Last Call For Boxing Day

California Dem Sen. Barbara Boxer is "retiring" in 2016, leaving the door open for a number of Dems looking to move up in the ranks in the Golden State.

According to CNN, the long-serving Boxer said that she is stepping down from the Senate, but has no plans to retire. 

“I am never going to retire,” Boxer said. “The work is too important.” 

She intends to channel her energy into her PAC for Change group and to ensure that the White House and her Senate seat stay in Democratic hands in the next election cycle.
Boxer, 74, said that her age has nothing to do with her decision. 

“Some people are old at 40, some people are young at 80. I feel as young as I did when I got elected. I was in my 50s,” Boxer said. 

Boxer closed an interview with CNN with a series of rhymes, saying, “The Senate is the place where I’ve always made my case. For families, for the planet and the human race. More than 20 years in a job I love, thanks to California and the Lord above. So although I wont be working from my senate space and I wont’ be running in that next tough race. As long as there are issues and challenges and strife, I will never retire because that’s the meaning of my life.”

After 24 years, Boxer is moving on.  Who will replace her?

The smart money is on Attorney General Kamala Harris, or Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom.  LA Mayor Eric Garcetti has already said that he's not looking to replace Boxer.  Any of the three could take a crack at it I guess but with Gov. Jerry Brown term limited in 2018, that leaves the Governor's Mansion in an open race too. It's also very possible that California's other senator Dianne Feinstein will retire in 2018 as well and not seek a fifth term, meaning if 2016 doesn't work out, 2018 will provide opportunities.

Of course, Scott Brown could show up and lose a Senate race in a third state too.

When The Rats Are Away...

Greg Sargent argues that President Obama has made a pretty massive violation of the law by not getting congressional authorization for attacking ISIS targets in Syria, but that Congress has thrown away its duties by skipping town without debating or voting on that authorization.

The Obama administration has not made an even remotely credible case for undertaking this escalation without Congressional authorization, and Congress’ refusal to hold a vote on it remains an outrageous abdication of responsibility. One also hopes the administration’s claims about terror threats are subjected to intense scrutiny. But we aren’t going to get any serious Congressional debate about any of this until after the election. 

However, one place all of this will be debated is in the context of the Senate races. Republicans have cheerfully suggested to the press that the politics of national security will again shower them with political riches, and they are running multiple ads replete with the grainy terror footage they used to such great effect back in 2002 and 2004, which is to say, at least a decade ago.

So, will our attacks on ISIS help the Democrats as President Obama displays leadership, help the GOP as they reclaim their national security credentials, help both as we rally around both the President and congressional incumbents, or help neither as a war weary nation say "to hell with all of you"?

If Scott Brown is any indication, the GOP is not going to gain much, if at all, with WARREN TERRAH ONLY GOP CAN KEEP YOU SAFE ads.

In the ad, Brown, who is trailing, accuses Shaheen and Obama of being “confused about the nature of the threat” posed by “radical Islamic terrorists” who are “threatening to cause the collapse of our country.” He then says we must “secure the border.” 

It’s true that the President’s approval on terrorism has plummeted and the GOP now holds a huge advantage on foreign policy. Republican strategists have been pretty explicit in explaining that they see this as a way to exploit a general public sense that things have gone off the rails, and polls do show high wrong-track numbers and rising worry about terrorism. If things go wrong, which is certainly possible, this could well redound to the benefit of Republican candidates. 

But for now, it’s hard to imagine that arguments such as Brown’s above are going to cut it. After all, if GOP candidates are really going to paint the U.S. response to ISIS as insufficiently realistic about the nature of the threat, then that should theoretically open them up to the question of whether they support sending in ground troops. You’d think that if the criticism continues now that operations are underway, it would be harder for them to duck that basic follow-up.

We'll see, but I'm guessing that this is going to be a wash at best for the GOP, and they know it.

The Latest Republican Mind-Wipe

This is what you have to do to run as a Republican in 2014: you now have to say that despite the massive, overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that global warming doesn't exist.  The latest Republican to have his mind wiped in order to present a dangerous lie: our old friend Scott Brown, running for Senate in New Hampshire this time around.

Former Sen. Scott Brown (R), now running for Senate in New Hampshire, over the weekend was pretty clear: science has not proven that climate change is real. But back in 2012, when Brown was running for re-election in Massachusetts, he said that he "absolutely" believed climate change is real and that it is a result of both man-made and natural causes.

Brown and the other candidates in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire were asked on Saturday "do you believe that the theory of man-made climate change has been scientifically proven?"

Former Sen. Bob Smith, another former senator running to replace Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), was first asked if he believed "that the theory of man-made climate change has been scientifically proven?" Smith responded "no." Then the same question was posed to Brown. Brown said "no" too. The question and answer were flagged by the opposition research organization American Bridge 21st Century.

Brown's comments strongly conflict with an answer he gave on climate change when he was running against now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in 2012. Brown was asked if he believed climate change is real, and if so what would should the federal government be doing about it?

"Yes, yes I do," Brown said. "I absolutely believe that climate change is real and I believe there's a combination between man-made and natural. That being said one of the biggest things we could do is get an energy policy and we don't have one."

So what happened to Scott Brown?  Simple.  You can run on climate change being real in Massachusetts as a Republican.  Not so much in New Hampshire, where apparently science no longer exists.  In the end, Scott Brown is just another conservative wingnut who will happily let corporations destroy the planet for profit.  Just like every. Other.  Single.  Republican.

But hey, Republicans.  Let the planet burn, right?  It's all in your head.

The Cold Core Remains Of What Began With A Passionate Start

But that can’t happen to us, cause it’s always been a matter of trust.

PPP’s annual poll on TV news finds that there’s only one source more Americans trust than distrust: PBS. 52% of voters say they trust PBS to only 29% who don’t trust it. The other seven outlets we polled on are all distrusted by a plurality of voters.

Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we’ve been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not. Fox has maintained most of its credibility with Republicans, dropping just from 74/15 to 70/15 over that period of time. But it’s been losing what standing it had with Democrats (from 30/52 to 22/66) and independents (from 41/44 to 32/56).

We find once again this year that Democrats trust everything except Fox, and Republicans don’t trust anything other than Fox. Democrats put the most faith in PBS (+61 at 72/11), followed by NBC (+45 at 61/16), MSNBC (+39 at 58/19), CBS (+38 at 54/16), CNN (+36 at 57/21), ABC (+35 at 51/16), and Comedy Central (+10 at 38/28). Out of the non-Fox channels Republicans have the most faith in PBS at -21 (27/48),  followed by NBC (-48 at 18/66), CNN (-49 at 17/66), ABC (-56 at 14/70), MSNBC (-56 at 12/68), CBS (-57 at 15/72), and Comedy Central (-58 at 8/66).

I would feel sorry for FOX News, but they brought this upon themselves with a business model designed specifically around building an echo chamber and then complaining about the acoustics to everyone else.  Dick Morris is gone, as is Snowmobile Snooki, but they’re picking up Assclown Assclownson and Professional New England Himbo Scott Brown, proving once again that wingnuts never really get discredited, they just fail along various vectors with a partial positive component.   In other words, if FOX is only bleeding credibility among the GOP at the rate of only one percent a year, they have a very long and lucrative time left wrecking our country.

Call it the Calculus of Derp.

Last Call

John Kerry is officially President Obama's choice for SecState, but the real fight would be on for Kerry's seat, and whether or not Scott Brown could take another swing at it.  Nate Silver runs the numbers:

If voters saw something extraordinary in Ms. Warren, then Mr. Brown might be expected to prevail against a mediocre opponent, as he did in 2010 against the Democratic state attorney general, Martha Coakley. If instead it was something intrinsic to the problem that any Republican faces in Massachusetts, then even a lesser-known Democrat could win. 

Ms. Warren’s favorability rating — 56 percent among Election Day voters — was perfectly adequate but not extraordinary. And 37 percent of voters said they thought Ms. Warren was too liberal, even in Massachusetts. 

But such is the intrinsic advantage that Democrats hold in Massachusetts that Ms. Warren won the election anyway. A “generic” Democrat who avoided the mistakes that Ms. Coakley made (like insulting the former Boston Red Sox star pitcher Curt Schilling) would thus seem to stand a reasonably good chance. 

And I agree with Nate:  Martha Coakley was an unusually terrible candidate.  But Brown still has a shot:

There are other circumstances, however, that could work in Mr. Brown’s favor. Most important is the abbreviated schedule for a special election. 

In a special election campaign that lasts only a few months, the Democratic candidate would not have the luxury of overcoming early errors, as Ms. Warren did. That is especially true because the Democrat would probably face a competitive primary, while Mr. Brown would probably not. 

The overall political environment is not likely to be as favorable to Democrats in a special election as it was in November (although it also will probably not be as unfavorable to them as in 2010). And there could be an element of sympathy for Mr. Brown among some swing voters. 

So what's the bottom line, Nate?

Despite all that, it is difficult to view Mr. Brown as much better than even money: he is a Republican in Massachusetts who lost an election by a reasonably clear margin just last month. And if Mr. Brown won, he could well face another competitive election in November 2014, when Democrats will have more of a chance to gear up — and when Deval Patrick will have finished his second term as governor and might be more likely to run for the Senate.

A lot depends on who Democrats decide to run against Brown, too.  Ben Affleck has been mentioned as an unlikely choice, while better political money has Barney Frank in the seat (he's not saying no, should he be appointed by Gov. Patrick.)  We'll see who runs, after all, Scott Brown hasn't announced much of anything, and running for Senate is expensive, folks.

Last Call

And Johnny Volcano and Team Volcano score a win, finally forcing Ambassador Susan Rice to withdraw her nomination.  President Obama's remarks:

Today, I spoke to Ambassador Susan Rice, and accepted her decision to remove her name from consideration for Secretary of State. For two decades, Susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. As my Ambassador to the United Nations, she plays an indispensable role in advancing America’s interests. Already, she has secured international support for sanctions against Iran and North Korea, worked to protect the people of Libya, helped achieve an independent South Sudan, stood up for Israel’s security and legitimacy, and served as an advocate for UN reform and the human rights of all people. I am grateful that Susan will continue to serve as our Ambassador at the United Nations and a key member of my cabinet and national security team, carrying her work forward on all of these and other issues. I have every confidence that Susan has limitless capability to serve our country now and in the years to come, and know that I will continue to rely on her as an advisor and friend. While I deeply regret the unfair and misleading attacks on Susan Rice in recent weeks, her decision demonstrates the strength of her character, and an admirable commitment to rise above the politics of the moment to put our national interests first. The American people can be proud to have a public servant of her caliber and character representing our country.

Translation:  you win this round, McCain.  I'm still President.

The plan to force the President to nominate John Kerry in order to force a special election to get Scott Brown into office continues apace. I guarantee you only Kerry will be allowed through the gauntlet now.

So much fail.  And to be certain, putting "that one" in his place must feel really good to old, bitter, awful McCain.

Rice's explanation is here:

This was the right call, for four reasons.

First, my commitment to public service is rooted in the belief that our nation’s interests must be put ahead of individual ones. I’ve devoted my life to serving the United States and trying to mend our imperfect world. That’s where I want to focus my efforts, not on defending myself against baseless political attacks.

Second, I deeply respect Congress’s role in our system of government. After the despicable terrorist attacks that took the lives of four colleagues in Benghazi, our government must work through serious questions and bring the perpetrators to justice. We must strengthen security at our diplomatic posts and improve our intelligence in a volatile Middle East. Accomplishing these goals is far more important than political fights or personal attacks.

Third, the American people expect us to come together to keep our nation safe. U.S. leadership abroad is and always has been strengthened when we transcend partisan differences on matters of national security. America is seriously weakened when politics come first. If any good can come out of the experience of the past few months, I hope that it will be a renewed focus on the business of the American people — and a renewed insistence that the process of selecting potential candidates for high national security office be treated in the best bipartisan traditions of our country.

Finally, I have a great job. It’s been my highest honor to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. I’m proud that President Obama has restored our global stature, refocused on the greatest threats to our security and advanced our values around the world.

And so I fully support her decision. 

Meanwhile, John McCain's legacy now consists entirely of convincing the world that Sarah Palin was one of the most qualified women on Earth, and that Susan Rice wasn't.

Please proceed, GOP senators.

Scott, Liz, And Nino

The second debate between GOP Sen. Scott Brown and former Obama administration economist Elizabeth Warren took an interesting turn Monday night.  First of all, Fluffers from Press The Meat moderated, and gosh he loved him some Scott Brown.  But the love train derailed when Dancin' David Gregory asked Scotty about his favorite Supreme Court Justice was.

During a contentious second Massachusetts Senate debate, Brown went through a wild swing of opinions when moderator David Gregory asked him his "model" justice.

"Let me see, here. That's a great question," Brown said. "I think Justice Scalia is a very good judge."

The crowd at the debate immediately booed, and Warren began to cover up her face, perhaps realizing her challenger's mistake.

That Brown's first answer was Scalia was shocking, because Scalia is widely considered among the top two most conservative justices on the bench. Brown, meanwhile, has become popular in Democratic-heavy Massachusetts by becoming a largely Independent member of Congress.

Brown fumbled for words and quickly threw out almost every single justice currently on the bench.

"Justice Kennedy is obviously very good, and Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, they're all very qualified people there," Brown said.

Warren shook her head, noting that Brown had just endorsed Sotomayor, who some see as the most liberal member of the bench.

In a follow-up, Gregory pointed out that Scalia and Sotomayor have very different viewpoints on the bench.

"That's the beauty of being an independent, David," Brown said. 

"If you had to pick one?" Gregory said. 

"I don't need to pick one," Brown said. "We have plenty of justices up there, and I'm proud of the ones we have."

Just so you know, Scott, as a Senator, you get to confirm or deny the President's selections to the Supreme Court.  So yes, you need to "pick one" at some point.  It got ugly from there, as Elizabeth Warren happily replied "Elena Kagan" which of course got big cheers.

But Scott Brown announcing his favorite justice was Nino Scalia?  Yeah, he just lost 5 points in Massachusetts.  Knob.

The Encyclopedia Of Brown

Steve M, as usual, has a damn good point here as he notes that in the latest PPP Massachusetts poll, Scott Brown is pulling ahead, but Bay State voters want the Dems to keep the Senate by a 17 point margin:

"Very interesting tension" is one way of putting it. Another way is: Liberals and moderates are too freaking stupid to recognize that the only way to stop the wingnut madness is to vote against all Republicans forever -- even "nice" ones like Scott Brown -- until the party abandons insane, frothing-at-the-mouth radicalism as a governing philosophy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: In all likelihood, Elizabeth Warren cannot beat Scott Brown. Massachusetts voters like him too much. Warren can -- perhaps -- beat the Republican Party, however. Her best chance of victory is to stop running against Brown and start running against, well, Todd Akin and all his ideological soul mates. On the right, Missouri voters know how this works. On the left and in the center, blue-state voters still don't have a clue. 

And it's a valid point.  Dems judge races on the candidates at hand.  Republicans judge races by "Screw Nobama."  I think Elizabeth Warren can beat Scott Brown, but she'd win by 15 points if her opponent was Paul Ryan or Todd Akin.    The fact that Brown continues to remain close shows me that Warren should at least consider making the race about Republicans other than Scott Brown, and should do so sooner rather than later.