Daily Kos

Wow, an actual House Republican who has the brains to say the GOP shouldn't hold middle-class tax cuts hostage:

Republican Rep. Tom Cole urged colleagues in a private session Tuesday to vote to extend the Bush tax rates for all but the highest earners before the end of the year — and to battle over the rest later.

The Oklahoma Republican said in an interview with POLITICO that he believes such a vote would not violate Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge and that he’s not alone within Republican circles.

Cole is right—this wouldn't violate Norquist's pledge. Republicans would be voting to cut taxes on every dollar of income below $250,000. Yes, rates would rise on income over $250,000—but that's current law. Republicans can't stop that from happening. The question is whether they'll join with Democrats on extending everything else. Cole understands the politics of the situation:

“I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now,” he said of freezing income tax rates for all but the top 2 percent of earners. “It doesn’t mean I agree with raising the top 2. I don’t.”

Instead, he told POLITICO, Republicans should fight the president over tax rates for the top earners after everyone else is taken care of. That would rob the president of the argument that Republicans are holding up tax cuts for all but the top earners, Cole said.

“Some people think that’s our leverage in the debate. It’s the Democrats’ leverage in the debate,” he said.

But don't get too excited—this isn't exactly the sound of the elephant's back breaking. Despite his opinion, Cole told Politico that he is likely to vote for whatever House Republican leadership asks him to support. So he might know what the right thing to do is, but there's no guarantee that he'll actually do it.

7:34 AM PT: House Speaker John Boehner just shot down Cole's proposal. Asked about it in a press conference, Boehner said: "I told Tom that i disagreed with him. ... This is not the right approach." So that's that, I guess.

Reposted from Comics by Tom Tomorrow

(Click to enlarge)

Get a signed print of this cartoon from the artist

Langer Research for ABC News/Washington Post (PDF). American adults. 11/21-25. ±3.5%.

Overall, do you support or oppose...

...raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year:
Support: 60
Oppose: 37

...reducing deductions people can claim on their federal income taxes:
Support: 44
Oppose: 49

...raising the age for Medicare coverage from 65 to 67:
Support: 30
Oppose: 67

These numbers once again show that the path forward is abundantly clear: let the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 expire, keep major cuts to Medicare benefits off the table, and don't use tax reform as an excuse to take away middle-class tax benefits. In other words, Americans support President Obama's approach—not Mitt Romney's and certainly not the Republican Party's. Given that President Obama won the election, that's not exactly a shock.

The key thing to remember is that Congress doesn't need to do anything in order for Bush's upper-income tax cuts to expire—under current law, they end on December 31, 2012. The question is whether House Republicans will extend tax cuts on all income below $250,000 or whether they'll hold those those tax cuts hostage as punishment for the expiration of the high-income cuts. Given that 60 percent of Americans—and four in ten Republicans—support ending the high-income tax cuts, it's hard to imagine Republicans will ultimately choose to go down that path. If they do, it would be political suicide, but even if they don't, they still need to deal with the fact that their other ideas—especially proposing major cuts to Medicare—aren't exactly popular either.

Republicans could give millions of Americans and the overall economy an early holiday Christmas gift by immediately taking one item off the table in the talks on the fiscal "cliff" and deficit: Renew extended unemployment benefits for another year.

Immediately, as in: right now. Because, unlike other matters that are part of the fiscal artifice that is being called a precipice, if federal emergency unemployment benefits are not renewed before they expire on Dec. 29, it's going to take a big bite out of economy and have a major impact on millions of Americans who are just scraping by.

As I've written here and here, if the emergency benefits do expire, two million Americans will immediately be cut off this lifeline and another million will follow in their footsteps by April.

Plus, without renewal, an estimated two million who would have received federal emergency benefits in 2013 when their regular state benefits ran out won't get them. And, one more thing, the Economic Policy Institute says failure to renew the emergency benefits will cost the economy 400,000 jobs. Those would be lost because of all the millions of Americans who won't have the benefit money to spend on the goods and services in businesses that employ those 400,000 people.

Now this ought to be a simple matter for a couple of reasons. Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.52 in economy activity (the multiplier effect), making it the best kind of stimulus available since recipients spend those dollars immediately. In addition, right now long-term unemployment is especially grim. Five million Americans have been out of work for more than six months, a figure that hasn't fallen appreciably in the past year. Others have been out of work a lot longer. Providing a cushion doesn't just help them, it helps everyone.

That long-term joblessness is what those emergency benefits were instituted to deal with in the first place: providing in the worst-hit states 99 weeks of unemployment pay until a budget deal in February cut that back to a combined maximum of 73 weeks of state and federal benefits. In some states the combined maximum is now only 40 weeks. Many Americans have long since exhausted their benefits, both state and federal. (And, of course, a large fraction of Americans without work were never eligible for benefits in the first place.)

If the emergency extensions aren't renewed, the percentage of jobless Americans who receive any kind of benefits will amount to only about one-fourth of the total number unemployed in 2013. That would be a record low. And it would do immense harm not just to the affected workers and their families but also extensive collateral damage to others. It would knock as much as 0.3 percent off the already anemic growth in the gross domestic product.

So, Republicans can put on their big-boy pants, ditch their nonsense about unemployment benefits making people who have lost their jobs lazy, phone up the Democrats and ask them for a quick vote on renewing emergency unemployment benefits. That would help the economy and give peace of mind to lots of Americans, who, unlike the government, really are on the fiscal precipice.

Or they can play the same game they did last year at this time and hold the renewal hostage to other matters. Of course, if these guys are still listening to Rush Limbaugh, who said the last time Barack Obama was elected that he hoped he would fail as president, they may well be tempted to show they still don't believe Obama is legitimately in the White House and that they willing to stick it to millions of Americans in their efforts to keep playing their stupid games.

Reposted from Daily Kos Elections by David Nir Leading Off:

• IL-02: Two more candidates have jumped into the Democratic primary to fill ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s vacant seat: Chicago Alderman Anthony Beale and former Northwestern University football star Napoleon Harris, who was just elected to the state Senate earlier this month. They join ex-Rep. Debbie Halvorson, who announced on Monday. Shira Toeplitz also mentions yet another new name as a possibility that we hadn't seen before, Rev. Corey Brooks, an activist pastor.

And if you're wondering when this cavalcade of potential candidates will have to come to a halt, well, right now, the answer is Christmas eve. That's the current filing deadline, but officials are hoping to move it to a more convenient time (just as they are with the general election), perhaps to early January.

One other thing worth checking out is this cool mapping tool developed by local Democratic operative Scott Kennedy, which allows you to layer different jurisdictions and district lines on top of the borders of IL-02. It lets you see, for instance, how Calumet Township or Chicago's Ward 8 compares to the 2nd District (or any other relevant set of local boundaries you're interested in).

(Continue reading below the fold.)

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Filibuster: A Play in Two Acts

ACT I

(SENATE MINORITY LEADER walks into SENATE MAJORITY LEADER'S office)

"Good morning, Mr. Minority Leader! Thanks for coming. I'd like to debate the pros and cons of this Senate bill on the floor and then vote on it."
 "NO!"
"Well, how about this other bill?"
 "NO!"
"This one?"
 "NO!"
"Then maybe we can discuss some judicial nominees on the floor?"
 "NO!"
"How about just this one, then?"
 "NO!"
"But can't we at least…"
 "NO!"
"Not even…"
 "NO!"
"But…"
 "NO!"
"So what you're saying is…"
 "NO!"
"But why?"
 "NO!"

(MINORITY LEADER walks out, slams door)

[INTERMISSION]

ACT II

(SENATE MINORITY LEADER walks into SENATE MAJORITY LEADER'S office four years later)

"Say, I heard all y'alls plannin' to make some minor adjustments to the filibuster process so our side can't abuse it anymore."
 "Yes."
"NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!"

[Curtain]

Hey, Spielberg: call me. Let's talk screenplay.

Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Looks like everybody still wants to talk about filibuster reform, so of course, I'll oblige. Jonathan Bernstein is still giving everything a "meh" review, because he's so hip, he knew about the filibuster before it was cool. But not all "mehs" are created equal, and I'll take a look at his latest pooh-poohing of the "Myth of Opening Day."

And joining us on the show tomorrow: New York City Council candidate and Netroots denizen Debra Cooper (debcoop)! Tune in to hear what she's got to say about the race, the issues, politics and progressivism in general, and how you can help one of our own win elected office. (Though I think you might be able to guess that part.)

We're LIVE at 9 a.m. ET with Kagro in the Morning, thanks to NetrootsRadio.com.

Listen LIVE here:The Daily Kos Radio Player

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Or if you prefer, why not download the Stitcher app on your favorite mobile device, and search for the Netroots Radio live stream? And hey, when you do, be sure to sign up with the promo code DAILYKOS, and earn Daily Kos Radio $1 in the Stitcher affiliate program! And remember to "favorite" us once you're there. We're slowly climbing in the rankings, which aren't even skewed, and the more of you who help us, the more listeners out there who'll find us on the Stitcher network.

Miss the last show? You can catch it here:

Need more info on how to listen, or how to call in to the show? Find it below the fold.

The New York Times Washington Post editorial board puts up strawmen and knocks them down as it calls for President Obama to ignore liberals:

Elections do have consequences, and Mr. Obama ran on a clear platform of increasing taxes on the wealthy. But he was clear on something else, too: Deficit reduction must be “balanced,” including spending cuts as well as tax increases. Since 60 percent of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there’s no way to achieve balance without slowing the rate of increase of those programs.

This could be accomplished in a progressive manner, shielding the poorest beneficiaries from cuts. But that seems less likely to be achieved if progressives boycott serious negotiations by pretending that Social Security and Medicare are sustainable with no reform at all. [...]

At some point, he has to prepare the American people — and his own supporters most of all — for the “hard decisions” required to put the country on a sound financial footing. That means spending cuts, it means entitlement reform, it means compromise, it means a balanced solution that will please neither House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Liberals aren't saying that Medicare and Social Security don't need to be strengthened over the long term. Rather, the argument is that the conversation for strengthening those programs shouldn't take place in the highly-politicized, ticking time bomb atmosphere of the lame duck session "fiscal cliff" talks. As Senators Durbin and Shaheen and others have reiterated, Social Security is not in crisis and should be off the table. There appears to be less resistance to including Medicare and Medicaid in debt negotiations, however.

As for Social Security, Froma Harrop lays down the GOP's torrid hate affair with the program:

Conservatives never much liked Social Security. It’s a wildly popular government program that’s totally solvent until 2033. It will be easily fixable and by then may not need fixing at all. Doesn’t quite fit with the government-can’t-do-anything-right talking point.

Goldman Sachs' CEO Lloyd Blankenfield is making his case on the Hill and in the White House this week in meetings that Americans need to work longer. As one of many Fortune 500 CEOs who are part of the "Fix the Debt" charade, his position is that the retirement age should be raised.

Ethan Rome, writing at The Huffington Post, rightly lambasts that position:

The hypocrisy of Lloyd Blankfein, a Wall Street banker, and other corporate leaders who have inserted themselves into the debate over major tax and spending decisions under consideration in Congress is nothing short of repugnant. Blankfein's Goldman Sachs got billions from the federal government during the Wall Street bailouts, enabling him to hold a job that paid him $16.1 million in 2011, and now he wants the rest of us to take a pay cut -- now and in the future.  [...]

In the name of "fiscal responsibility" the self-interested CEOs animating Fix the Debt -- which, by the way, is led by 14 white men and only two women -- are pushing a deficit reduction plan that would lower taxes for corporations and the super-rich while slashing programs central to the middle class and those working their way into it. The Fix the Debt CEOs start with the assumption that poor, working and middle-class families should shoulder the bulk of the burden of deficit reduction. Meanwhile, none of the deficit hawks is talking about creating jobs and growing the U.S. economy.

The corporate executives literally have no idea how the rest of America lives.

Mark Schmitt from the Next New Deal, via Salon, takes apart the "Fix the Debt" campaign as a sham:

Fix the Debt and its partners find themselves twisted in a knot. Because “comprehensive tax reform” is such a central component of their vision, they have to root for the Bush tax cuts, because there’s not much room for reform otherwise. But supporting the Bush tax cuts, as a baseline, is not “fixing the debt.” It’s the opposite, since the Bush tax cuts make up almost all of the long-term projected deficit, as this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows:

It’s also worth noting that Fix The Debt’s approach to taxes is not the same as the Simpson-Bowles commission. Simpson-Bowles started from the assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire. Insisting that the Bush tax cuts form the starting point for negotiations was the position, instead, of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan (it was one reason he opposed Simpson-Bowles), and the current House Republicans.

I’m not sure why Fix the Debt put itself in a position where it now seems more concerned with protecting the Bush tax cuts than actually reducing the long-term deficit. Maybe it’s that the devotion to the fantasy of a grand bargain that includes something called “tax reform” drove them there. Maybe it’s that it’s necessary to maintain the nominal support from Republicans and business leaders that they boast. But whatever the cause, it’s where they seem to be. And a group devoted to fiscal responsibility has no business protecting one of the two most irresponsible fiscal choices in recent history.

Ruth Marcus at The Washington Post:

The problem is that the behind-the-scenes deal-making has been way more disappointing than the public posturing. After the kumbaya White House meeting Friday with congressional leaders, it took until the following Monday evening for Republicans to return to the White House with an initial offer.

It was, in a word, pathetic.

Alexander Bolton at The Hill:

Democrats are increasing their demands on what should be in a deficit deal, seeking to shield entitlement programs and insisting on raising the nation’s debt ceiling this year.

In the wake of President Obama’s reelection and Democratic gains in Congress, party leaders are growing bolder as the Dec. 31 deadline for extending the Bush-era tax rates and stopping automatic spending cuts approaches.

Charlie Cook looks at the GOP brand:

[E]ven if these candidates don't open their mouths, insert grenades, and pull pins (a la Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock), they still project a more extreme image for the party that makes it incredibly difficult for more-mainstream Republicans in swing or difficult states to win. For every Akin and Mourdock, there is a Scott Brown, a Linda Lingle, or a Heather Wilson who cannot win in tough places, at least in presidential years, because of the face of the Republican Party, a threatening brand to many moderate and swing voters.

Some people are still wondering why Qatar, one of the OPEC nations, was chosen to host the 18th U.N. climate change conference known as COP18. An oil-soaked thumb sticking up from Arabian peninsula into the Persian Gulf, the desert country has, depending on who is counting, the first or second highest gross domestic product per capita in the world, zero percent of which comes from agriculture in the hot, dry climate. It depends mostly on exports of oil, liquefied natural gas (of which it is the world's largest supplier) and chemical derivatives from hydrocarbons, such as fertilizer to help other people grow the crops it can't grow itself. Qatar generates 44 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year for each of its 1.9 million people. (The U.S. generates about 17 tons per capita.)

Qatar has made no commitment to cuts of those CO₂ emissions and, of course, its export-based economy depends on the rest of the world continuing to burn fossil fuels well into the future. Which the rest of the world seems prepared to keep doing.

But after Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiya, the former energy minister of Qatar, opened COP18 talks Monday in the capital of Doha—whose gleaming downtown skyline looks like a landing field for interstellar spaceships—he told a news agency that there should be no dissonance created by having the conference there:

"I believe Qatar is a good place [for the conference]. Other host countries produce coal," Attiyah said.

"I never believe in per-capita as a measure for distribution. I think it's calculated to show the small countries as the bad boys," he said earlier. [...]

"The problem with Qatar is that they have not proven they are taking climate change seriously," Wael Hmaidan, Climate Action Network director, a non-government organisation told Reuters news agency.

Attiyeh said, however, that this is not the case, especially since Qatar is one of the 10 countries of the world most likely to be negatively affected by rising sea levels associated with climate change. It is, he said, working to become green.

The talks that will continue in Doha all this week and run through Friday, Dec. 7, will be conducted in more comfortable circumstances than COP13 in Bali five years ago. Delegates whined then that the air conditioning wasn't adequate and the internet connection spotty in the tourist spa town of Nusa Dua while ignoring the irony that the electricity to keep the sweat off them and their laptops humming was being generated by a pollutant-spewing coal-fired power plant in next-door Java.

Whether this year's delegates will make more progress than their predecessors is anybody's guess. So far, the words poured out during 17 years of U.N. climate talks have been exceeded only by the number of carbon atoms poured into the atmosphere. With no relief in sight.

Which is not to say that nothing worthwhile has come out of the previous 17 sessions. But the fierce urgency of now was obvious at COP13 and even COP1 in 1995. It is fiercer still today. But somehow the definition of "now" hasn't quite penetrated the agenda-setters.

At Climate Progress, Rebecca Lefton and Andrew Light explain what to watch for in Doha. An excerpt:

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change talks in Doha will continue the progress made to date toward advancing a series of tracks toward a comprehensive international climate agreement. While none of these tracks alone is sufficient to address global climate change, taken together they have gotten us closer than ever to a comprehensive international solution. The biggest items on the three primary tracks of the Doha agenda are: • The closing of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action • Agreement on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol • Advancement of a work plan for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action Closing of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action During the 2011 climate talks in Durban, South Africa, parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed that the Long-term Cooperative Action should conclude in Doha. The action, which began in 2007 in order to implement the Bali Action Plan agreed to under the Bush administration, gave rise to the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements. Though many throughout the world hoping for a binding international treaty viewed Copenhagen as a disappointment, it was never likely that the 2009 U.N. climate change conference could have ended in a binding agreement. The United States would not have signed onto an agreement that did not solve the problem of rising greenhouse gases, leaving out major emitters such as India and China—now the largest emitter in the world, the country’s per-capita emissions are on par with the European Union’s emissions. China even objected in Copenhagen to developed countries articulating their own 2050 emission-reduction targets in a formal agreement, presumably because it would mean that rapidly developing countries would be responsible for the remainder of required emissions reductions to achieve some level of climate safety. But for all its criticisms, Copenhagen was groundbreaking. For the first time countries at all stages of development agreed to put forward pledges for national actions to address global warming by 2020. Over the past three years, 141 countries, including all the major emitters in the developed and developing world—which are responsible for more than 80 percent of global emissions—have made voluntary mitigation pledges. This was an important step forward, given that until then the only articulated pledges for reductions were made by developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which now account for less than 15 percent of global emissions. Perhaps most importantly, the Long-term Cooperative Action allowed a pathway for a bottom-up approach, bringing pledges from both developed and developing countries to the table. The bottom-up approach, as opposed to a top-down architecture, allows for varying commitments by country. This is significant because it recognizes the different capacities and levels of development of each country. The question is: How do we ensure that the sum of parties’ commitments will keep us on a pathway where it is still possible to hold temperature increase at 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels by the end of the century? This is now the agreed-upon goal of the U.N. process. [...]

Lefton and Light have much more to say at the link.

---

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009—Some amendments are more equal than others:

I'm not going all-in for the message of this Mayors Against Illegal Guns "Terror Gap" thing. But I'm struck by what I'll call the "Hypocrisy Gap" instead. I don't want to take up too much of your post-holiday time with this, but here's what's bugging me: the wingnuts have happily sold you out on your First Amendment rights, your Fourth Amendment rights, your Fifth Amendment rights, your Sixth Amendment rights, and your Eighth Amendment rights, all in the name of their right to crap their pants in fear over the 1% chance of terrorism. But the minute someone suggests that maybe some aspect of the amendment that actually has something to do with the ability to kill people could stand some reexamination, suddenly it's time to Live Free or Die again.

---

Tweet of the Day:

---

On today's Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin joined us at the top of the show for the Abbreviated Abbreviated Pundit Roundup. We take another dip in the waters of Lake Crazytown, reading the election night liveblogging of the "gay fanboy" nominated by wingnut columnist Charlotte Allen to run the fantasy 2016 Palin presidential campaign. Please do this, guys! Then, more filibuster reform fight previews and complaint debunking. Finally, a peek at the Obama administration'd attempt to set rules for drone strikes, just in case Romney won.

---

High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

Reposted from Milk Men And Women by Scott Wooledge See what genocidal tendencies lurk in the hearts and souls of the American Christian right.

Christian leaders of America are excited about the prospect that Uganda is close to passing its "kill the gays" bill. The infamous bill is on the parliamentary schedule, cleared committee, ready for debate and said to be poised for a vote any day now. The speaker of the Ugandan Parliament has described it as "a Christmas gift to the Ugandan people."

Above, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins praises Ugandan president's "leadership," calling it an worthy "modern example."

Perkins is a frequent guest on CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets to speak to the Christian perspective on issues. Perkins also boasted of having authored passages in the Republican Party platform of concern to LGBT American citizens. Can we look forward to a "Kill the Gays" plank in the 2016 GOP platform?

Meanwhile, Bryan Fischer, leader of the Christian family values organization the American Family Association, has this to say:

Fischer, as usual, has a very poor grasp of actual facts, which is unsurprising as he's linking to "World Nut Daily." The bill did not yet pass, which his Tweet might seem to indicate he believes. Regardless, homosexual conduct is now illegal in Uganda and has been for a long time under existing law and it is punishable by prison.

The new bill is only more barbarically punitive, expanding punishment to death and also creating a circle of criminal responsibility around people who know gays and do not report them to the government. Failure to report a suspected homosexual may be punishable by prison. Box Car Turtle looks in depth at what promises to be an Ugandan Inquisition.

More chillingly, Fischer ends with "It can be done."

Fischer doubtlessly feels emboldened by this to redouble his efforts to bring sodomy laws back to America, maybe this time with the death penalty attached, because the Puritans' original 16th century ideas were just a little too liberal to be effective.

Fischer and Perkins are key organizers of the Value Voters Conference that is a standard stomping ground for Republican pundits and candidates, having hosted VP candidate Paul Ryan just months ago. Fischer too was a key instigator when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's decided to "un-hire" his campaign's foreign policy adviser this summer.

Christian leader Scott Lively, currently being sued in U.S. federal court by Ugandans alleging human rights violations over the role he played in bringing this law to fruition, is also tickled pink there may be a pink gas chamber in Uganda's near future.

This is a huge blessing for Uganda and for me personally after having  been vilified globally (and falsely) for two years by the leftist  media as the accused mastermind of the death penalty provision.   Please give this story your best push for maximum exposure.   Blessings,   Pastor Scott Lively

A trio of very wealthy, white American men cheering the vicious oppression of impoverished black people a world away.

President Obama has condemned this law specifically in the past, and Secretary of State Clinton has been a big advocate of LGBT global human rights. The U.S. State Department has thus far been silent on this new push to pass the bill with no updated statements or positions.

Update: This just in! Chris Johnson at The Washington Blade is reporting:

State Dept's Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson met with high-profile leaders in Uganda "over the weekend" and raised concerns about the bill.

No word on what measures the U.S. might take to dissuade the parliament or president from moving forward or in the event the bill is passed, or how they might react.

The Catholic Church, famously opposed to the death penalty and a force in African politics, been said to both support and oppose the bill. It isn't at all clear what their position is, if they have one.

Rumors have circulated that the death penalty has been detached. There's no confirmation of this as the Ugandan parliament has refused to make final bill public. Apparently the text of the bill is a really big secret, but the new, improved bill now has 100 percent less genocide—just trust them on that.

It is also well worth noting, Ugandan legislators have lied many times before about supposedly having removed the death penalty and they did not.

Update: From radio talk show host, Michelangelo Signorile:

Oh, those radical, liberal, activist homosexuals! Always forcing their radical views—like not wanting to be murdered—on other people.

Tue Nov 27, 2012 at  8:30 PM PT: US State Dept. embassy sources dispute that the bill has been stricken of the death penalty. They believe talks with the president have successfully impressed upon him the gravity of international opposition to the bill.

Being a lady writer who writes about how ladies totally suck is such hard work.

It's especially hard work if you make your living telling other ladies they shouldn't make a living because of The Children^TM and also because it will make men feel bad about themselves. Keeping all the hatred and blame straight can really hurt your ladybrain and make you write things you totally didn't mean to write.

So sayeth Suzanne Venker, aka the niece of Phyllis "Yes, she's still alive" Schlafly, aka the author of this craptastically awful article that blames feminism for turning men into unmarriageable slackers and offers shiny turds of brilliance like:

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. [...]

Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

Putting aside, for a moment, that we might not want these supposedly nearly extinct "marriageable men" to come out of the woodwork, since, per Venker, they're a bunch of whiny, sniveling, overly sensitive assholes, it's all okay because that's not even what Venker meant to say. No, seriously. It was all just a misunderstanding:

Reached by phone last night, Venker said that the whole thing was a misunderstanding. When she wrote about women and men, she meant to write about wives and husbands.

“I didn’t mean that women can’t compete with men in the workforce. I meant that men don’t want to compete with their wives in marriage. Husband and wife would have been better than men and women,” she said.

But wait. Wasn't the entire point of her article that there's sort of no such thing as husbands and wives anymore because feminists have pissed men off so much that they don't even want to get married? Or have jobs?

Okay, yes, but that's not what she meant to say. It's just that being a lady writer and keeping track of all those confusing lady thoughts rattling around inside your ladybrain is "so hard":

All I can say in my defense is that it can be so hard when you write as much as I’ve written—three books, articles, blogs—you think you have said something but you haven’t. It’s like I am thinking something and I am so clear about it and I think what I have said is that. I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t think that much about it. It is an important distinction between men and husbands for sure.

So, in other words, she meant to say that wives suck, which is completely different, but she somehow ended up writing that women suck because when you've written three whole books—and you blog!—it's just way too much work to remember the difference between "men and women" and "husbands and wives." So all you haters out there who are mocking the crap out of Venker can just stop it right now because she didn't even mean it that way so there.

Oh, but by the way, yes, Venker still believes that women—maybe she just means wives? Who knows?—still need to do that looking-in-the-mirror thing:

My goal is to get women to look in the mirror and say, what is your part in this gender debate? Is it women’s fault? Maybe fault isn’t the right word, but if men and women are equal, then how come it is that men are supposed to change but women are not.

So now she's back to blaming women, not just wives, for making the world so unpleasant for the menfolk. But maybe tomorrow, we'll get a new explanation that she didn't really mean that either.

Remember that crazy column two weeks ago arguing that Sarah Palin should run for president? Remember how we laughed and laughed and laughed? Let me pull out this line from it:

If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.

I've been having fun reading election night threads at various wingnut sites. Nothing brings home just how reality-averse conservatives are than reading their election commentary. And unlike their anti-science efforts, or destructive economic prescriptions, or their denial of climate change—their heads-up-their-asses approach to reality this election bit them hard.

So yeah, we won't get such a satisfying conclusion to the climate change debate, but we can get it via their election coverage. And none I've seen was better than Kevin DuJan's election night liveblog.

I've culled some of the funnier bits below the fold, but really, if you're jonesing for more delicious schadenfreude, I'd read the entire post. It's f'n brilliant! And yes, if Sarah Palin does run for president, this reality-challenged joker would be perfect for her.

8:24 PM PT: If you enjoyed this liveblog thread, his predictions (link thx to wwjd in the comments) might be even better.