Three recess appointments to the NLRB

Obama has made three recess appointments to the NLRB.

As part of a deal with GOP to pass another group of nominees, Reid agreed to hold pro-forma sessions that purportedly keep the Senate in session over the Christmas recess.

Politico suggests that there will be some form of legal challenge, I can't see how that can work out for the GOP. It is unclear who has standing to bring a case. Even if the issue of standing is decided it is highly unlikely that a case would be decided before the recess appointments end. In the unlikely event that a court was to grant an injunction, Reid could call an additional recess and allow Obama to reappoint everyone. Read the rest of this post...

Sarah Palin "respects" Rick Santorum because of his religion

Why is it okay for Palin, and pretty much every other GOP leader, to judge their candidates by their religion and religious views (which is the same thing), but it's not okay to also judge Mitt Romney by his religion?  The GOP can't have it both ways.  You can't say it's okay to judge Rick Santorum by his Christian fundamentalism but not okay to judge Mitt Romney by his Mormonism?   Why is one religion a litmus test and the other off-limits?  Now, a Democrat might argue that both should be off limits.  But that's now how the GOP sees it.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Deer and kitten are friends

Read the rest of this post...

And in other news ... Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporations

Via Matt Taibbi, we're pointed to this (my emphasis):

The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the "Citizens United" decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

"The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and Congress," said Bullock, who is now running for governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level, and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections."

As you read through the article, note that the phrase "The corporation that brought the case" refers to the Montana complaint that came to the state Supreme Court in the first place, and not the Citizens United case. That corporation lost and the state's AG won. (I found that part confusing, and wanted to save you some re-reading time.)

Not all of the judiciary is benched with corporate hacks sent by Thank You Street to rubber-stamp the executive take-over — just a great many.

Thank the mistress of the universe for the few remaining.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Religious right leaders form apparent "Stop Romney" coalition

And spare us the claims in the story that this isn't about stopping Romney. Three of "the" top leaders of the religious right - Dobson, Wildmon and Bauer - are calling an wmergency meeting to find a "consensus" GOP candidate, but we're not supposed to believe that this about stopping Romney. Except of course that the GOP already has a candidate that everyone expects to win the GOP nomination. His name is Mitt Romney.

It's quite telling that it's these three religious right leaders - Dobson is "the" number one religious right leader, and Wildmon is certainly the leader of the crazier wing of the religious right. This is an all out effort to stop Romney. From Jonathan Martin at Politico:

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.

“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning.

The meeting is being hosted by such prominent conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon, onetime chairman of the American Family Association; and Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate.

Movement conservatives? Try current and former leaders of two religious right "hate groups," as per the Southern Poverty Law Center. Why are we using new terminology now to confuse readers as to who these people really are?

Now, why are they against Romney? Certainly part of it is because he's a Mormon. Let's not forget, the religious right doesn't even think Catholics are Christians. You can imagine what they say about Mormons behind closed doors. The other problem for Romney is that he's a not so closet liberal who once famously proclaimed that he'd be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy. The religious right's followers aren't always the brightest bulbs, but their leaders know exactly what they're doing. Romney's track record on their issues, from their perspective, is abominable.

Now, it's always possible that they're doing this in order to exact a pound of flesh from Romney in order to guarantee his loyalty if he wins the presidency, maybe demand a religious right VP for example.  What's Ted Haggard doing nowadays?  Oh that's right, he's wife swapping.  On TV, that is. Read the rest of this post...

Is Comcast trying to overcharge customers?

I've written before about how cheap Internet and cable TV (and phone) are in France as compared to the US (and our connection speeds are faster). Considering Comcast's despicable history and already criminally high fees, it sounds possible that they're now over-charging customers. Here's a post from one Comcast business customer but you can find others complaining of similar mysterious new fees in the comments.

My Comcast Business Internet bill went up $7 this month. When I called to find out why, I was told Comcast had done an "audit" of the sales department and found many people should have been paying for their equipment since the beginning of their contract period but weren't. Rather than charge me for the last two years of rental, they're going to be nice and just start charging me the $7/month now. I signed a contract with them that has a line labeled "Internet Equipment Fee" and the box until the "Total Cost" column is blank (see image below). When I mentioned this to the CS rep she told me that if there was a "$0.00" in that box I would get free equipment. Then, she tried to claim equipment isn't even covered by the contract. When I pointed out there's a line item for it she just changed the subject, in classic redirection style. When I originally talked to the sales person, back a couple of years ago, I asked if the equipment was included in the price and I was told an emphatic "yes" it was. Now, Comcast is trying to use this ridiculous trick to get $7 more a month out of me.

Then head over to Reddit where there are plenty more stories that will be familiar to Comcast customers. Comcast never knows when to say when, so if you're also having problems, join in one of the discussions and then contact Comcast. Read the rest of this post...

Romney’s missing 100,000 jobs

Mitt Romney keeps claiming that he created 100,000 jobs while working at Bain Capital. As LOLGOP wrote on Twitter, "If you don't think Mitt Romney created 100,000 jobs, you've never been to India." Where are these mythical 100,000 jobs? As Greg Sargent writes at the Washington Post, no one is really quite sure.

Romney has made this assertion about 100,000 new jobs in various other settings, too. As Steve Benen noted, his Super PAC is also making a very similar claim in ads. And as far as I can tell, only two lonely fact checking operations — one at the Post, the other at FactCheck.org — have scrutinized it. They have found that the assertion is at best unsubstantiated and that there may have been more layoffs than jobs created by Bain; there’s no way to tell for sure. When will reporters push Romney on this?

Good question. Read the rest of this post...

A recess appointment

This is part of the "new Obama." Voters need to know that this guy "is" going to hang around after the election this time. From Greg Sargent at the Washington Post:

As I expected, Obama is going to go for it: In his speech today in Ohio, he will announce a recess appointment for Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

More broadly, the politics of the move are very interesting. Obama’s decision to do this in such a high profile way may swing the spotlight back towards Obama’s ongoing push for the middle class, which the White House hopes to contrast with ongoing GOP primary infighting. The outcry from Republicans will draw more attention to their role as defenders of financial institutions against consumers. In keeping with the new “we can’t wait” for Congress strategy, Obama seems determined to demonstrate a willingness to take whatever steps are necessary to circumvent it and to exercise power unilaterally on behalf of the economy and the middle class.

In a sense, the move represents a kind of final break with the illusion — to the degree that it still exists at all — that any kind of bipartisan compromise with Republicans remains possible. All bets are off.

Read the rest of this post...

Bachmann out while Perry stays in

Bachmann just dropped out, while Rick Perry now says he's staying in. Read the rest of this post...

Iran is dangerously backed into a corner

The situation inside Iran is becoming more unstable by the day. The daughter of former President Rafsanjani just received a 6 month jail sentence for political crimes. The Supreme Leader is proposing to abolish the post of President and moderates will not be allowed to stand in the coming parliamentary election.

A clause in the NDAA just passed imposes sanctions on any financial institution that deals with Iran's central bank. Iran has denounced this as a blockade and threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz in response, then withdrawn the threat and as of this morning is threatening to prevent a US super carrier sailing through the straits.

The confused diplomatic signals are not the result of changes in policy but the fact that Iran has two power centers that are in competition with each other. The Presidential faction would like to provoke an attack by the US as a small war would help them consolidate their position against the Supreme Leader. In the short term, the Supreme Leader has to stop the Presidential faction but can't do so in a way that would undermine the galvanizing effect that opposing the 'great satan' has for the regime.

Iran is reacting to the sanctions as an existential threat for internal political reasons, not because they are an existential threat. The actual impact of the sanctions is likely to be very minor. Russia, China and India need Iranian oil. It is very easy for sovereign nations to find ways to move money to pay for things. They can set up single purpose private banks, they can barter, they can pay in their own currencies.

Closing the straits would be a blockade and thus an act of war. If Iran fires first they are going to lose the resulting war. The US does not have the ability to occupy Iran but they can destroy pretty much the entire military infrastructure if the neighboring states are willing to support the attacks.

If the US or Israel fires fist, Iran wins. Or rather the regime does. Closing the straits in response to sanctions would be an unprovoked act of aggression. Closing the straits in response to a bombing raid would be a measured response. Further US escalation at that point would only make the situation worse, much worse.

By far the best approach for the US is to watch developments cautiously. The US has already achieved 'regime change' in Iran once. In 1953 the democratically elected government of Iran was replaced by a thug in a coup organized by the CIA. Khomeni knew all about that coup because he was one of the rabble rousers the CIA paid to start the riots that brought down Mosaddegh. That is why he sent the students to raid the US embassy in 1979, the regime was afraid Carter was planning to direct a counter-revolution. They could also destroy evidence of Khomeni's role. Read the rest of this post...

The final Iowa results and a look forward

Here are the final Iowa caucus results:

Romney, 24.55% (30,015 votes)
Santorum, 24.54% (30,007 votes)
Ron Paul, 21.45% (26,219 votes)
Gingrich, 13.29% (16,251 votes)
Perry, 10.3% (12,604 votes)
Bachmann, 4.97% (6,073 votes)
Huntsman (745 votes)
No preference (135 votes)
Other (117 votes)
Cain (58 votes)
Roemer (31 votes)

Over at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field, I have a detailed look at what the results mean and how the race can evolve moving forward. Of note:

Looking forward, this is a three candidate race between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Anti-Romney. Anti-Romney for the moment seems like Rick Santorum, but he doesn't have the campaign infrastructure needed to compete in a long primary. Either other campaigns (Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann) will have to bow to Santorum through donors and endorsements, or there will have to be a resurgence from Gingrich into the role of Anti-Romney. Ron Paul has the grassroots support to be a competitor over a long primary, but I'm not convinced that the Gingrich's and Perry's of the world would lend their support to him to help defeat Romney.

Romney is going to go into New Hampshire and win with ease. The only question will be if Santorum can solidify conservative support and earn a meaningful result. Watch for who endorses Santorum in coming days and if there is a shift of donors to him, as well as the launch or refocus of any Super PACs to support Santorum and do the dirty work of going negative on Romney.

Romney went through Iowa without a single negative ad directed at him - that's a streak that will probably be over before today is done. Given the impact that negative ads had in Iowa against other candidates, I have to assume that it's reflective of the fact that Republican base voters are willing to take in new information about their candidates and consider it in their assessment of these candidates. This contributed to the volatility of the Republican field over the last year and does not yet show signs of stopping. Of course, when Republicans go negative on Romney it will look a lot like the sort of attacks the DNC have been making on Romney and will cut directly at his lack of conviction and ever-changing beliefs. Thus my belief that there is still space for an Anti-Romney to take the nomination, Rick Santorum or otherwise.

Read more at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field. Read the rest of this post...

Pat Robertson says God just told him who’s going to be the next president, among other things

The man is certifiable.  According to Robertson, God does not like Barack Obama.  But Robertson won't divulge who God told him will win in 2012.  Robertson did share that God said America is in danger.  "From what?", Robertson asked.  God apparently didn't want to say, but crafty Pat got it out of Him by doing the ecclesiastical equivalent of "smite twice if I'm right."  From Raw Story:

“He is saying you will have worse stress than before. So I’m saying, ‘God, let me give you some suggestions and you tell me if any of them is right, pick one,’” Robertson explained. “I said, ‘Is it an EMP blast? No that isn’t it. Is it a cosmic or solar or radiation blast? No. Is it Mayan galaxy alignment? No. Is it Iranian or North Korean nuclear threat? No. Is it an earthquake or a volcano? No. Is it a massive power failure? No.’”

“What is it? It’s an economic collapse,” the conservative leader finally disclosed. “And God said, ‘This is not my judgment, they are bringing it upon themselves.’”

You really have to watch the video to fully appreciate how nutty Robertson is this time.

Read the rest of this post...

Did fracking cause 11 quakes in Ohio?

The conservative John-Kasich-run state of Ohio thinks that a process used to get rid of wastewater from fracking, and other oil and gas drilling, did in fact cause the earthquakes, as does a seismologist investigating the situation.  Though the AP story is a bit confusing.  Apparently, the oil and gas wastewater that likely caused the earthquakes wasn't from a fracking operation, though it's the same kind of brine wasterwater dumping that takes place with fracking. Read the rest of this post...

Appeals court in Ecuador upheld previous verdict against Chevron

Chevron obviously has deep pockets so they will continue fighting the $18 billion ruling, though outside of Ecuador. The oil company is blaming politics for the verdict rather than their own failures. What's interesting is that Chevron fought in the US to have the case moved to Ecuador, but now they can't live with the results. It sounds like they expected different results in the small country where their money might have an even greater chance of influencing the courts. The Guardian:

The ruling confirmed a February judgment in the case. The Ecuadorean plaintiffs said in a statement that the decision was based on scientific evidence presented at trial proving that waste had poisoned the water supply. "The appellate court relied on a record that proved that Chevron has violated the rights of the communities where it operates," the plaintiffs said in the emailed statement. The lawsuit deals with pollution of the rainforest by energy company Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2001.

Read the rest of this post...

Spanish unemployment hits record high

This is definitely not the kind of news that anyone wants to hear now. If the US was counting unemployment in the same way as Spain, the US number would likely be somewhere closer to the mid teens, but still much lower than the nearly 22% unemployment rate in Spain. This is a painfully deep hole that they're in and without the fake economics of the last decade that dominated in so many countries, it will be a very long time before Spain digs itself out of this problem. Even worse, Spain now has a lost generation with its youth who have tough odds for finding employment.

The “bad and negative” unemployment figures place the future of the welfare state in question, Economy Minister Luis de Guindos said. More than 4.42 million Spaniards were out of work at the end of 2011, an increase of 7.86 percent over December 2010 and the highest total since 1996. The statistics confirm “the deterioration of the economic situation in the second half of the year,” the secretary of state for Employment, Engracia Hidalgo, said. Spain’s unemployment rate, nearly 22 percent, is the highest in the developed world and more than 45 percent of Spanish youth are without jobs.

Read the rest of this post...