into the Kirkpatrick & Rutenberg article we find:
In New Jersey, Mr. Rove helped arrange the nomination of a major Bush campaign fund-raiser who had little prosecutorial experience.
That would be Christopher J. Christie.
Mr. Christie has brought public corruption charges against prominent members of both parties, but his most notable investigations have stung two Democrats, former Gov. James E. McGreevey and Senator Robert Menendez. When word of the latter inquiry leaked to the press during the 2006 campaign, Mr. Menendez sought to dismiss it by tying Mr. Christie to Mr. Rove, calling the investigation “straight out of the Bush-Rove playbook.†(Mr. McGreevey resigned after admitting to having an affair with a male aide and the Menendez investigation has not been resolved.)
Christie’s name popped up in another post from 2007, which led me to this NY Times editorial:
The Justice Department has been saying that it is committed to putting Senate-confirmed United States attorneys in every jurisdiction. But the newly released documents make it clear that the department was making an end run around the Senate — for baldly political reasons. Congress should broaden the investigation to determine whether any other prosecutors were forced out for not caving in to political pressure — or kept on because they did.
There was, for example, the decision by United States Attorney Chris Christie of New Jersey to open an investigation of Senator Bob Menendez just before his hotly contested re-election last November. Republicans, who would have held the Senate if Mr. Menendez had lost, used the news for attack ads. Then there was the career United States attorney in Guam who was removed by Mr. Bush in 2002 after he started investigating the superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. The prosecutor was replaced. The investigation was dropped.
Of course, if you point these inconsistencies out to righties they curl up into a fetal position and play the martyr well enough to make Joan of Arc at the stake look like a slacker.
BTW, the investigation into Menendez was closed by the Justice Department in 2011, but not in a way that made Christie look any less like a bully. Menendez had been collecting rent from a nonprofit community activist organization and had also helped the group secure a lot of federal grant money, so there was an appearance of quid pro quo. This was the matter that triggered the subpoena. But the rental arrangement had been pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee, so it’s not clear to me what Menendez was doing that warranted a subpoena, or that couldn’t have waited until (ahem) after the election.
BTW, the U.S. attorney who was originally assigned the Menendez case was Paul Fishman. But the newly appointed Fishman recused himself because Senator Menendez had backed him for the post.
This is my response to Karen Tumulty’s bullshit article about the serious “philosophical divide” touched off by the “Great Society.”
“Philosophical divide” my ass. I am well old enough to remember the Johnson Administration. The “Great Society” amounted to extending the New Deal to everyone, regardless of race. White Americans who had been perfectly fine with big government while it was helping them saw the GS as a scheme to take money out of their pockets to benefit black Americans, and they weren’t having it. Their sudden scruples about “big government” were not the reason for their objections, but the excuse.
That’s also true today, as Republicans are always happy to increase the federal debt when it benefits the wealthy and are only fiscal hawks when they have to squeeze some money out of the budget for the “undeserving poor.”
Try to get real next time, Ms. Tumulty.
Apparently the Republicans are rallying behind the argument that Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty failed, so it’s time to give them a turn at running the government.
WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio says the American dream has become “unattainable.†Senator Mike Lee says reforming government benefits programs should be the country’s “first priority.†And Representative Paul D. Ryan says the government safety net has “failed miserably.â€
Fifty years after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty, the message from Republicans in Congress is that the government has foundered in its efforts to address the problem.
“While we have programs in place that help deal with the pain of poverty, they don’t deal with the structural problems,†Mr. Rubio of Florida said in an interview.
And who caused those “structural problems,” toots? Answer me that! Whose economic/governing philosophy has dominated Washington and federal policy since, oh, about 1980 or so (and arguably earlier)?
Mindful of polls that show many Americans see them as detached from or indifferent to the hardships faced by the people most affected by the recession and slow recovery, Republicans have begun to speak publicly on the issue of poverty and to propose their own, more market-based solutions.
In other words, the same crap that got us into this mess.
But at the same time that the party is shifting its focus to poverty, many Republicans are pushing for deep cuts to food assistance programs and unemployment insurance, while 11 million Americans are jobless and poverty rates remain elevated in the wake of the recession.
One way to reduce poverty is to starve the impoverished, I give you that. It worked pretty well in Ireland awhile back.
Un-bee-lee-vah-bull.
But you know the Republican establishment is nervous when they bring in the empathy coaches.
House Republican leaders sent a memo this week to the entire GOP conference with talking points designed to help rank-and-file Republicans show compassion for the unemployed and explain the Republican position on unemployment benefits. In the memo, which was obtained by The Washington Post, House Republicans are urged to be empathetic toward the unemployed and understand how unemployment is a “personal crisis” for individuals and families. The memo also asks Republicans to reiterate that the House will give “proper consideration” to an extension of long-term insurance as long as Democrats are willing to support spending or regulatory reforms.
Of course,
Hey, GOP: If you need empathy coaching, you are probably innately assholes. http://t.co/lDabzyHG0P
— The Rude Pundit (@rudepundit) January 8, 2014
Last year they tried to empathy coach Republican politicians about women, and I can’t see that it helped. But why are they so worried now? Joan Walsh writes,
Maybe because of polls like the one just completed by Hart Research (on behalf of the National Employment Law Project). Surveying likely 2014 midterm voters the pollsters found they overwhelmingly supported extended benefits 55 to 34 percent. Significantly, key Republican groups like seniors and white non-college educated voters were among the most supportive; white women, a swing group that leaned to the GOP in 2012, support maintaining the benefits 53-33 percent.
And by some non-coincidence, many Washington politicians who are most adamantly against extending benefits are from states with the highest number of jobless constituents. Funny how that works, huh?
Unfortunately for them, Paul Ryan spilled the beans last month when he declared he wanted to end jobless benefits so that people would be compelled to go out and find a job. But the average American is at least a few shades brighter than Ryan — hell, there could be varieties of dieffenbachia that are brighter than Ryan — and understand that it’s a bit tricky to go out and get a job when there are no bleeping jobs to get.