Last Call

Gentlemen!  Quickly!  To the Bernanke National Heliport!

The Federal Reserve took a genuinely unexpected step Wednesday afternoon when it announced it would significantly enhance its current monetary easing program. The Fed, for the first time, committed to keeping monetary policy loose until the economy crosses precise thresholds — specifically, an unemployment rate below 6.5 percent or a inflation above 2.5 percent.

It also upped its monthly asset purchases by spending an additional $45 billion a month on Treasuries.

Only one member of the Fed Open Market Committee dissented. The significantly more aggressive policy is designed to provide businesses greater incentive to invest, and comes, perhaps not coincidentally, as Congress nears a deadline past which taxes will increase and spending will be cut to the tune of about $50 billion a month.

That $45 billion in treasuries is on top of the $40 billion per month in mortgage-backed securities announced in September.

In other words, the Fed is moving to counteract the fiscal slope before it happens, which means we should probably stop panicking about it in general, and that Republicans have even less leverage now.

Things are looking up.

Terminated Mitt And The Valley Of The Jeep Bleats

PolitiFact lamely attempts to redeem itself by chucking their 2012 Lie of the Year millstone around the neck of the Country's Biggest Loser.  (Link to Balloon Juice, because PolitiFact can kiss my ass.)

It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign—that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep’s parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.

PolitiFact has selected Romney’s claim that Barack Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” at the cost of American jobs as the 2012 Lie of the Year.

As John Cole remarks,

Virtually everything he said was a lie, so I am not sure how you choose one over the other.

Amen to that.  By the way, with Republicans now wanting steep cuts to Medicare on top of means testing it on top of voucherizing it, how's that 2011 Politifact Lie of the Year holding up, boys?

Jon Chait, High School High Reporter

Here's your daily dose of irony:  Jon Chait correctly calling out Politico's Village Cool Kids Club for its awfully insular chumminess...

The subject of the piece is Allen and VandeHei’s report that broad agreement exists on the correct policy agenda, as revealed to them through “conversations we have had over the past three months with top lawmakers, officials, their senior aides and the CEOs who advise and lobby all of them.” The story proceeds to describe the obviously sensible agenda agreed upon by these sources: It is vital to reduce the deficit through tax reform and stingier entitlements, along with more free trade, resource extraction, and liberalized immigration.

This is far from the Randian paranoia that has spread among so many millionaires in the Obama agenda. Indeed, I find most of it fairly sensible as policy. What makes the consensus so astonishing, and even nauseating, is the degree to which those who share it show no awareness of their own insularity. Their shared sense of a smart economic growth strategy excludes any monetary or fiscal plan to bring down unemployment through higher consumer demand, a position that commands strong support among economists. Their list of ailments also excludes skyrocketing income inequality and out-of-control carbon emissions. (Though, at the end of a passage extolling the glorious possibility that American oil production will exceed that of Saudi Arabia within a decade, VandeHei and Allen do note, “No doubt, there are environmental concerns, especially for drinking water.” Well, yes. Also for the future of the human race.)

...while Chait whistles past the graveyard of his own chummy, insular piece last March of how Obama failed liberalism so badly in 2011 by extending the unemployment benefits and payroll tax cut (and putting the House GOP in its current bind) that he got re-elected by liberals, the cad.  I pointed Chait's nonsense out back then:

Chait argues that President Obama wanting a deal -- any deal, mind you -- led him to treat the GOP as good faith partners when they were clearly not.  Republicans, he goes on to say, were going to screw POTUS and the country no matter what Obama did.  This is where Chait's argument turns into purist whining:  There was nothing President Obama could have done that would have changed the outcome of the GOP screwing us over (indeed, the GOP is now signaling that it will simply ignore the debt deal), and at the same time he didn't do enough to change the outcome.  It's just meaningless stupidity, brought about by the "liberal" Washington Post unloading this hit piece on the President, and Chait absolutely takes the bait, re-fighting the same arguments we had in 2010 and 2011 about "but if Obama had done THIS and LISTENED TO HOW SMART I AM..." five minutes after saying there was nothing he could have done.

Funny how that works, Jon.  There's really not too much difference between you and Politico on that issue.  Check a mirror next time you want to complain that the inside baseball game is turned up too loud.

StupidiNews!

• A masked gunman went on a rampage in a suburban mall in Clackamas, Oregon last night, killing 2 and critically wounding another before turning the gun on himself.
• Sitar composer, father of pop star Norah Jones, and Indian music legend, Ravi Shankar, is dead from upper respiratory and heart failure at the age of 92.
• The White House and House Republicans have traded new fiscal slope offers, slightly closer in agreement than last week, but still oceans apart.
• The success of the "50 Shades of Grey" book trilogy has spurred a boom in adult toys for couples this holiday season.
• The European Union has finally agreed to a common patent system for member nations, but there are still several barriers to implementation.

Last Call

Greg Sargent figures that labor activists and unions can still win in Michigan.

Republicans have tried to protect the law from going before the voters by attaching an appropriation to it; spending bills can’t be overturned by legislative referendum in Michigan. But union operatives think there is another mechanism by which the law can be challenged. According to one good government group’s analysis of the state constitution, there exists the option of the “statutory initiative,” which would be forced by the collecting of signatures equal to at least eight percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

Will unions and Michigan Democrats avail themselves of this option? Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the labor-funded Workers’ Voice, which played a big role in the Ohio and Wisconsin labor wars, tells me it’s being seriously considered. “The Michigan Constitution allows two other ways to let the people decide this issue on the ballot, and whether it’s one of those options or the 2014 Governor’s election itself, Michiganders will be heard loud and clear,” Vale says. (There may also be another referendum option as well.)

The idea here is this: If such a tactic can force a vote on the “right to work” law, Governor Snyder will be heading into reelection in 2014 up against a heavily energized union base, a ton of money pumped into the state by national unions — even as there’s a major pro-collective bargaining initiative on the ballot. Of course, if this happens, major money from the right will flow into the state, too.

Now, to be clear, the major unions may decide against this route — or it may not work. But if they do opt for it, and if it does work, you could see another extended showdown similar to the ones in Wisconsin and Ohio — still another nationally funded clash over the broader fate of organized labor. Stay tuned.

Here's hoping he's right.  If labor throws in the towel in Michigan of all states, it's over.

Too Big To Prosecute

More on that nearly $2 billion HSBC bank settlement over money laundering from Andrew Ross Sorkin at the NY Times:

Behind the scenes, authorities debated for months the advantages and perils of a criminal indictment against HSBC.

Some prosecutors at the Justice Department’s criminal division and the Manhattan district attorney’s office wanted the bank to plead guilty to violations of the federal Bank Secrecy Act, according to the officials with direct knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The law requires financial institutions to report any cash transaction of $10,000 or more and to bring any dubious activity to the attention of regulators.

Given the extent of the evidence against HSBC, some prosecutors saw the charge as a healthy compromise between a settlement and a harsher money-laundering indictment. While the charge would most likely tarnish the bank’s reputation, some officials argued that it would not set off a series of devastating consequences.

A money-laundering indictment, or a guilty plea over such charges, would essentially be a death sentence for the bank. Such actions could cut off the bank from certain investors like pension funds and ultimately cost it its charter to operate in the United States, officials said.

Despite the Justice Department’s proposed compromise, Treasury Department officials and bank regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency pointed to potential issues with the aggressive stance, according to the officials briefed on the matter. When approached by the Justice Department for their thoughts, the regulators cautioned about the effect on the broader economy.

In other words,  even prosecuting HSBC could cause another financial collapse, so that's simply not an option when a bank of HSBC's size breaks the law.

Does anyone else think that might be a problem?

War On Christmas, War On Homelessness

Here's some sobering news on the commercialization of holiday season:




Ending homelessness in the US would be the same cost as 5 years of oil industry subsidies, or about 80% of one year's worth of what Americans spend on Christmas decorations.

Of course, that's a fraction of ending the Bush-era capital gains tax cuts, as you can see.  Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, as they say.

StupidiNews!

• A federal judge has ruled that North Carolina's new "Choose Life" license plates are unconstitutional without the state making a pro-choice alternative available.
• A reprogrammed HIV virus designed to seek and destroy cancer cells has researchers excited as a young girl has been given the treatment and eliminated her terminal leukemia.
• Polls show voters want a fiscal cliff slope deal, but that they reject both higher taxes on all Americans and cutting spending on social safety net programs.
• HSBC, Europe's largest bank, will pay nearly $2 billion to settle a money laundering probe with the US Department of Justice over transactions with sanctioned nations like Iran.
• Google avoided $2 billion in global taxes in 2011 by shifting international operations or a Bermuda tax haven.

Last Call

Huckleberry Graham apparently feels the need to put the President (who I guess didn't actually win re-election or anything) in his place.  Steve Benen:

With memories of last year's brutal debt-ceiling crisis very much on his mind, President Obama said last week, "We can't afford to go there again." He added, "The only thing the debt ceiling is good as a weapon for is destroying your credit rating.... I will not play that game."

This morning on Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) responded, "Yes, we will play that game."

Hostage taking again.  Nothing has changed, the GOP still insists than Obama obey them.  Benen is rather brutal in his assessment:

But even looking past all of that, the eight words to remember here are these: "We're not going to raise the debt ceiling." In other words, according to Lindsey Graham, Republicans intend to hurt Americans on purpose. They will, quite deliberately, hold the global economy and the full faith and credit of the United States hostage -- again -- until the president agrees to take benefits away from senior citizens.

Why this isn't a shocking national scandal is an ongoing mystery.

For what it's worth -- and to Lindsey Graham, it's probably not worth much -- American business leaders, investors, and financial sector are siding with Obama when it comes to the debt ceiling. In other words, "job creators" think Graham and his Republican allies are damaging the country with their antics, which have no precedent in American history.

That generally means something on the right, but for now, that's no longer the case.

As for the White House, it seems to be the principle should simple and repeated frequently: the president will not negotiate with those who would deliberately harm Americans.

If it's a fight Graham wants, then it's a fight he'll get.  It's also a fight he'll lose, along with the rest of the GOP.

The Great Cornhusker Medicaid Revolt

Nebraska Democrats (yes, they do exist folks) aren't taking GOP Gov. Dave Heineman's opposition to Medicaid expansion lying down.  They're planning to pitch a veto override to Republicans through, well, math.  State Sen. Jeremy Nordquist is leading the charge:

Nordquist says he believes the legislature could muster up enough votes to override Heineman’s veto. It takes 30 votes from the 49 lawmakers in the state’s unicameral legislature to overturn a governor’s veto. There will be 17 Democrats and two independents who will likely caucus with them in 2013, which means at least 11 Republicans would have to buck their national party line and support a key provision of the ACA. [...]

How will Nordquist bring them around? It’s a fiscal argument, he says. The state legislative fiscal office estimated that Nebraska will spend $123 million by 2020 on the expansion. But there will also likely be savings and new revenue. The fiscal office projected the state would save $100 million by 2020 because of the ACA provision that guarantees coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, which will eliminate the need for a state program that provides subsidies for high-risk insurance buyers. That money alone almost offsets the cost of the expansion, Nordquist notes.

So has this ever happened before in Nebraska history?  As a matter of fact, yes.  Cornhusker State Republicans have indeed overruled Heineman's vetoes before.

And Nordquist is confident in his ability to override his governor because he’s done it before. In 2010, after Heineman vetoed a bill that would have extended prenatal care to undocumented immigrants through the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program — claiming that Nebraska shouldn’t have to fund health care for immigrants who didn’t enter the country legally — Nordquist successfully built a coalition of 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans who voted to override Heineman’s veto. This year, Nordquist already has support from Nebraska’s Republican health committee chair, who has confirmed she will propose the bill because she supports Medicaid expansion.

Here's hoping that Nordquist can pull it off again.  I think he's got a pretty good shot.  It's certainly better than giving up and saying "Oh well, he vetoed it" right?

Go Big Red, as they say where I was born.

More Texas-Sized Stupidity

Some Texas Republicans are now regretting destroying funding for Planned Parenthood and birth control for the poor as the additional cost of some 24,000 additional babies to low income mothers is costing the state hundreds of millions.

When state lawmakers passed a two-year budget in 2011 that moved $73 million from family planning services to other programs, the goal was largely political: halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics. 

Now they are facing the policy implications — and, in some cases, reconsidering.

The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium, poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have, as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. 

The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be as much as $273 million — $103 million to $108 million to the state’s general revenue budget alone — and the bulk of it is the cost of caring for those infants under Medicaid. 

Ahead of the next legislative session, during which lawmakers will grapple with an existing Medicaid financing shortfall, a bipartisan coalition is considering ways to restore some or all of those family planning dollars, as a cost-saving initiative if nothing else. 

“I know some of my colleagues felt like in retrospect they did not fully grasp the implications of what was done last session,” said Representative Donna Howard, Democrat of Austin, who said she had been discussing ways to restore financing with several other lawmakers in both parties. 

She added, “I think there is some effort they’ll be willing to make to restore whatever we can.” 

Surprise!  Instead of saving money, idiot Texas Republicans quadrupled the cost.   And they still refuse to restore funding for Planned Parenthood, meaning now in order to serve Texas's burgeoning working poor, the state will have to greatly expand Medicaid as a government program rather than work with non-profits like Planned Parenthood who could defray some of the cost to taxpayers through donations and grants.

Gotta punish those slutty poor women after all.  Increasing the cost to taxpayers by $200 million will really show them, huh guys?

Great job.

StupidiNews!

• Mexican-American singing sensation Jenni Rivera is dead following a plane crash in Mexico that claimed the lives of all six passengers on the small plane she was in.
• Saudi national oil company Aramco says an August cyber attack targeted not only the oil company's computers but the infrastructure of the entire Saudi kingdom.
• The Kansas City Star is reporting that mechanically tenderized or "needled beef" used by 90% of the industry can force deadly surface bacteria deep into the center of steaks.
• Former South African President Nelson Mandela remains in stable condition in a Pretoria hospital and is recovering after an undisclosed ailment. 
• A former spokesperson for hacker group Anonymous now faces major identity theft charges after allegedly sharing stolen credit card information from the group's successful hack of Strafor.

Last Call

As expected, Newark Mayor and high-profile Democrat Cory Booker is definitely testing the waters for higher office.

“I’m really thinking about both offices right now and which one I can better serve on the issues I’m passionate about and the things I feel driven to contribute to,” Booker said.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is up for reelection in 2013 and is enjoying a rise in popularity, according to the polls, after his aggressive response to Hurricane Sandy. If Booker decided to run next year, it could set up a marquee race that would grab national attention with two of the parties’ stars facing off against each other.

“Yeah, I’m absolutely considering running for governor as well as giving other options some consideration,” Booker said. “I will be focused on that for the next week to ten days or so and really come up with a decision that answers my basic questions … hopefully, the voters later might agree with me, but where do I believe I can make the best difference for the city I love, the state I love and the nation that I have pledged my life to.”

Booker said to expect a decision soon from him at least on the governor’s race.

“It’s going to be within in the next two weeks, especially in New Jersey, because there’s a lot of very good candidates for governor in New Jersey on the Democratic side and I have got to give my party and be part of my party’s push forward, whether it’s with me as candidate or with supporting other candidates for that office,” Booker said.

Asked if he was considering a run for Senate too, Booker said that is on his radar as well.

I've had my problems with Booker before, mainly on his heavy pro-Wall Street stance.  It's not like the last Dem in the Governor's mansion in Trenton was any good, either.  If he can drop the Wall Street crap and keep the rest, he'd be one of the best voices in the party.

Booker would be far more effective as a Senator, I would think.  However, he could really derail Chris Christie's White House chances by winning next November.  We'll see.

Buckwild, Not-So-Wonderful, West Virginia

Seems Sen. Joe Manchin is furious with MTV over its newest reality show, "Buckwild", detailing the adventures of nine twenty-somethings in Sissonville, WV.  Manchin wants the show yanked off the air immediately before it's even schedule to air next month.

Manchin said that even just the previews angered him enough to write a letter to MTV President Stephen Friedman. “As a U.S. Senator, I am repulsed at this business venture, where some Americans are making money off of the poor decisions of our youth,” he wrote. “I cannot imagine that anyone who loves this country would feel proud about profiting off of ‘Buckwild.’”

“Instead of showcasing the beauty of our people and our state, you preyed on young people, coaxed them into displaying shameful behavior – and now you are profiting from it.  That is just wrong,” Manchin said.

The Washington Post reports that Manchin repeatedly referred to the show as “just awful.”

“I have no problem with people in this country trying to earn a profit, but I would ask them: Would they do this to their own children, in their own neighborhood, in their own home state?” Manchin told the Post.

John Stevens, the executive producer of Buckwild, defended the show to Entertainment Weekly, saying that the show celebrates its castmembers. “It’s not like looking at a train wreck,” he said. “That’s not what it is. That’s the part I’m really excited about. There is a certain coolness to it. It’s different than a lot of the stuff that has been produced. I think it’s going to get people talking and it might change people’s perspectives. These kids are totally wild and carefree. It will be very refreshing to the MTV audience.”

Got news for Joe here, MTV thinks rednecks are the new guidos.  Northern KY isn't much different. No use getting upset over it, Joe.

Loser Spreads Like A Disease

Mitt Romney was at Pacquiao-Marquez IV last night in Vegas.

Joined by his wife, Ann, Romney took in a different kind of public beating on Saturday night, as he watched Juan Manuel Marquez defeat Manny Pacquiao from ringside seats at the MGM Grand.

According to CBS News, the former Republican presidential candidate visited Pacquiao in his dressing room before the fight, telling the world champion boxer, "Hello Manny, I ran for president. I lost."

The fight ended in the sixth round, with a right jab from Marquez that knocked Pacquiao out cold. 

Pac-Man was out for two minutes after getting obliterated by that shot.  He'll never be the same.  He was literally looking the other way and never saw it coming.




Remember that an hour or two before, Pacquiao was talking with Mitt Romney, just before the most definitive loss of his boxing career happened.




If you see Mitt anywhere near your favorite sports team/hero, RUN. WARN THEM.

Cave Story, Fiscal Slope Remix

And so it begins:  the Village pundits have heard Obama's going to cave on Medicare/SS, so it MUST BE TRUE AND IT'S TIME TO PANIC.  The guy leading the panicking?  Paul Krugman, go figure.

Ezra Klein says that the shape of a fiscal cliff deal is clear: only a 37 percent rate on top incomes, and a rise in the Medicare eligibility age.

I’m going to cross my fingers and hope that this is just a case of creeping Broderism, that it’s a VSP fantasy about how we’re going to resolve this in a bipartisan way. Because if Obama really does make this deal, there will be hell to pay.

Yes, this is a stupid deal.  It's a stupid deal that completely undermines and contradicts everything the President has said.

So this looks crazy to me; it looks like a deal that makes no sense either substantively or in terms of the actual bargaining strength of the parties. And if it does happen, the disillusionment on the Democratic side would be huge. All that effort to reelect Obama, and the first thing he does is give away two years of Medicare? How’s that going to play in future attempts to get out the vote?

If anyone in the White House is seriously thinking along these lines, please stop it right now.

Kroog at least hits on the point here.   Whoever leaked this deal sure wanted Democrats to panic.  Who benefits from that in the short run?  The Republicans.  How about the long run?  Depends on what Obama does.  If he says this "deal" is patently ridiculous, will anyone notice?

What about all the other times Obama was supposedly going to immediately cave on Medicare and SS?  It didn't happen then, did it?  But every time we get to this point in a Republican-created crisis, it's always the same people who swear Obama is the one who is going to cave.  When he doesn't, they congratulate themselves for being the sole reason Obama didn't cave, and remain ready at a moment's notice to brutally attack the President for something he has never done as soon as one of these rumors comes along again.

They've been 100% wrong so far.

What makes you think they are correct this time?

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition!

• Former Florida Republican and recent Independent Charlie Crist has announced he's joining the Democratic party in the Sunshine State.
• Fifteen years after his death, LA law enforcement officials have released the autopsy of slain rapper Notorious B.I.G., killed by a bullet to the heart.
• UN chemical weapons monitors are skeptical that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would unleash the country's stockpile of chemical weapons, even in a losing effort.
• As protests in Egypt continue, President Morsi is now considering delaying the country's scheduled constitutional referendum.
• Apple's key multi-touch patents have been invalidated by the US Patent Office, and Apple is vowing to fight the ruling.

Last Call

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear two massive same-sex marriage cases, first, a challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act at the national level:

The Court agreed to hear the Windsor v. United States case, which was brought by a lesbian widow. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated DOMA in a 2-1 decision finding that the federal government did not have a legitimate interest in treating same sex couples differently.

It’s another legacy-defining case for the Roberts Court and extraordinarily tricky one. The rapidly growing public support for same sex marriage in many parts of the country leaves little doubt that it will eventually be legalized in a substantial number of states. For gay marriage supporters, however, DOMA, signed by Bill Clinton, remains a political roadblock at least so long as Republicans control the House of Representatives. That leaves the federal courts as the best avenue for eliminating the law. The question is whether the justices will lead the way or leave the roadblock in place.

“I don’t think justices get in this position very often because everybody knows what the judgement of history is going to be,” Lucas Powe, a Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law, told TPM before the court’s announcement. “I don’t think think anybody doubts that gay marriage is coming — it’s only the issue of time. This is one of those times where no matter what you think you know you’re going to be wrong if you oppose it.”

Secondly, they will hear arguments on challenging California's Prop 8 banning same-sex marriage at the state level.

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will take up California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that amends the state’s Constitution to ban same sex marriage.

The Court will hear oral arguments in next spring and render a decision by the end of June. At issue is whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from codifying a ban on recognizing same sex marriages.

Windsor is the big one, but the Prop 8 case also means that SCOTUS wants to decide the federal issues and the states' rights issues separately as Adam Serwer explains, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

The DOMA case asks the justices to strike down the federal law that dictates which marriages are valid. Even better for supporters of same-sex marriage: Of the several DOMA cases the court could have taken, it decided on Windsor v. United States, in which plaintiff Edith Windsor was unable to claim an estate-tax deduction after her female partner died. Between striking down part of a heavy-handed federal statute and helping someone get a tax cut, it's the kind of same-sex marriage case even a conservative justice could love. Most importantly, from the point of view of getting the requisite five votes, striking down DOMA would not prevent states from banning same-sex marriage.

The Prop. 8 case argues something much broader, however: It claims there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, and that any attempt to ban same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. The Ninth Circuit's ruling was written so narrowly that if the Supreme Court had decided not to take the case, then the Ninth Circuit's decision would have affirmed the rights of same-sex couples in California alone. But if SCOTUS were to affirm the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage, the ruling could well apply to any such law nationwide.

Not only that, the American Prospect's Gabriel Arana wrote in 2009 that "defeat could legitimize such discrimination against LGBT Americans, making it far more difficult to sue for parental or housing rights." 

So the question is "Can discrimination against LGBT Americans be codified into law and still pass Constitutional muster?"  The courts have let stand such discrimination for ex-convicts for instance at the state level (denial of right to vote, sex offender registration), but not the national one. (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act).

At least, so far.

It's in the hands of SCOTUS now, and this June should be rather exciting.  It's possible same-sex marriage could become a national right.  On the other hand, it could mean the annulment and end of current same-sex marriages across the country for generations.

If you had to ask me to hazard a guess, I'd say DOMA is struck down, but Prop 8 stays, meaning that states will have the right to ban same-sex marriage if they want to, but that the feds must agree to abide by treating those same-sex marriages in states that allow it as full marriage with all federal benefits.

In other words, punt to the states, go play golf.

We'll see.

"What Blue States?" He Said...

If Republicans can't win elections by getting people to vote for Republicans, change the rules so that Democratic votes count less.  MoJo's Nick Baumann:

In September, top Pennsylvania Republicans shocked the nation by proposing a change to the state's election rules that would have rigged the Electoral College in favor of Mitt Romney. Facing a nationwide backlash, the state's GOP backed down—but not before Wisconsin Republicans considered a similar plan. With the old rules still in place, President Barack Obama won a 332-206 electoral college victory over Romney.

But now that Romney has been defeated, prominent GOPers are once again mulling rule changes that could make it harder for Democrats to win the White House—and easier for Republicans to claim Electoral College votes in states where they lose the popular vote.

Remember, the presidential election isn't a nationwide contest, it's a state-by-state fight, with each state worth a certain number of electoral votes (the District of Columbia gets 3, too). There are 538 electoral votes total; if you win 270 or more, you're headed to the White House—even, as George W. Bush can assure you, if you don't win the popular vote. The Constitution allows each state to allocate electoral votes however it wants, but in every state except for Nebraska and Maine, the contest is winner-take-all. If you get the most votes in Pennsylvania, you get all of its electoral votes.

Republicans want to change that. On December 3, Dominic Pileggi, the powerful Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania state Senate, announced that he plans to introduce legislation that would change how the state allocates its electoral votes. This shouldn't be a surprise: Pileggi was one of the Pennsylvania politicians behind the pre-election plan to change Electoral College rules.

Our old friend Ohio GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted wants in on this plan too, as does Scott Walker in Wisconsin...and notice that no Republicans in deep red states want to do this.  Could you imagine splitting Texas?  Of course not.  it's not about "fairness" it's about stealing 2016.

So of course the GOP wants to change the rules of voting.  Do that and you control the country.

It's the only way they can win now.

Go Filibuster Yourself, Mitch!

And my senator, GOP dipstick Mitch McConnell, only ended up outsmarting himself yesterday as he set out to embarrass Democrats and the President, and nearly ended the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling drama by bringing both crashing down on his turtle shell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wanted to prove on Thursday that Democrats don’t have the votes to weaken Congress’ authority on the debt limit. Instead they called his bluff, and he ended up filibustering his own bill.

The legislation, modeled on a proposal McConnell offered last year as a “last-choice option” to avert a U.S. debt default, would permit the president to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling unless Congress mustered a two-thirds majority to stop him. President Obama has championed the idea.

McConnell brought up the legislation Thursday morning. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initially objected, seemingly proving the Republican leader’s point that it cannot pass the Senate. But then Reid ran it by his members and, in the afternoon, agreed to hold that same vote. This time it was McConnell who objected.

“The Republican leader objects to his own idea,” Reid declared on the floor. “So I guess we have a filibuster of his own bill.”

Yep, you got it.  In his zeal to "prove" that the Democrats would hypocritically shoot down a permanent solution to the debt ceiling crisis by making the default scenario automatic raising of the ceiling dependent on a Presidential veto to stop it, ol' Mitch ended up filibustering himself in order to hypocritically shoot down his own legislation.

If that isn't a microcosm of the repeated fail of the GOP on these debt ceiling maneuvers, I don't know what is.

[UPDATE 1:58 PM]  Kevin Drum asks:

This puzzled me when I first read it, but I didn't bother blogging about it. So now I will. My question is this: why did McConnell think this in the first place? I can't think of any reasons that Dems would have balked at this. They certainly don't want a debt ceiling fight while Obama is president, and they've never used the debt ceiling to hold a Republican president hostage. That's purely a GOP gambit.

Gosh I dunno Kev, maybe he thought enough "liberals" couldn't resist taking cheap shots at the President to make the plan work.  Imagine that.