September 25, 2015

Friday Talking Points (363) -- New Job Vacancy: Chief GOP Cat-Herder

Every so often, when preparing to write these weekly wrap-up columns, I wake up Friday morning and a political bombshell has happened which pretty much wipes out all the political news from the entire rest of the week. Obviously, today was one of those days, as we all learned this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be a private citizen again by Hallowe'en. He'll step down not only from his speakership, but also from his House seat itself, more than a year before the end of his current term. So it looks like the Republicans are going to need a new cat-herder to (attempt to) lead them in the House.

The impact of this news is stunning, all along the political spectrum. The far-right folks are overjoyed, as they've never liked or trusted Boehner much at all. The not-quite-as-far-righties (we simply can't call them "moderates" anymore) are a bit anxious and confused. Democrats are experiencing a burst of smirking schadenfreude (which is entirely to be expected, really, but so far they've been doing it fairly quietly and in private). Late-night comedians are -- quite sadly -- filing away all the "Boehner/boner" jokes they've relied upon for the past few years (especially that one priceless clip where Boehner himself makes the joke to a reporter).

Kidding aside, though, Boehner certainly picked an interesting time to step down. Before his announcement, we were facing the possibility of a government shutdown as early as next week. However, the Senate doesn't seem to be backing the "shut it down" caucus on this particular fracas (over defunding Planned Parenthood). A budget bill which would have done precisely that just failed in a cloture vote with the rather surprising margin of 47 to 52. In other words, the Republicans needed 60 votes. They only got 47. That's not even a majority, folks. This shows the deep division within the Republican Party over such "my way or the highway" tactics. But if the Senate is moving more towards "Hey, let's not shut the government down, because we're not going to win this battle," the House is obviously moving in the opposite direction. Boehner traded his speakership for one last vote to keep the government open. By doing so, he will be able to say he made good on his promise not to shut the government down again, while simultaneously leaving a ticking time bomb for his successor -- and one with a very short fuse.

Even the Tea Partiers will go along with the vote for a short-term "continuing resolution" which does fund Planned Parenthood, because they won't have to stage a vote of confidence to get rid of Boehner. That was the deal that was struck, which means no government shutdown will happen next week. But it might also mean a government shutdown in early December -- since the continuing resolution under discussion will only extend the budget until then. The next speaker is going to have to hit the ground running, that much is for sure. The Tea Partiers have agreed to postpone the big fight for a few months. But they certainly aren't agreeing to be any more reasonable than they ever have been, when we get to that new deadline.

The math, of course, won't change. The Senate Republicans still won't have a filibuster-proof majority (far from it), much less a veto-proof majority. In order to avoid a shutdown, some deal must be struck between the new speaker and the Democrats in the Senate. That dynamic won't change no matter who takes Boehner's place. The question is whether Boehner's replacement will strike such a deal, or whether we're heading for another shutdown. Unless the federal government shuts down permanently, at some point a deal must be reached -- the big questions are when that deal will happen (before, at, or long after the new deadline), and how much intransigence the new speaker will have to deal with before it happens.

The man Boehner has obviously chosen for his replacement is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California. When McCarthy moved into his current leadership position in the House Republican caucus he was seen as someone who could hopefully bridge the gap between the Establishment Republican and Tea Party wings of the Republican Party. That assumption will be almost immediately put to the test, assuming McCarthy is successful in his bid to become the next speaker (he might not be the shoo-in some pundits are proclaiming him to be... we'll see).

John Boehner always seemed (to us, at least) to be someone who had dreamed of leading the House for years, and truly did want the House he led to operate in a traditional fashion. This would have meant allowing for a certain amount of ultra-partisan shenanigans on the floor every once in a while, but when the crunch time came, it also would have meant striking deals with the opposition party to secure the votes necessary in the House and Senate to put legislation on the desk of the president. Boehner, at times, seemed even more frustrated with his obstructionist members than the Democrats were. This plainly wasn't the way he wanted his speakership to go, but he proved powerless -- over and over again -- in avoiding the "take no prisoners" attitude of his own caucus. Then when Boehner did strike the necessary deals, he was immediately labeled a traitor by his own members. The mystery isn't why he's stepping down now, really, it's how Boehner put up with his ungovernable caucus for so long.

Boehner was fighting an impossible battle with his own party -- and not just the Tea Partiers in the House but also with the rank-and-file voters, most of whom simply don't understand the realities of congressional math. Republican voters wonder: "We hold both houses of Congress, so why can't Republicans force President Obama to bend to their will?" This has bred such resentment towards the Establishment Republicans that the current top three GOP presidential candidates have, between them, absolutely zero experience in any elected office, anywhere.

That's a tough climate for House leadership. But it is the hard cold reality. The House can vote 50 times, or 100 times, or 500 times to repeal Obamacare, but they don't have the power to end it. They just don't. To actually get anything done means a long, boring process that (currently) requires some degree of compromise with Democrats. That is the reality, but many Republican voters absolutely refuse to accept it. Donald Trump and many other Republican presidential candidates have been gleefully tapping into this free-floating anger within the GOP base.

This is one reason why Democrats -- at least up until this writing (this political bombshell is pretty fresh, admittedly) -- are not exactly joyfully celebrating Boehner's exit. There is instead a certain amount of apprehension across the aisle. Boehner had his faults (plenty of them) but who knows if the next speaker will be worse? This might not even be a matter of personality, but rather the entire tail-wagging-the-dog nature of the stranglehold the House Tea Partiers have over their caucus.

There are three basic strategies the next speaker could use. The first would be to follow Boehner's example of giving the Tea Partiers full voice, but also to make the necessary deals in the end. But that's precisely what earned Boehner so much ire, so that's a risky strategy for a new leader to follow, to say the least.

The second path would be to give the Tea Partiers full control over the caucus -- to just surrender fully to the extremists. The Tea Partiers would love this, of course, but the entire rest of the country would become increasingly horrified by it. Especially if government shutdowns start to be measured in months, not weeks.

The third strategy is the least likely, but would represent the best outcome for the country politically. The new speaker could be a much stronger leader than Boehner, and choose to largely ignore the Tea Party faction. This would return Congress to an earlier style of deal-making. Republicans would offer a list of agenda items, and Democrats would do likewise. The new speaker and Mitch McConnell would lay out their priorities, and demand 90 percent of them be in the budget agreement. Democrats would talk them down to maybe 75 percent, and also get something like 25 percent of their own priorities into the bill. People on both sides of the aisle would hold their nose and vote for the compromise. The Republican Party would advance their agenda enormously -- much farther than they have under Boehner, it's worth pointing out -- but the most extreme parts of their agenda would be blocked by Democrats. Democrats would get a say in the legislation much earlier on in the process (instead of after the shutdown starts), and they would also be able to get some baby-step agenda items passed. That's the way the process is really supposed to work, even if it hasn't since the rise of the Tea Party.

However, at this point this last option seems pretty farfetched. It would require a very strong new Republican speaker -- one who wasn't afraid to keep his own party in line. The split between the Establishment Republicans and the Tea Party would grow a lot wider, if you can even imagine that. In order to pull off this feat of leadership, the new speaker would have to essentially jettison the (non-existent) "Hastert Rule." Instead of just relying on support from his or her own party, the new speaker would have to woo Democrats to pass reasonable bills from the start (and not as an afterthought). Which, again, seems pretty farfetched right now, but it could happen (anything's possible, right?).

One last thing worth mentioning before we get on with the rest of the column is that John Boehner is currently second in the line of presidential succession. If Barack Obama and Joe Biden suddenly died, Boehner would immediately be sworn in as president (at least, until October 30, when he's said he'll be stepping down). So Boehner's replacement is important, in a constitutional sense.

Speaker of the House John Boehner reportedly walked into his press conference after his bombshell announcement singing: "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay / My, oh my, what a wonderful day!" After the battles he's had to fight during his speakership -- most of them within his own party -- it's pretty easy to see why today would be seen as a "wonderful day" by John Boehner. Whether him stepping down turns out to be wonderful for the House Republicans, the Tea Party, the Democrats, or the country at large still remains to be seen. Things could get better, but then again they could also get a whole lot worse. Changing who is the head cat-herder probably won't change the nature of the cats to be herded, to put this another way.



[center][/center]

We're not going to hand out a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, because one man was so impressive during the week that he absolutely eclipsed everyone else. I speak of Pope Francis I, who gave the first papal address to the United States Congress this week, among his other stops on his first American visit.

In the world of political punditry, the Pope's words were immediately claimed by both sides of our partisan divide. Fine distinctions (akin to angels dancing on a pin, perhaps?) were drawn between "conservative" and "progressive" positions the Pope took. But this is pretty crass, when you get right down to it.

The Pope -- this Pope, at least -- shouldn't be measured on a "left/right" spectrum. He's more about "up/down" instead (if I might rotate the metaphor 90 degrees). He's concerned with a different agenda than most politicians. Which means it's really a fool's errand to try to pigeonhole him by limiting the scale to mere politics.

Francis is remarkable, because he is attempting to change an institution even more moribund than our own government. The Catholic Church has roughly eight times the history the United States of America has, to put it another way. So far, for all the "new tone" the Pope is setting, he hasn't actually changed any Catholic doctrine at all. He speaks much more compassionately and openly, but nothing about the Church's position has actually changed -- on the role of women, on contraception, on gay marriage, on priests getting married, or any of the rest of it.

He may be "softening the ground" for such changes, though. It's impossible to tell at this point, but he has put into motion a two-year process which may actually modernize some Catholic doctrine. We're only halfway through this process, so nobody knows what -- if any -- major changes Francis will make. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say to the world families conference he'll be attending in Philadelphia, to see if any hint of future shifts will emerge.

But agree with Francis or not, agree with the Catholic Church or not, you've got to admit Francis was pretty impressive this week. He came to the United States after he visited Cuba, doing a sort of "victory lap" after being so instrumental in bringing the two countries to speaking terms again. Like his namesake, Francis seems to take very seriously the concept of humility. That alone, along with even making the attempt at reforming a 2000-year-old bureaucracy, is so impressive that we can't even focus on crass politics this week. And no, we're not going to create a special award for the Pope instead of handing out the MIDOTW award. We say with all seriousness and with no attempt at humor whatsoever: We are not worthy of creating such an award.



[center][/center]

Likewise, in the spirit of forgiveness, we are not going to issue a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week, either.

Pax vobiscum.



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 363 (9/25/15)[/center]

Papal visit aside, there was some other political news this week. Scott Walker shockingly dropped out of the Republican presidential nomination race. Hillary Clinton finally came out against the Keystone XL pipeline. But we're going to ignore all of that, because like our introduction this week, our talking points all deal with John Boehner's stunning announcement.

We did briefly consider creating a talking point out of the fact that Scott Walker said God had called him to run for president and the fact that John Boehner made his decision the day after he met with the Pope (Boehner: "This morning, I woke up and I said my prayers, as I always do, and I decided, you know, today's the day I'm going to do this&quot . This talking point would have been titled something like "God calling on Republicans to quit," but we decided that'd be too snarky to include in the same column that praised Pope Francis, so we righteously decided to leave it out. What would that be, expressed in Latin? De mortuis nil snarkum, maybe? Well, Latin's never been our strong suit, we fully admit. Heh.

Instead, this week our talking points are mostly informative ones. They're really tailored to talk across the aisle, to any Republicans who might now be doing celebratory dances at the prospect of John Boehner stepping down. Because, as they all point out one way or another, the Congressional math isn't going to change at all.



McCarthy will have the same problem

The leader's name will change, but the structural problem will not.

"There's a familiar saying about 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,' but the problem the Republicans now find themselves facing might instead be called 'changing cruise directors on the Titanic.' No matter who is in charge of the Lido Deck, unless you change course that ship's still going to hit that iceberg, folks. The Tea Partiers are still there, and now they've got a fresh scalp nailed to their wall, so I can't see them suddenly becoming more reasonable. I feel somewhat sorry for Boehner, because he genuinely seemed to want to get things done at times, which is largely the reason he's being forced out now. So any new speaker -- Kevin McCarthy or anyone else -- is going to have the same exact problem. The House can pass Tea Party bills until it is blue in the face (or maybe red in the face?), but when it comes to actually passing bills to put on Obama's desk, I think the next speaker will have just as large a problem as Boehner has been having, no matter who gets the job of herding the Republican cats in the House."



It's the math, stupid

This is the big disconnect that people like Donald Trump exploit with glee.

"The big problem the Republican Party has right now is that their base voters simply don't understand the math of basic American civics. When you don't hold the presidency, it takes a whopping two-thirds of both houses of Congress to impose your absolute will in legislation. The Republicans currently hold both the House and the Senate, but their majority is nowhere near two-thirds in either house. They do not have the votes to overturn a veto -- they don't even have the votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate. Those are hard, cold facts that Republican base voters are mostly unaware of. Republicans cheering Boehner's exit seem to think changing speakers will change this situation in some way. It will not. The math is the math. Changing speakers doesn't change it one iota, no matter what the Tea Partiers think."



The House passing poison pills is meaningless

Yet another thing some rank-and-file voters need to be educated about.

"For all the complaints from the Tea Partiers, John Boehner actually let them do pretty much whatever they wanted. The anger at Boehner was really that he had no magic wand to make a House-passed bill the law of the land. The House has voted over 50 times to repeal Obamacare, and yet the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act remains completely unscathed. The House can pass all the bills it wants; defunding Planned Parenthood, making abortions illegal for rape victims, abolishing the I.R.S., slashing Social Security... whatever. But extreme bills that no Democrat can vote for will still get filibustered in the Senate, no matter who leads the House. The only thing the House can achieve on its own is to shut down the government, over and over again. That's it. They can gum up the works, but with the numbers they have, they are incapable of setting national policy on their own. Again -- no matter who sits in the big chair."



The same as no bill at all

This one is truly puzzling, but Republicans seem to be shaky on the concept.

"All of the fights in Congress over these poison-pill bills that demand 100 percent of what the Republicans want and nothing Democrats want are kind of ridiculous. Let's just say for the sake of argument that somehow one of these House bills was agreed to by the Senate. It would then go to the president's desk, where it would be vetoed. This is seen as some sort of victory by the Republicans -- just listen to them talk about the budget and 'reconciliation,' for instance -- but what they're ignoring is that a vetoed bill is exactly the same thing, functionally, as no bill at all. Even if John Boehner did have a magic wand to get House bills through the Senate, they would still not become law and we'd all be back at square one. The only difference is the perceived political hay the Republicans could make over the issue on the campaign trail, but nothing else would change in the slightest."



The "C-word"

There's only one way to get bills signed into law.

"John Boehner did a pretty good job of letting the Tea Partiers stamp their feet and have their tantrums, but at the end of the day (or, sometimes, a few weeks after the end of the day), Boehner would forge some sort of compromise legislation with Democrats because he knew it was the only way to get both the Senate votes necessary and the president's signature. None of that will change with a new speaker, except maybe the timeline of the Tea Party tantrum period (which might get shorter or longer, depending on the new speaker's leadership style). But the math is the math -- to get anything at all done in Congress, some degree of compromise is absolutely required right now. I know the 'C-word' is considered obscene (or maybe blasphemous) by the Tea Party, but compromise is the only way anything at all is going to get done until the next election. What worries me is that the compromises Boehner struck are precisely the reason he was eventually forced to resign. This doesn't exactly bode well for the next speaker."



Not the same as governing

The game is not reality. Sometimes it's worth pointing that out.

"If all goes as planned, Boehner's resignation will buy a vote to keep the federal government running until mid-December. This means that the new speaker will have a little over a month to solve the budget impasse. That's a pretty tall order for someone new to the job, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, Boehner's resignation is only going to empower the obstructionists. Say the Tea Partiers pass their dream budget in the House, and get it through with reconciliation in the Senate. Then what? Obama vetoes it and the government shuts down -- right before the holidays. The radical Republicans seem to think that 'Boy, we sure showed Obama!' is the same thing as getting something done. It isn't. Forcing a veto is not the same thing as governing. In fact, it is nothing more than scoring a cheap point in a political game that most Americans are downright disgusted with in the first place. But this game isn't reality. Reality is no budget, no bill, and no compromise. We'll see how long that lasts, as everyone's busy getting ready for the holiday season."



Social Security checks will stop

This is the hardest and coldest reality, and this is also what always ends these silly shutdowns.

"With Boehner stepping down, we will gain a few months before a government shutdown looms. But when we get to that point again, will the Tea Partiers demand no compromise and no surrender? Boehner is loathed for (among other things) eventually bowing to reality the last time the House Republicans shut down the government. Will a new speaker refuse to take this route, and just leave the government shut down, in an effort to force Obama's hand? Well, folks, while Republicans love to make light of 'So the National Parks are closed, big deal!' and belittle the impact of shutting down the federal government, there is always another deadline built in. At some point, the Social Security Administration will find it has no fiscal authority to send out checks. If the Republicans truly take the route urged upon them by Tea Partiers, then we will reach that point and all Social Security checks will stop. I wonder how popular that'll be with Republican congressional constituents. My guess is: 'not very' -- what do you think?"



[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]

September 19, 2015

Friday Talking Points (632) -- Beyond The Debate Stage

This was one of those weeks when one event overshadowed pretty much everything else that was going on in the political world. The event, of course, was the second round of Republican presidential debates, which lasted for a grueling five-plus hours.

I've already written two columns on the debates, one composed of my snap reactions just after the conclusion and the second one pointing out how far the discussion of marijuana legal reform has come, since an actual serious discussion of marijuana policy broke out late in the second debate between Rand Paul, Jeb! Bush, and Chris Christie. Or you can always find fact-checking articles pointing out some of the hogwash being touted as fact during the debates. If you really have a lot of time on your hands, you can even read the full transcript of what was said. But for the most part, we're going to focus here on stuff that happened outside the debate hall (known to Republicans as "The Shrine of Saint Ronald of Reagan's Magic Airplane&quot .

Something sneaking up on everyone in the political world is the surprising amount of GOP candidates who are open to ending a massive tax break for hedge fund managers. President Obama has noticed, and is pointing it out. This won't happen overnight, but it cuts to the core of Republican orthodoxy ("no tax hikes ever on anyone for any reason&quot , so it certainly is an interesting political shift to watch.

In non-debate Republican presidential campaign news, Bobby Jindal wrote an extraordinary opinion piece for CNN, which begins:

Oh no! Not the dreaded socialist abyss! Ahhhh! Jindal's tone is either apoplectic or apocalyptic (take your choice) throughout the entire piece. He minces no words when it comes to the threat of The Donald, warning darkly:



C'mon, Bobby, tell us what you really think! Jindal's getting pretty desperate these days, and in normal times we'd be speculating about when he'll be exiting the race. However, these are not exactly normal times, so maybe he'll stick around to be the Trump attack dog for a while longer. "A madman who must be stopped" -- wonder what Jindal will do if Trump gets the nomination. Think he'll stick to that R.N.C. pledge to support the eventual nominee?

Speaking of people possibly about to exit the race, Scott Walker has just pulled all his forces back to Iowa. He can't afford to concentrate on any other states, and his donors are reportedly getting pretty nervous. He's banking on a big win in Iowa, which doesn't appear very likely to happen, so he may become the second Republican to exit the race (leaving us with "only" 15 candidates).

Bad news for Carly Fiorina (if anybody actually notices, that is): Hewlett-Packard is about to lay off another 30,000 employees. It's bad for Carly because it reminds people of that time that she was in charge and also laid off 30,000 people. Which might just appear in some ads, if Fiorina climbs in the polls after her first "big table" debate. The ironic thing is that while Carly isn't leading HP anymore (after being fired, of course), the woman who is currently leading it was also trounced in the same California election that Carly lost: Meg Whitman.

But the weirdest news of the week was the breaking story (watch for this video on tonight's news!) of a Marco Rubio top aide sucker-punching a Rand Paul top aide in the face in a barroom. Seriously, no matter how much Democrats squabble, at least they're not engaging in fisticuffs in public.

Speaking of Democrats squabbling, it seems that with his recent rise in the polling, Bernie Sanders is starting to appear to be a threat to the Hillary coronation process. This week alone, Sanders was the target of a hit piece in the New York Times and a bizarre throwback to the days of "red-baiting" from a Hillary Clinton political action committee (more on this last one in the awards section). The Washington Post ran a pretty good rebuttal of the Times piece, which points out the gaping flaws in the story, for anyone truly interested.

Meanwhile, Bernie gave a speech this week to the ultra-conservative Liberty University. The speech was praised by many for opening a dialog with people progressives normally don't even bother talking to. Bernie's argument was a moral one, pointing out that while the audience might disagree with him on hot-button issues like abortion, "family values" should also have an economic component to it. The Bible actually has plenty to say about how we should treat the poor and less fortunate than ourselves, which the Pope is also about to remind America of, in his upcoming visit.

Hillary's team is swearing that they're sticking to her original campaign plan, which is rather unbelievable since this was the first week of dramatic changes in her campaign style. I guess we're supposed to believe that she planned this all along, or something. Hillary's been everywhere this week, on Ellen's show, on the Tonight Show, and this Sunday she'll do her first sit-down interview of her entire campaign on a Sunday-morning political show (Face The Nation on CBS). Hillary is making herself much more accessible to the press of late, and trying to show a more human side as well. We personally don't watch daytime television (although we heard Clinton danced on Ellen's show), but we do think that Hillary was pretty funny and relaxed on her appearance on Jimmy Fallon's show. Hillary Clinton could never have a second career as a stand-up comic (we still cringe when we recall how she blew the "Live from New York, it's Saturday Night" line, the last time she ran), but she is indeed making a concerted effort to appear much more human and much less scripted these days -- which is a welcome change and should be encouraged.

Let's see, what else is going on? Dee Snider reminded us all of the farce that was the "P.M.R.C." -- which happened 30 years ago and still stands out as one of the stupidest wastes of time Congress has ever been involved in (right up there with the 50's demonization of comic books). I wrote about this many years ago, and included Frank Zappa's entire written condemnation of the proceedings, but Dee Snider also testified next to Zappa, so his take is also an excellent one to read. Remember, without eternal vigilance, senators' wives get up to all sorts of nonsense!

Speaking of poking government noses where they don't belong, the F.B.I. abruptly yanked a "wax-like, life-size figure of J. Edgar Hoover" from a historical display. It seems the agency is finally realizing that Hoover is not a figure worth looking up to. From the article:



To completely end the legacy, that last bit needs addressing as well -- the part about the headquarters "named after Hoover." When the building is renamed, we'll believe the F.B.I. is serious about disavowing Hoover's legacy.

In marijuana news, Colorado heard the actual discussion about federal marijuana policy during the Republican debate, and immediately declared a one-day "tax holiday" on marijuana sales. Well, no, that's not really how it happened (the truth is far more mundane), but it sure would have been amusing if it had been a celebration of Rand Paul speaking sense to millions of Republican voters.

And a warning is necessary to introduce our final introductory paragraph, because it contains some unseemly language. If that sort of thing offends you, then just quickly skip to the awards section. Fair warning. A man in New York was just vindicated on First Amendment grounds for insulting a town. He got a speeding ticket, and while attempting to pay the ticket by mail, wrote his own political opinion of the town on it, thus exercising his right to free political speech. He crossed out the town's name (ironically enough, "Liberty, New York&quot and wrote in "Tyranny" instead. Then he went free-form, expressing the opinion: "Fuck your shitty town bitches" on the form, before mailing it in with his guilty plea and payment. The town then refused his payment and forced him to appear before a judge, where he was promptly arrested for "aggravated harassment." A federal judge just agreed with his case that his First Amendment rights were violated, leaving us all free to express whatever opinion we wish -- no matter how profane -- on any speeding tickets we get in the future. Another win for free speech!



[center][/center]

Before we get to the main prize, we've got two Honorable Mentions to hand out. The first goes to Hillary Clinton. For months now, we've seen a tightly-controlled campaign from a tightly-wound candidate. Press access to her was severely restricted, and she seemed to be reinforcing the image of an over-calculating, over-cautious campaigner. This week, the floodgates were opened. Hillary's now appearing on television, giving serious sit-down interviews, and working hard to put the email questions to rest. She's also attempting to get outside her own comfort zone and show off her human side better. Her appearance on Jimmy Fallon's show was pretty well done all around (it appeared the night of the debate, so it wasn't noticed by everyone), and it should boost her confidence for making these sorts of appearances in the future. She'll be appearing on CBS Sunday morning, which was another noticeable hole in her campaign strategy (she hasn't done any Sunday morning shows yet). For attempting to steer her campaign in a new and better direction, Clinton gets some credit.

Our second Honorable Mention goes this week to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Warren just introduced a bill to ban prospective employers from performing credit checks on job applicants for most jobs. There is no evidence that having something bad on your credit history (oftentimes, erroneously) has anything to do with job performance at all. Having such a bad mark is like a modern-day scarlet letter, because it perpetuates a vicious cycle (can't pay your bills, but can't get a good job so that you can pay your bills). The bill probably won't pass right away, but this is precisely the reason so many progressives love Warren -- for identifying issues that need fixing, and then pushing changes to fix the problems.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders introduced a bill of his own this week, already fulfilling a campaign promise, which would ban private prisons. The private prison industry has completely skewed the way governments view incarceration, and it is rather sickening to think about people making millions of dollars off of keeping people locked up. This was all the fallout of the Republican-led "privatization" frenzy, decades ago, and it's great to see Sanders attacking the root of the problem.

But this would have earned him no more than an Honorable Mention (the bill hasn't been passed or anything, in other words). Instead, this week Bernie gets his twelfth MIDOTW (passing up Hillary Clinton's 11) for immediately raising over a million dollars off the Clinton camp's pathetic red-baiting attack. Bernie correctly pointed out that it "was the kind of onslaught I expected to see from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson."

But we've covered all that below in the next section, so we'll just move right along to explain what happened.

{Congratulate Senator Bernie Sanders on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.}



[center][/center]

We're not going to give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Hillary Clinton, tempting though it may be. Instead, we're awarding it to the "Correct The Record" super PAC, which is supporting Clinton's campaign. This hair-splitting is necessary to preserve the fiction that PACs never "coordinate" with the campaigns, meaning the entire mess can't directly be laid at Hillary's door.

Huffington Post broke the story, when Correct The Record sent them an email which they tried to place "off the record" (in other words, filed under "anonymous rumors to report on&quot . The reporter hadn't agreed to this, so the email's contents were reported on.

The case is downright bizarre, because it is such a flimsy and ham-fisted attempt at politically smearing Bernie Sanders. This is a case study in innuendo and red-baiting (and what might be called terrorism-baiting). Here's the tortured logic of Correct The Record:

Jeremy Corbyn just became Britain's new Labour Party leader. Corbyn is a socialist (and not just the way the word is tossed around here across the pond -- he's the real thing). Sanders and Corbyn have said nice things about each other. Corbyn has also made some "extreme comments" about Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah, NATO, Russia, and Hugo Chavez. Therefore, Bernie Sanders loves terrorists and communist leaders. Ergo, Sanders is probably a commie himself.

Think that's an exaggeration? Read the whole story for yourself and decide.

Sanders immediately used this smear attempt in fundraising, stating not only that this was reminiscent of the Koch brothers but also that Team Hillary "suggested I'd be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator." He's raised $1.2 million so far, which might just give Correct The Record a few second thoughts about trying such mudslinging again -- or at the very least, perhaps try to come up with a smear that's even remotely believable and doesn't involve such transparent attempts of calling Bernie a commie.

For bringing us all back to the red-baiting era, for trying to push a downright laughable "six degrees from Kevin Bacon" linkage, and for all-around incompetence, Correct The Record is indeed our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

The most amusing thing in this whole sorry episode is that Bernie faced smear attempts from the mainstream media this week as well as from Team Hillary. Sounds like some folks are getting just a wee bit worried about the success of Bernie's campaign, doesn't it?

{Correct The Record is part of a political campaign (whether they admit it to the I.R.S. or not), and we have a blanket policy of not linking to such sites, so you'll have to do your own web search to let them know what you think of their actions.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 362 (9/18/15)[/center]

We have some debate-themed talking points this week, and some from the rest of the political world. There's actually only one about Donald Trump this week, and it even comes from a Republican. As always, these talking points are provided for Democrats to use everywhere, from the Sunday morning chatfests to talking with coworkers around the water cooler.



More good Obamacare data is in

Democrats need to point out every single time good stats like these come in.

"Once again, I see new figures are out showing the success of the Affordable Care Act in getting more and more Americans insured. Last year alone, nine million more people had health insurance coverage than in 2013. The percentage of people uninsured dropped from 13.3 percent to 10.4 percent. Over and over again, the numbers prove that the sky has not fallen and Obamacare is doing precisely what it was intended to do. The naysayers don't want to even talk about Obamacare at all anymore -- I barely even heard it mentioned in the debates -- because all their horror stories simply have not come true. As the data show, over and over again."



Republicans coming to their senses on weed

A big tectonic shift just happened in the Republican Party. So point it out!

"I was fascinated to hear Republicans debate reforming federal laws on marijuana the other night. Things Republicans used to fight hard against are now actually being bragged about, as positive accomplishments! Republicans fought hard against the idea of drug courts -- and now they all seem to agree that the "tough on crime" and "mandatory minimums" policies they all pushed back in the 1980s have been proven to be disastrous. Drug courts are now something Republicans not only support but brag about! Likewise, the concept of medical marijuana was denounced by just about all Republicans just a few short years ago, and now even Chris Christie -- who promises to crack down on legal recreational use -- touts New Jersey's acceptance of medical marijuana as a political plus. After pushing policies that don't work ever since Nancy Reagan's time, Republicans are finally beginning to see the light on marijuana reform. It's about time, and I look forward to hearing what the Democratic candidates have to say on the issue as well."



Pope actually reads all of the Bible

The Pope's coming to town, and many Republicans are getting nervous.

"Pope Francis will be coming to America soon, and it seems that some Republicans are running away from the Pope in fear of what he'll say. It seems they want to use religious leaders' statements when politically convenient, but then ignore statements that they don't want to hear. Sounds like a pretty thin grasp of Christianity, to me. Unlike many of these religiously-choosy Republicans, the Pope has actually read all the Bible -- even those parts about being a good shepherd of the Earth and helping the poor whenever possible. There are in fact many things in the Bible that many politicians just conveniently omit, and the Pope's about to remind them of a few. Should be interesting!"



Shutdown ahead!

There isn't just one issue, there are actually many ways a shutdown could happen soon.

"Once again, America faces the consequences of John Boehner's absolute lack of the ability to lead or control his own party. Although Republicans control both houses of Congress, they have not done what they promised they would do -- pass a budget on time, the way it is supposed to happen. Because of this, we need a short-term extension while they do the job they should have been doing all year long. Everyone knows how this will end -- Republicans and Democrats will have to strike some sort of spending deal, since a bill can't pass the Senate without Democratic support. But over in the House, Boehner can't even manage to pass a bill with a clear majority of Republicans because the Tea Partiers want to throw another conniption fit and shut down the federal government. This shutdown will not gain them anything, and a deal will inevitably be struck in the end. But due to Boehner's weakness as a leader, we may see the shutdown happen anyway. As Ronald Reagan might have said, 'there they go again...'."



That leaves 47 percent, doesn't it?

Jeb! Bush wants to cut taxes on rich folks. Surprise, surprise!

"I see Jeb Bush released his tax plan this week. It calls for lots of tax cuts, but the proportions are guaranteed to increase income inequality in America. This is because a whopping 53 percent of these tax cuts would go to the top one percent of earners. That's Bush's idea of 'middle-class tax cuts,' I guess. What I found amusing is that if you do the math, that means the other 99 percent of workers would get 47 percent of the Bush tax cuts. Now where have I heard the figure '47 percent' on the campaign trail before? Hmmm...."



Republican-on-Republican violence

Don't even need to come up with a Trump talking point this week. Bobby Jindal already did a fine job of doing so!

"Right after the second debate, Bobby Jindal -- desperate for attention, obviously -- wrote an anti-Trump rant for CNN. It contains all sorts of hilarious bits, including Gary Busey as a Trump cabinet member, Trump's face on Mount Rushmore, and renaming his airplane 'Hair Force One.' Pretty funny stuff, and as Jindal points out, 'the jokes write themselves.' But later on, Jindal became almost unhinged in his Trump-hating, stating 'Donald Trump is a madman who must be stopped.' Think Jindal will be supporting Trump if he wins the GOP nomination? Hope Reince Priebus has Jindal's sworn loyalty oath on file, looks like he might need it!"



Still no occupation of Texas

Likely the last time we'll be using this one. One would like to hope, at any rate.

"As Salon just helpfully pointed out, the 'Jade Helm 15' military exercise just wrapped up, and Texas is still somehow not occupied by the American military. Instead of the wild-eyed expectation that troops would be 'marching through your town, implementing Obamacare, pardoning undocumented workers and replacing the Constitution with Sharia law,' absolutely nothing happened instead. I'm still waiting for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to admit he was 'horribly wrong about the whole thing,' but I'm not exactly holding my breath."



[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]

September 12, 2015

Friday Talking Points (361) -- Bye-Bye, Rick!

Breaking news! Rick Perry drops out of presidential race!

This news broke after almost all of this column was written, so we're just going to add this bit at the top to snarkily wish Rick Perry well in his future endeavors. I must admit I got it wrong when I predicted a few weeks ago that Perry would stay in the race longer than Jim Gilmore, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal. But that doesn't mean we can't have some fun betting who will drop out next! With Perry gone already, I predict that Gilmore will be next, seeing as how he didn't even make it onto next week's CNN kid's table debate. Place your bets in the comments -- who will be the next to fall?

One thing worth pointing out as Perry exits is that he was really the first Republican candidate to directly attack Donald Trump. Both Perry and Graham lit into Trump after his disgraceful comments about John McCain's military service. It did neither of them any good in the polls -- and, in fact, was roughly where Perry began his big slide downwards. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned for the other candidates? Time will tell. OK, with the breaking news out of the way, let's resume our regular column, shall we?

CNN has just announced the lineup for next week's Republican candidates' debates, so we'll start with that. On the adult stage, there will be eleven candidates, since they had to bend the rules enough to let Carly Fiorina face off (yes, that was a pun) against Donald Trump. Appearing next to these two will be Ben Carson, Jeb! Bush, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, John Kasich, and Chris Christie. Relegated to the "kids' table" debate held earlier (to allow for their nap times, one supposes) will be Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham. Not appearing because he didn't qualify: Jim Gilmore. Appearing in spirit, and guaranteed to be mentioned by all: Saint Ronald of Reagan, whose plane they'll be debating under (for mystical and magical Republican reasons unfathomable to non-believers).

Speaking of getting blocked from a stage, an amusing thing happened this week out on the Republican campaign trail which few noticed. Ted Cruz seems to be running what might be called a "limpet mine campaign," since his favorite tactic now is to attach himself to other people's events. This week alone, Cruz showed up at a Trump rally in Washington and tried to horn in on Mike Huckabee exploiting the anti-marriage-equality clerk in Tennessee. Maybe he's just applying Black Lives Matter's tactics of grabbing other people's microphones? In any case, the Huckster wasn't having any of it. Huckabee would be the only one appearing on stage to make political hay out of the event, dammit! His staffers reportedly physically blocked Ted Cruz from taking the stage, so that Huckabee could be the lone Republican presidential candidate standing next to the woman. I guess the moral of the story is that Ted Cruz should stick to shadowing Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to care about Cruz appearing at his events (and, really, why should he?).

Trump was in the news "bigly" (as he would put it) this week, for metaphorically smacking Carly Fiorina in the face. He stopped short of using the word "ugly" or anything even more colorful (you just know he was thinking of a choice putdown but decided to dial it back), but made his feelings pretty transparent: America simply could not stand to see Carly Fiorina's face on their televisions for the next four years. Will this tank his support, even among Republican women? Not likely! In fact, Trump's polling dominance continues to grow, as he heads north of 30 percent. Only Ben Carson is over 10 percent anymore, and the other fifteen Republicans are all flailing wildly in the single digits.

Flailing especially hard this week was Bobby Jindal. Jindal, languishing somewhere below one percent in the polls, decided it was time to come out swinging at Trump. He put out a fairly hilarious ad comparing Trump's love of "winning" to Charlie Sheen, back when he was freaking out about "Winning!" and tiger blood and all the rest of it. Pretty funny, Bobby, but you'll still be at the kiddy table debate, sorry. Jindal did have one other choice thing to say about Trump, but it's so good we're saving it for the talking points.

Also flailing (although not quite as badly as Jindal) is Jeb! Bush. Bush seems to think that running for president means having to put out position papers on subjects like taxes. How quaint! In this Era Of Trump it's debatable whether such things matter or not any more, but nonetheless Jeb! released his tax plan anyway. It's got something in it to annoy pretty much everyone, which could also be said of his entire campaign, now that we think about it. Jeb! would end the "carried interest loophole" -- which translates, in Republicanese, to "raising capital gains taxes on the job-creators," so it'll likely go over like a lead balloon with Republican voters. It also adds over three trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade, giving fiscal conservatives something to howl about. Oh, and it also would conveniently cut Jeb!'s own taxes by 25 percent. As we said, something for everyone to hate!

One thing worth mentioning is that the stars do seem to be possibly aligning in the political world to actually get rid of the carried-interest loophole that hedge fund managers use to pay half the taxes they should. Democrats (those worthy of the name, at least) have always pushed to close this loophole for good, but now two prominent Republican presidential candidates -- Bush and Trump -- have both called for the same thing that Bill de Blasio is currently championing. This loophole isn't going away tomorrow or anything, but it is indeed interesting to see some Republicans coming around on the issue, that's for sure.

Over on the Democratic side of the race, Joe Biden made an emotional appearance on last night's Stephen Colbert show. He is obviously still grieving over the loss of his son Beau, but the interesting thing was how people reacted today. Some point to Biden's appearance as evidence he's about to jump into the presidential race, and some say exactly the opposite, that it meant Biden will not run. We'll all have to wait another few weeks, most likely, to see who is right.

Hillary Clinton has got to be more than a little bit concerned over the state of her polling, in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In July, Clinton had 52 percent in Iowa to Bernie Sanders's 33 percent, but now Bernie's at 41 percent while Hillary has fallen to 40 percent. Sanders also now has roughly a 10-point lead over her in New Hampshire (seen in several polls). Bernie Sanders could win the first two contests in the primary race -- which would be a major achievement. Sanders is also expanding his campaign to the South and other places holding early primaries, so it seems likely he'll be competitive beyond just Iowa and New Hampshire.

Of course, the one-on-one dynamic on the Democratic side would be shaken up if Biden throws his hat in the ring. It's hard to predict what a Biden candidacy would do to the polling for Clinton and Sanders. Early indications are that Biden would pull from both candidates about equally, which wouldn't really give either Clinton or Sanders an edge from Biden getting in. But we'll see -- Biden's polling is still pretty impressive for a guy who hasn't even decided whether he's running or not.

In other news, President Obama had a pretty good week, as Congress is not going to send him a bill overturning the Iran nuclear deal. Obama would have vetoed it anyway, but now he won't even have to do that. Republicans in Congress proved, once again, that they are the gang who can't shoot straight, as John Boehner was almost held captive by the Tea Partiers (also, once again). This does not bode well for the upcoming budget fight, where the radicals are already threatening another government shutdown. September's going to be a frantic month in Congress, that's for sure.

Obama also announced this week that America would take in 10,000 more Syrian refugees (to date, we've taken in an underwhelming 1,500). Still a drop in the bucket, seeing as how Germany is taking in 800,000 this year alone.

And finally, after winning a religious equality battle in Oklahoma, the Satanic Temple now wants to put up a statue of Baphomet on public grounds in Arkansas. If the Ten Commandments are allowed, then a Satanic statue must also be allowed -- that's equal treatment under the law. It sounds silly, but these sorts of cases are the natural extension of religion inserting itself into what should be secular government. To put it another way: if Christmas is celebrated on public property, then you can't stop a Festivus pole from going up, too.



[center][/center]

This week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is none other than the governor of California, Jerry Brown.

Now, those readers living in California know that Brown had a mixed week. The legislature wrapped up business without moving on several agenda items Brown wanted (including an aggressive plan to cut vehicle emissions in half). A "right to die" bill did make it through, although it's unclear whether Brown will sign it or not (it would make California the fifth state to approve legal medical suicide).

Legislation aside, however, Brown earns our MIDOTW award for taking on not only Ben Carson but the whole "show me the evidence" nonsense from the right on climate change. Here's the story:

That is simply beautiful! Ask and ye shall receive, and all of that.

With such a simple and effective response, Brown definitely scored a point politically against Ben Carson and all the rest of the stick-your-head-in-the-sand Republicans. For handling it with both class and humor, Jerry Brown is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

{Congratulate Governor Jerry Brown on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.}



[center][/center]

More in sadness than in anger, we have to award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Martin O'Malley.

O'Malley had a plan. He was going to be the anti-Hillary in the Democratic race. It would soon develop into a two-way contest, and if Clinton stumbled even a little bit, he'd be the safe alternative for Democrats to nominate.

This has not, in fact, happened.

Instead, O'Malley is regulated to the "Is he still running?" category, along with Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and now Lawrence Lessig. Bernie Sanders caught fire, and presents a solid alternative to Clinton -- something the O'Malley campaign just didn't see coming. You've got to feel a little bit sorry for O'Malley, especially since all the buzz started about Biden's possible entry into the race. "Hey, guys?" you can see O'Malley saying, "I'm right here, guys -- the safe alternative to Clinton you're looking for!"

Instead, O'Malley released the most bizarre fundraising effort ever. Here's the story:



Wow, that's just... wow. O'Malley is reduced to begging for gummy bears on the streets? A buck-seventy-four in an hour? That's just sad.

So for all the millions of O'Malley voters who have never materialized, we have to say that Martin O'Malley was the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. Maybe we should all send him gummy bears, or something.

{Martin O'Malley does not currently hold political office, and our policy is never to link to campaign websites, so you'll have to search his contact info out on your own to let him know what you think of his fundraising efforts.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 361 (9/11/15)[/center]

Obviously, I had to hastily rewrite one of these at the last minute. The rest are pretty standard fare, split between pointing out the idiocy of the GOP candidates and the idiocy of the GOP Congress. With a look backwards thrown in at the end, just for nostalgic reasons.



A game the whole family can play

Bye-bye, Rick! Let's have some fun picking who will be next to collapse....

"This time around, it seems that Rick Perry won't even have the chance to have an 'oops' moment at a national Republican debate, as he becomes the first Republican to drop out of the 2016 presidential race. Of course, it was inevitable with so many people running that a lot of them aren't even going to make it to the first primary. So who do you think will be next to go? My money's on Jim Gilmore, but I'm wondering if George Pataki might be a safer bet. So who would you bet on for the next Republican to take the exit ramp?"



Give us those papers you don't have!

Republicans in Congress, led (as always) by the Tea Partiers, devolved into farce this week.

"I see the House Republicans -- and a few senators running for president -- are now demanding an impossibility. Because they were so inept at voting against Obama's Iran nuclear deal, they tried to create their own reality to distract their own constituents. The clock hasn't started, they insist, on when Congress must vote on the Iran deal, because the White House has not provided them with the side deals Iran and the I.A.E.A. struck -- papers the White House does not have. Once again: they cannot provide what they do not have. This reality seems to have escaped congressional Republicans, but in the rest of the world the Iran deal is now complete. It'll take Republicans a while to realize it, but thankfully that won't matter to those of us who live in the real world."



Trump unstoppable?

Trump faces off with Fiorina next week. Should be fun for all!

"Can you actually imagine what would happen if Donald Trump became president? Faces he deemed not suitable for television would not appear -- we'd have only beautiful women, as defined by Trump. President Trump will save us all from ugliness ever appearing on our screens again! Think it's impossible? Yet Donald Trump's poll numbers continue to climb, no matter what comes out of his mouth. There is simply no ceiling yet to his mounting support within the party. He's now polling over 30 percent, and my guess is that if he gets above 35 percent and sustains it, he may well become unstoppable for the Republican nomination. It'll sure make for an entertaining campaign season, that's for sure! Can't wait to see the debates next week, when Fiorina takes him on in person."



Jindal gets off a good one

As promised, here is what Bobby Jindal had to say about Trump's religious knowledge. This is perfect for any Democrat to use, just preface with "...as Bobby Jindal said about Trump:"





Don't deficits matter?

Jeb! is already getting heat on this one from his own party. So go ahead and rub it in!

"Jeb Bush's tax plan would explode deficits to the tune of 3.4 trillion dollars over ten years. Even if you use the magical pixie-dust-infused Republican math they've adopted, Bush's plan still adds over a trillion dollars to the debt. So I guess Jeb's following Dick Cheney's view that 'deficits don't matter.' I can remember when the Republican Party used to be against deficit spending, so I really wonder whether Jeb's plan is going to gain much support even in the GOP."



Pot, meet kettle

McConnell always sounds kind of whiney, but this week he was at his whiniest.

"Mitch McConnell used to believe that matters with a high level of controversy, quote, always require 60 votes, unquote. That's from back when he was in the minority in the Senate, of course. This week, he changed his tune, whining about the 'artificial limits on passage' caused by filibusters. McConnell complained 'the Senate should not hide behind procedural obfuscation to shield the president or our individual views.' Boy, that's rich! Sure is different when your own tactics are used against you, isn't it, Mitch?"



Another crazy heard from

Here's a blast from the past -- and it's not even from Sarah Palin!

"I guess Michele Bachmann is feeling a little left out these days. After all, the craziness she used to dish up on a regular basis now actually seems pretty mild in comparison to this year's Republican nomination race. Bachmann tried to get back in the game by chiming in on the Iran nuclear deal, insisting that 'bombing Iranian nuclear facilities' is the way to go. She then got downright Orwellian, stating that dropping these bombs 'is called peace, that's not called war.' Doesn't that take you back? Remember when she was livening up the Republican campaign trail with such pearls of wisdom? But in the Trump Era, she almost makes you nostalgic for an earlier time when such craziness would actually get you noticed."

[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]

September 5, 2015

Friday Talking Points (360) -- North, To Alaska!

President Obama had some fun this week, and by doing so actually forced the media to tackle a serious subject on his agenda. The fun part was taking the whole press corps up to Alaska, and even filming an episode of Bear Gryll's celebrity survivalist show. I certainly never thought I'd type a sentence linking President Obama and Bear Grylls, but then we certainly do live in strange times. In a more normal political (but no less partisan) atmosphere, Obama might have been roundly criticized for acting almost Putin-like, being photographed as a tough guy in the great outdoors. Who knows, when the episode airs, he still may face such carping from Republicans. But seeing as how the Republican presidential race is currently redefining the term "cult of personality" in a major way, I don't think the charge is going to carry much weight. It's hard to argue that the dignity of the Oval Office means not appearing in a reality television show when the guy leading the pack on your side is a reality-show television star, after all.

Obama's trip did have a serious side, and he used his bully pulpit to good effect, spotlighting Americans who are already being directly affected by climate change. This spawned some stories in the mainstream media, which was precisely the point -- drawing the public's attention to the problem. Obama did undercut his Alaskan visit a bit by giving the green light to more arctic drilling a few weeks earlier, but he's still been the strongest environmentalist American president, on the whole, in modern times.

Obama also officially reverted North America's highest point to its original name. Schoolchildren will hence learn about "Mount Denali" instead of "Mount McKinley." As usual, there was some Republican grumbling about this, mostly from Ohio's congressional delegation (McKinley hailed from Ohio), but countering it were some actual (gasp!) kind words for Obama's action from Alaska Republicans. This interstate squabble has been going on for decades, now, so unless you in either state, it's probably not that big a deal.

Plenty of squabbling happened out on the campaign trail, most of it Republican-on-Republican violence. Jeb! Bush has finally realized that he can't just ignore Donald Trump in the hopes that he'll somehow magically disappear (perhaps Jeb!'s big donors sat him down and had a little chat with him, or something), and began to directly attack Trump in ads and on the stump. So far, this hasn't been all that impressive. Trump, of course, immediately fired back. The upshot of the squabble so far? Bush to Trump: "You're not a real conservative!" Trump to Bush: "You're a wimp!" Of course, Jeb! has a hundred million bucks to spend on advertising, so this fight looks like it's just getting started. So far it doesn't appear to be doing Jeb! much good, at least not in the polls (Bush has sunk to third place, and is now in single digits). Just today, it was revealed that the Club For Growth is also rounding up some money for an anti-Trump ad blitz, so maybe they'll come up with the magic bullet to defeat The Donald.

The head of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus (whose name without vowels, we always hasten to point out, is "RNC PR BS&quot , traveled up to New York to bend his knee and ask for a boon from his liege (which is so much nicer than calling it "ass-kissing&quot . Donald Trump, the true leader of the Republican Party right now, condescended to sign a laughably unenforceable "loyalty oath" to the party, pledging not to run as an independent campaign and to eventually support the Republican presidential nominee. What Priebus (and many others in the Republican establishment) haven't realized is that Trump thinks he's going to win that nomination, and agreeing to the loyalty oath means that every other Republican running will also be bound by the same pledge -- to support Donald Trump if he wins. It's Trump's party now, even if many Republicans can't quite admit it yet.

What's going on with the other umpty-gazillion Republicans running for president? Well, Scott Walker is apparently OK not only with a wall on the Mexican border, but also with building another one on the much-longer Canadian border. Um, OK, Scott, sure -- we'll get right on that. John Kasich, on the other hand, is seemingly OK with "reasonable" raises in the minimum wage, which isn't exactly the standard GOP position. No doubt Kasich would be getting pummeled for this by other GOP candidates, if anyone were actually paying any attention to him. Speaking of candidates not getting any traction on the campaign trail, Chris Christie continues to flounder, this time denying he said human activity contributed to climate change because: "We all contribute to it in one way or the other. By breathing we contribute to it." When called on the statement at a town hall, Christie just flat-out denied saying it. Rick Perry seems to be absolutely sinking beneath the waves, as it was revealed he no longer has any paid staff in New Hampshire and only one staffer in Iowa. Oops!

Carly Fiorina convinced CNN to change their debate rules, since she so obviously deserves a spot after rising dramatically in the polls after the first debates. There may well be more than ten candidates on the stage under the new rules, which specify only that a candidate hit a top ten spot during the last month in any poll. This may allow Rand Paul and even Rick Santorum to sneak into the big-kids' debate.

Both Fiorina and Trump are picking a truly moronic battle with Jeb! Bush, one that may get more notice if other candidates pick up on it. Bush committed the sin of criticizing Donald Trump in another language (gasp!). Bush, like his brother Dubya, knows how to speak Spanish. He married a Mexican woman, and is actually fluent. So, unbelievably, both Trump and Fiorina immediately jumped on Bush for speaking another language on the campaign trail.

The monumental stupidity of having this fight should be immediately apparent to all. How quickly will it escalate into Republican candidates signing a pledge never to speak any other language than English during the entire campaign? Who will forswear all advertising in Spanish? You can see how this could easily take on a life of its own, since many Republican voters probably believe that only elitists know more than one language. Fiorina even showed her own ignorance when criticizing Jeb!, wrongly claiming that English is the official language of the United States government. Haven't heard a comment on this idiocy yet from Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, which ought to be interesting. To put this another way, the Republican minority outreach program has now officially not only gone off the rails, but it has also headed over a cliff and is currently bouncing down a very steep canyon, spewing wreckage along the way. Can't wait to see what they come up with next!

Speaking of being on the wrong side of unwinnable battles, many of the Republican candidates for president are standing firm with Kim Davis, as she rots in jail for disobeying a federal judge's lawful order to do her damn job and uphold her oath of office. Formerly, Republicans have always been "about the rule of law" -- in a big way, at times. This time, not so much. The judge in question was appointed by George W. Bush, by the way, and was backed up by none other than the Supreme Court. Does this mean the days of "law and order" worship by Republicans have come to an end?

Let's take a quick look at the Democratic side of the aisle, and then we'll get on with the rest of the program. Bernie Sanders wrote a great blog post at Huffington Post, titled "High Drug Prices Are Killing Americans." Once again, Bernie is pointing out an issue that is of great concern to tens of millions of Americans (and one on which a huge majority agrees with him), and the media is completely ignoring it. Pretty much par for the course, for the mainstream media.

The Washington Post did, at least, run an amazing article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, which pointed out the idiocy of equating Bernie Sanders with Donald Trump (which has become a favorite thing among all the false-equivalence-lovers in the media). Truly, it's the best takedown of this nonsense we've yet read, so check it out.

What the media is doing (instead of addressing the substance of the Sanders campaign's wildly-popular issues) is digging through another 7,000 pages of Hillary Clinton emails, in the hopes of (you can't make this stuff up) discovering what her favorite television program is. And what the "gefilte fish" email was all about. {Editorial note: We are purposely not linking to either of those stories, because they never should have been written in the first place.} Clinton continues to grapple with the whole email fracas, and she wasn't exactly helped this week by one of her aides deciding to take advantage of the Fifth Amendment's protections (by not testifying before the House Committee On Taking Down Hillary, One Way Or Another). We've got months and months of this to go, much to Team Clinton's dismay.

The Joe Biden speculation continues apace, and Biden himself seems to be loving it, casually teasing the media and his audiences with the "Will I or won't I?" dance. However, Biden probably knows full well that your best day as a presidential candidate is usually the day before you announce. If Biden jumps in the race, his record will be scrutinized carefully by Democrats, and he's got a few things he'll need to explain. Like that bankruptcy bill he championed, for instance, that Elizabeth Warren was so strongly against. Or his leadership on the Drug War, which led to many policies which are now seen as mistakes. If Biden runs, he'll have to be clear on where he stands now on several issues, to win over enough Democratic primary voters.

Personally, our money's still on Biden gracefully declining to run, but then again we could always be wrong. Biden certainly does seem energized, of late. Maybe the urge to chuck his hat in the ring will be too enticing. We'll know by the end of this month, one way or another.

That's it, except for a shameless plug here at the end -- which should be of particular note to our teen readers, and to any readers who may have politically-interested teenage relatives. The project to build a Museum of Political Corruption in Albany, New York (which this column has long supported) has announced a one-page essay contest for high school students, to answer the question: "What is political corruption and why should we care?" First prize is not only $250, but also having the winning entry being published on my site. I strongly encourage anyone eligible (open to all high school students in the U.S.) to go ahead and enter -- the deadline is the second of November. The Museum of Political Corruption is in the process of getting non-profit status, and it now boasts Zephyr Teachout as an advisor. If this contest goes well, it could easily become an annual event. So be sure to tell any teen friends or relations you have about the contest, and encourage them to participate!



[center][/center]

President Obama not only had a good week gallivanting around the far north (and educating the public on climate change's immediacy), he also had a good week back in Washington. For the past month, Washington pundits have been playing an absolutely pointless game, counting the Senate votes in favor of the Iran nuclear deal. This is a pointless game because even if Congress passes a bill disapproving the deal, after Obama vetoes it the first place it would go would be back to the House -- where he's always had the votes to beat a veto-override. Still, it gave all the pundits something to do during all of August (an otherwise slow month), even if it was completely pointless.

Using this measuring stick, this week Obama did indeed secure the votes to beat a veto override in the Senate, when Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the 34th Democrat to publicly stand with the president. Now that this symbolic milestone has been achieved, the next milestone actually is worth paying attention to, because if Obama gets 41 votes on his side then he won't even have to veto anything at all, since the bill will die of a filibuster in the Senate. As of this writing, Obama's got 38 votes, but there are only a handful of senators remaining in the undecided column, from whom Obama needs three more votes. A third Democrat also came out against the bill, but the momentum seems to now be on the side of approving the deal.

This is a big accomplishment for Obama, and will become a major part of his foreign policy legacy (for better or worse, depending on how the deal actually works out). Obama pretty much assured this victory months ago, when he stacked the deck for how Congress would vote on any deal (I wrote about this yesterday in more detail).

When the votes are actually held (when Congress returns from its month-long holiday), Republican voters are once again going to be astonished that the Republican-led Congress can't seem to stop Obama from furthering his agenda. They're already pretty down on Republicans in Congress in general, and this certainly isn't going to help.

But whenever they hold the vote, this week is when the pundits inside the Beltway finally admitted the reality that has been apparent ever since 150 House Democrats signed a letter backing the deal -- Obama's going to win on this one. The Iran nuclear deal will become reality. This is a huge political victory for the president, and when you add in all the great bully-pulpit-ing he did this week, it's easy to see why President Barack Obama is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

{Congratulate President Barack Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.}



[center][/center]

We hate to say it, because his district is fairly local to us and he's generally a nice guy, but Representative Mike Honda might be toast.

Honda's pretty good on progressive issues, but he won a very narrow race against a much more "Blue Dog" type Democrat in the last House election (California has "top two / jungle" primaries, which means the general election can be between two candidates of the same party). His opponent has already said he's going to run again.

But now, Mike Honda will have a House ethics investigation hanging over his head during the campaign. He's being accused of using official staff and resources to raise campaign funds and do other campaign work while on the government's clock.

Honda released a statement downplaying the charges, saying nothing more than "sloppiness" and "missteps" happened. He may be right, and he may even eventually be vindicated. But he's up for re-election next year, and you can bet the issue will be a prominent one in the campaign nonetheless. In fact, it might be enough to shift that small margin Honda won by last time to his opponent.

Whether ultimately justified by the facts or not, having an ethics investigation announced is never a good thing. Mike Honda's been a pretty solid Democratic voice in the House, but the news this weeks makes him our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

{Contact Representative Mike Honda on his House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.}



[center][/center]
[center]Volume 360 (9/4/15)[/center]

OK, one of these is unabashedly pro-Bernie Sanders, we fully admit. But it does make a larger point, so it got included. Most of the rest is full-on Republican-bashing, just because. Enjoy, as always, and use responsibly.



Another good jobs report

Obama is very close to a big milestone on unemployment. Point it out!

"The unemployment rate is now officially down to 5.1 percent. What this means is that it has dropped by almost exactly half since the worst of the Great Recession, which happened during President Obama's first year in office. Late in 2009, the official unemployment rate hit 10 percent. Now, it's a hair above five. Mitt Romney promised that if he had been elected in 2012, he'd have gotten the rate down to six percent, by the end of his first term. Obama's bettered that by almost a full point, and he's still got over a year to go. Even the 'U6' unemployment number that got so scary has come down almost to pre-recession levels. It topped 17 percent in 2009, but is now down to 10.3 percent -- and it's dropped a full point since the beginning of this year. Even in the best economic times, that number hovers around eight or nine percent. By every measure, the economy continues to improve. Next month, we could even see the official unemployment dip below five percent."



Americans deserve a vacation

This is a prime example of issues which the mainstream (corporate) media routinely ignores. The issue is wildly popular with the public at large, and one presidential candidate has a bill to fix the problem, but you'll never hear about it on the evening news.

"All full-time workers in European countries are guaranteed from 20 to 30 -- or more -- paid vacation days a year. American workers are guaranteed zero days. Now, nobody's even suggesting we have four to six weeks of paid vacation mandated here, but Bernie Sanders is running on guaranteeing two measly weeks of paid time off to all American full-time workers. Ten days -- less than half of most of Europe. When the general public is polled, not surprisingly, they overwhelmingly support the concept of mandated vacation time. A recent poll found 78 percent support, pretty much the same as the last time the question was asked. Over three-fourths of Americans want this to be the law. A presidential candidate is for it. But have you even heard about it on the airwaves? This is why voters are so disgusted with Washington, because even an idea with such incredible public support is not even allowed to be mentioned by those covering politics. Want guaranteed paid vacation for all? Check out Bernie Sanders -- he's for it too."



GOP is pledging loyalty to Trump

This really needs to be pointed out.

"The head of the Republican National Committee had to travel to Trump Towers on bended knee to get Donald Trump to sign an unenforceable loyalty oath. What Reince Priebus and the rest of the Establishment Republicans don't realize, though, is that it's more likely than not that the pledge is going to work out exactly the opposite from what they expect. If Trump wins the nomination -- which, so far, he's the favorite to do -- then all the other candidates will have pledged to support Trump. No wonder Trump made Priebus crawl before him -- because Trump may be the ultimate beneficiary of the whole stunt. He signed because he doesn't believe he will even need to run a third-party campaign. He's planning on winning the Republican nomination."



Trump's party

Democrats should continue to enjoy rubbing Republicans' faces in this fact.

"I see that the Republican establishment has begun the attempt to take down Donald Trump. The Club For Growth wants to spend millions on anti-Trump ads, and Jeb Bush is already out there making the attempt -- however ineffectually. Ronald Reagan's famed "11th Commandment" is dead and buried, it seems. Meanwhile, Trump continues to rise in the polls and everyone who attacks him sinks like a stone. Like it or not, the Republican Party should just go ahead and throw in the towel and rename itself the Trump Party. Because whether you use a big-P or a little-P, it is definitely Trump's party now."



Certainly not the law-and-order party anymore

This one's also ripe for some extra-vigorous rubbing-in.

"I see many Republicans lining up on the side of a woman who took an oath of office and wants to be able to violate that oath -- in defiance of a federal judge -- and still receive her cushy government paycheck. Whatever happened to Republicans believing in personal responsibility? If she can't do the job for reasons of conscience, then she needs to resign and let someone else do the job properly. Getting paid by the taxpayers to sit in jail for contempt of court is not personal responsibility, folks -- it's the opposite. Whatever happened to Republicans being the party that believed in 'law and order' -- remember those days?"



The Canadian threat

Feel free to get as silly as you want on this one. It deserves it, after all.

"I see that Scott Walker wants to build a giant wall not only on our southern border but also on our northern border as well. Seeing as how the Canadian border is three times as long, I wonder if he's going to magically get them to pay for it, as Trump swears he'll do with Mexico. No matter the cost, Walker will build that northern wall, because you just can't be too careful when dealing with the monstrous Canadian national security threat to the United States. Have we learned nothing since the South Park movie? It's always a good time to 'Blame Canada,' eh?"



Circular firing squad forming!

Once again, any amount of ridicule is almost par for the course with this one.

"Carly Fiorina's wrong, of course -- America has no official language, English or otherwise. But that doesn't mean that Republicans can't try to outdo each other in denouncing the use of Spanish by any presidential candidate. Jeb Bush spoke some Spanish that actually made the news (criticizing Trump), and both Trump and Fiorina immediately staked out the position that Republican candidates should only campaign in English. This may revive the whole 'English as official language' push that Republicans have been making for decades, in fact. First they'll all have to pledge to support a national language, then all the candidates will be expected to swear they'll never use Spanish in public until election day, and then eventually they'll have to promise never even to run any campaign ad in Spanish. Surely Trump and Fiorina will lead this purity contest, but the rest of them will soon be forced to follow. Nothing like watching the continuing Republican minority outreach program in action, folks. Republican candidates, step right up! The circular firing squad is forming even as we speak...."



[center]Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank[/center]