Via CaseyOR, John F. Kennedy on September 12, 1960:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

[. . .] I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

[. . ..] And in fact,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom[. . . .]

More . . .

E.J. Dionne writes:

Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough. I hope they reconsider, especially since the Catholic service providers most affected by the revised rule welcomed it. What bothers liberal Catholics about the arguments advanced by some of our conservative friends is that the Catholic right seems so eager to focus the church’s witness to the world on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and, now, perhaps, contraception that they would effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, relegate the church’s social justice work and teaching to second-class status.

That may be what bothers liberal Catholics, but what should bother progressives is the idea that religious doctrines are being used to attempt to limit women's rights and good public policy. Since the beginning of this controversy, Dionne has been willing to sacrifice women's rights and the progressive value of a government engaged in good policy in order to placate religious demands on a secular government.

If Dionne could find it in himself to say 'yes, accommodate religious concerns about public policy if you can, but if you can't, religion cannot dictate secular public policy,' then he can articulate a coherent progressive position. But he seems unable to say this. Dionne writes:

President Obama's announced accommodation" looks ok to me - women get the contraceptive coverage that good science and public policy require. The perceived need to offer a fig leaf to religions (the insurance companies pay) is grating, but the substance is what matters most.

Planned Parenthood and Catholic Health Association both approve. The bishops are formulating what their objections are. Surely having to pay for contraceptive coverage is not the problem.

Appeasing folks who will never support you seems a fool's errand to me, but I can't object in this case as the substance stays intact. As a larger issue of chasing fool's gold, well, my views on that are a matter of record.

Komen sez "never mind":

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives. [. . .] Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Planned Parenthood accepted the apology:

Long overdue:

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a lawsuit against several of the nation’s largest banks charging that the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process. The lawsuit asserts that employees and agents of Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, acting as "MERS certifying officers," have repeatedly submitted court documents containing false and misleading information that made it appear that the foreclosing party had the authority to bring a case when in fact it may not have. The lawsuit names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as Virginia-based MERSCORP, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

[More....]

Via Hunter, Pink became the new anti-science crazy last November PDF):

Susan G. Komen for the Cure® has never funded human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR) nor does Komen currently fund H-ESCR. Komen supports research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells [that . . .] are derived without creating a human embryo or destroying a human embryo.

The question is why all the prevarication on the Planned Parenthood cutoff? Komen seemed to make clear last November that it is a right wing anti-science organization. Why pretend it is not regarding PP? They should be proud of their wingnut bona fides, no?

Speaking for me only

This could be the first domino to fall:

Rick Perry is telling supporters that he will drop his bid for the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday, two sources familiar with the plans told CNN.

Jed asks who Perry will endorse. I say no one for now. [I'm wrong again, he is endorsing Gingrich. Proving yet again that Perry has no clue when it comes to national politics. If by some miracle Gingrich wins the nomination, the GOP will lose a landslide. Perry wants credit for that?] the key point here is with Newt surging in South Carolina, if he has a strong showing, Santorum would be next to drop out and that would set up the much awaited Mitt v.the non-Mitt battle in Florida. I think the Not Mitt forces will make their last stand there.

The latest in corporations are people too:

Hedge funds have been known to use hardball tactics to make money. Now they have come up with a new one: suing Greece in a human rights court to make good on its bond payments.The novel approach would have the funds arguing in the European Court of Human Rights that Greece had violated bondholder rights[.]

It's probably just a semantic question (this may be the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter), but it is certainly funny, in a strange way, to see hedge funds suing in a human rights court. The optics are not the best. The legal argument goes as follows:

Legal experts suggest that the investors may have a case because if Greece changes the terms of its bonds so that investors receive less than they are owed, that could be viewed as a property rights violation — and in Europe, property rights are human rights.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ron Paul might say "We are all Europeans now!" And Mitt Romney might consider apologizing for America not agreeing that property rights are human rights.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum quotes Andrew Sullivan:

[Liberals] have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game.

Drum remarks:

This is sort of a watered-down version of the 11-dimensional chess hosannas that deservedly got a lot of mockery back in the day. But it wasn't true of Obama then (both his campaign and governing strategies have been fairly straightforward) and it's not necessary to explain anything now.

I agree. However, I disagree when Drum writes "Why is Obama now taking a harder, more partisan approach toward his GOP adversaries? [. . . H]e's doing it because it's an election year. It's now time for contrast, not compromise. This is Campaigning 101."

I disagree because governing requires contrast too. A pol must convince the populace that how he wants to govern is the right way to go as opposed to the policies proposed by your opponents. FDR was not FDR because he was a firebrand liberal. He governed as he did, and politicked during the governing BTW, because he thought he needed those policies for good governance and, not coincidentally, to win reelection. In terms of political style, Obama followed the Clinton way, and now, as Clinton, he fights the contrast fight, because the Third Way did not work then and will not work now.

Speaking for me only

I'm laughing my a** off. DemfromCt has the roundup. The choice bit is, of course, from Newt Gingrich:

"Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money?" Newt Gingrich asked Monday. "I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods and then leaving a factory that should be there."

This reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Michael Moore was secretly Rush Limbaugh. What also has me laughing is Erick Erickson's reaction:

The Iowa nonsense is over. New Hampshire will be a cakewalk. Erick Erickson hates Romney. Newt is gonna scorch the Earth. Does any of it matter? No.

Mitt Romney is running as the acceptable anti-Obama. He may not be the favored candidate of extreme Republicans (chew on that phrase for a moment), but they aren't voting for Obama. The attacks on him will drive down his favorables, but he's not running to win, he is running to have Obama lose.

Whatever flaws Romney has as a political candidate, it is hard to see how he will not be considered as an acceptable alternative by those inclined to vote against Obama.

Like Jeralyn, I find the GOP primary to be boring. And once Perry imploded, it turned out to be irrelevant - Romney was and is going to be the nominee. And now nothing that happens will matter to November. That is a race that will be decided by the economy and Obama. Obama can lose the election. But Romney can't win it. In other words, the most important factors for the November election have almost nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Other than being the acceptable "Obama alternative" vessel, Romney is irrelevant to this election.

Speaking for me only

The Big Lebowski: Are you surprised at my tears, sir?
The Dude: [Smoking a joint] Dude, f--in' A!
The Big Lebowski: Strong men also cry... strong men also cry.

Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ Editorial Board writes of Ron Paul:

Some in Iowa are reportedly now taking a look at Dr. Paul, now risen high in the polls there. [. . .] It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is. An interesting status for a candidate of Dr. Paul's persuasion to have achieved, and he'll achieve even more if Iowans choose to give him a victory.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, this "Fifth Column" is not confined to Iowa. From his coastal enclave in Washington, DC, Andrew Sullivan writes:

[Paul] is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right[.]

Ahhh, the Decadent in their coastal enclaves, mounting a "Fifth Column."

Speaking for me only

Krugman notes an important development out of the EPA on mercury and restates this important point:

The point that strikes me most, however, is that this shows that it matters who holds the White House. You can complain about Obama’s lack of a strong progressive agenda, which I sometimes do, or wonder what good it is to hold the White House when the other side blocks every attempt to do good through legislation. But mercury regulation would not have happened if John McCain were president.

Elections have consequences, and this is one delayed consequence of 2008 that will make a big difference.

This is not a plea to give Obama a free pass, quite the opposite (I think the larger problem is defenders of the President not seeing that criticism of specific policy need not imply lack of support for reelection). Criticism is necessary but the full picture must be kept in mind.

Speaking for me only

Seems like a dumb question I know, but remarkably, Jon Chait says no:

It would be nearly impossible to imagine the Republican Party nominating a candidate who spent years and years publishing a racist newsletter and has deep associations with the fringe far right. (Here he is speaking to the John Birch Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.)

I think that Chait has it backwards. It is impossible to imagine the GOP nominating a candidate who does NOT make race based appeals.

Consider Ronald Reagan - welfare queens in Cadillacs and "states rights" in Philadelphia,Mississippi, just for starters.

And today, the GOP's universal war on immigrants is racism uncovered. What in Gawd's name is Chait talking about? The more plausible argument from Chait? This:

It would be even more impossible to imagine the Party nominating a candidate who favors total withdrawal from world affairs and takes a Chomsky-ite line on American power.

It is true that Ron Paul is not eager to use American military power and speaks of restraining Executive power. And those views are anathema to the GOP. Of course, they are also anathema to Jon Chait, who would be, in many ways, a more plausible GOP candidate than Ron Paul. It's an interesting story.

Speaking for me only