Intern who helped save Gabby Giffords’ life to throw out first pitch tonight

Daniel Hernandez, the intern whose calm courage helped to save the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), will throw out the ceremonial first pitch at tonight’s Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Phoenix, the New York Post reports.

Hernandez, 21, was hailed as a hero after his quick thinking was credited with keeping Rep. Giffords (D-Ariz.) alive until paramedics arrived after she was shot in the head outside a Tucson-area grocery store in January.

After hearing the gunfire, Hernandez ran to Giffords and held her upright so she could breathe and applied pressure to her head wound. He had been hired by Giffords less than a week before the Jan. 8 attack.

Among those killed in the shootings, in which six people died and 12 others were wounded, was Christina Taylor Green, the daughter of Los Angeles Dodgers scout John Green and granddaughter of former Major League Baseball manager Dallas Green.

MLB commissioner Bud Selig invited the families of all of the victims to participate in the pre-game ceremony, KTAR.com reported.

Hernandez’ part in the tragic Giffords’ story has always impressed me, perhaps because I know just how terrified I would have been in the same situation, how tempted to run as far and as fast as possible. Perhaps such a terrifically human gesture as to immediately attempt to alleviate the suffering of another ought to be the norm — but is it? Certainly it’s more likely to be if, when someone does display loyalty and bravery, he receives recognition and gratitude. The chance to throw out a ceremonial pitch at an All-Star game seems in line with that.

Street name “Seven in Heaven Way” upsets American Atheists

This summer, the city of Brooklyn renamed a neighborhood street “Seven in Heaven Way” to honor seven local firefighters who gave their lives on Sept. 11, 2001. A nice thought, right? Simple, symbolic, sincere. But sadly, the commemorative gesture has since generated controversy.



The New Jersey-based American Atheists, the same group that brought the country “God Less America” Fourth of July aerial banners, promptly objected to the street name.

“It’s improper for the city to endorse the view that heaven exists,” American Atheists president David Silverman said. “It links Christianity and heroism.”

Additional objections: Sept. 11 was an attack on “all of America,” so no memorial of it should “break” the Constitution — and, also, the street sign presumes to know what the seven firefighters themselves believed.

But, as The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall points out, the group’s objections reveal a misunderstanding of freedom of religion.

Godless secularism – or a “naked public square” denuded of all religious references and symbols, as the late Richard John Neuhaus put it – never was intended to be the character of our American republic. Religious freedom, the cornerstone of all freedom, is freedom for religion, not hostility toward it.

Yes, the Founders wisely separated political from religious authority in our federal government, but they didn’t intend to divorce religion from public life or politics. They based the American model of religious liberty on a favorable view of religious practice.

Far from privatizing or marginalizing religion, the Founders assumed religious believers and institutions would take active roles in society, engaging in the political process and helping to shape consensus on morally fraught questions. …

Most nations are dominated, demographically anyway, by adherents of particular faiths. But every denomination – and the atheist camp as well – is a small minority somewhere on the planet. This reality underscores why religious liberty, not the radical secularist or theocratic systems at either end of the spectrum, should be precious to everyone.

But on a more practical level, the objections reveal an acute sensitivity that seems unwarranted in this situation. A street name with the word “heaven” doesn’t automatically imply an endorsement of Christianity — many other religions include a paradisal idea of the afterlife, too. Nor does it even necessarily imply an endorsement of the belief that heaven is real. Are no streets named for mythical places or fictional characters? Additionally, more than 400 New York City streets have been named for 9-11 victims and heroes. Clearly, the sign was named with the simple motivation of recognizing seven men who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Perhaps that’s why one First Amendment lawyer described the situation this way: “The area of religion is so complex and nuanced that you could argue nearly anything … But a [legal] challenge in this case would be far-fetched.”

--------
from: hotair

Report: DeMint, Jim Jordan nix McConnell’s debt-ceiling plan; Update: Dems are considering it, says Durbin

DeMint’s opposition isn’t confirmed yet but Robert Costa of NRO has it on good authority. That might not be an insuperable obstacle to passage in the Senate given the fact, per Bret Baier below, that Reid seems open to the idea. If he can bring the Dems into line then all they’d need is the usual suspects — Brown, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and a few others — and they’re golden.


But Jordan’s kiss of death in the House will make things hard for Boehner:

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, tells NRO that while he hasn’t review all the details of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R., Ky.) “contingency plan,” he doesn’t see much of a future for it in the House.

The RSC has 175 members. If all or most walk away, Boehner would need practically the entire Democratic caucus plus 50-60 Republicans who are willing to break with conservatives and lock arms with the left in the name of ceding control of the debt ceiling to Obama. They’d be doing it in the name of averting a default and boxing in The One as the candidate of debt next year, but I doubt that’d save them from primary challenges. How does Boehner get McConnell’s bill through the House under those circumstances? No wonder he seems so noncommittal about it; watch his reaction when Baier presses him on it at 1:30 of the clip below.

The key here, as is increasingly the case, might be Cantor. Whether there’s a rift between him and Boehner or not, he’s banked enough conservative cred by holding the line on taxes throughout the negotiation that he might be able to pry away some RSC members if he backed McConnell’s plan. Has anyone heard his reaction to it yet? If so, please tip us and I’ll update the post. I’ll leave you with a link to this brief but must-see vid (via NRO), which contains what must be one of the most ominous pauses in modern political history. No wonder McConnell’s thinking about Plan B.

Update: The Senate might be ready to play ball:

A back-up plan proposed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that would keep the U.S. government from defaulting on its debts next month is viable and under consideration by Senate Democrats, according to Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber.

“We’re talking about it as one of the options, yes,” Durbin said in response to a question about whether the McConnell plan is viable.

Update: Still no word on Cantor vis-a-vis McConnell’s plan, but this quote from earlier today speaks volumes:

Across the Capitol, a closed-door caucus of House Republicans broke up with the leadership conceding that it’s frankly at a loss about getting the votes before Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.

“Nothing can get through the House right now,” Cantor said after the White House meeting. “Nothing.”

“Sister Wives” clan to challenge constitutionality of Utah’s polygamy law

Who’s angrier about this? Traditional marriage activists, or gay rights activists who don’t want to see the debate about same-sex marriage dragged down the slippery slope when they’re trying to build on momentum from New York?

Nationally-known constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said the lawsuit to be filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City will not call for plural marriages to be recognized by the state. Instead, it asks for polygamy between consenting adults like his clients, former Utahn Kody Brown and his wives, to no longer be considered a crime.

“We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs,” Turley said in a press release. The Browns star in the TLC network show “Sister Wives.” There is no word yet on whether they will appear in a press conference scheduled for Wednesday…

The complaint to be filed Wednesday, Turley said, presents seven constitutional challenges to the state’s bigamy law. It is largely based on the right to privacy.

“In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values—even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state,” said Turley, a member of the faculty at George Washington University.

If the distinction between decriminalization and state recognition seems confusing (which it did to me at first), it helps to know that Utah’s bigamy statute includes cohabiting with one person when you’re legally married to another. And in fact, this guy is only legally married to one woman; the other three are, er, “sister wives.” Basically, he’s arguing that he doesn’t care if the state recognizes them as legal spouses or not, just that he doesn’t want the cops to come knocking and lock him up when they find out. In that sense, his court claim mirrors the current legal regime in most states where gay marriage is banned but gay sex is constitutionally protected.

So, no lawsuit to legalize polygamous marriage — yet. But legal precedents have a funny way of building on each other:

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses…

The questions surrounding whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry are significantly different from those involved in criminal prosecution of multiple marriages, Ms. Pizer noted. Same-sex couples are seeking merely to participate in the existing system of family law for married couples, she said, while “you’d have to restructure the family law system in a pretty fundamental way” to recognize polygamy.

Professor Turley called the one-thing-leads-to-another arguments “a bit of a constitutional canard,” and argued that removing criminal penalties for polygamy “will take society nowhere in particular.”

Ah, but they’re not asking to change family law, just to take polygamy out of the penal code. The family law case will be the next lawsuit. FYI, the Supreme Court already upheld laws against polygamy — 130 years ago, rejecting a Mormon challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause. So there’s precedent here if SCOTUS wants it when it eventually hears a case along these lines. Two important footnotes, though. One: The Court’s language in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision authored by Anthony Kennedy, was famously broad in its implications (a point noted by Scalia in dissent at the time), so there’s no telling whether that earlier precedent is still good law. And second, Lawrence itself overruled a much more recent precedent in Bowers v. Hardwick to arrive at its holding. So yeah, there’s quite a fair chance that the Brown clan might pull this off.

Exit question: Speaking of people who aren’t eager to watch this court/media battle play out, how excited do you think Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are right now?

Bachmann: Who needs executive experience if it means more big government?

Politico notes, correctly, that this is a great line directed at Romney, an “eh” line directed at Pawlenty, and a dumb line directed at Perry or Palin. There’s no obvious way out of this box: After four years of blaming the failures of Hopenchange in part on The One having never run so much as a lemonade stand, how do Republicans turn around now and take a chance on Bachmann?

Bachmann said executive experience doesn’t matter if it comes with “more of the same big government as usual.”

“This election will be about quite simply, who can lead that restructuring effort,” Bachmann said, referring to turning around the economy and working to repeal the federal health care reform law.

“Executive experience in government is one thing, but not when it comes to a promise of more of the same big government as usual,” she continued.

“Right on!” says Rick Perry, hunkered down in his office and feverishly dialing political operatives in New Hampshire. Bachmann’s other emerging problem is that the more she woos the Huckabee faction in Iowa with ostentatious displays of social conservatism, as she did last week when she signed a marriage pledge so heavy-handed that even Gingrich is shying away from it, the more she risks being pigeonholed as a “Christian candidate” a la Huck three years ago. Case in point: “Nightline” is planning to run a report tonight in which a former patient at the counseling center owned by Bachmann and her husband will claim that he was advised to pray the gay away. Won’t hurt her a bit with social cons, but if it does come down to her and, say, Romney for the nomination, his pitch to undecideds will be that the GOP can’t afford sideshows that take them off-message when they’re trying to beat Obama on the economy. Which of course is actually 90 percent of the reason to consider nominating Pawlenty. Once the general election campaign begins, blandness is very much a virtue.

Exit question: Via Ace, here’s a choice passage from Palin’s latest Facebook note. Who’s this aimed at?

As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant’s heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us don’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and it’s profoundly disappointing.

Pawlenty’s been pushing precisely the same message on the trail in Iowa lately. Hey Ed Rollins — any idea who Palin’s talking about here?

Pawlenty plays it safe — but smart — on homosexuality

GOP presidential hopeful and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said today he’s not sure whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. Political Ticker reports:

“As I understand the science, there’s no current conclusion that it’s genetic,” Pawlenty said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Saying he preferred to “defer to the scientists” about the issue, the former Minnesota governor said it was unclear if being gay or lesbian was a lifestyle choice.

“There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that. So, we don’t know to what extent it’s behavioral,” Pawlenty said. “That’s something that has been debated by scientists for a long time.”

T-Paw didn’t pass on the chance to reiterate his support for traditional marriage, however. He phrased his views positively, emphasizing that he is a proponent of marriage between one man and one woman and saying simply, “I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits in public employment as traditional couples.”

Political Ticker and other news outlets framed Pawlenty’s remarks as a “punt,” but, from where I sit, he answered the question the only way he could have. So far, science has not conclusively established homosexuality as a genetic predisposition. Given that Pawlenty presumably disapproves of gay behavior, what did he have to gain by either absolving gay couples of responsibility for that behavior or blatantly accusing them of poor choices?

Conversely, he did have something to gain by making a statement in support of traditional marriage — an institution his base likewise values and wants to see protected. (Keep in mind just 28 percent of Republicans think same-sex marriage should be legal and just 25 percent of conservatives hold that view.) Perhaps Pawlenty played it safe, but, primarily, he played it smart.

No “Hollywood victory moments” in the budget fight

Boehner didn’t cave on the budget deal this weekend, as some feared he would. The prior fears were not by any means inexplicable. Republicans in Washington are speaking mildly rather than trenchantly, and taking slings and arrows from the chattering class. There’s no Terminator-type trash talk coming from them. All the movement and fury seems to be on the Democrats’ side.


And that makes sense, because it’s the Democrats who occupy indefensible ground. Essentially, their position is that if Republicans won’t agree to raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes, the president will use his discretion to default on US government debt after 2 August. They don’t put it that way, of course, but that’s the reality. If Obama defaults on government debt, it will be because he decided to, not because he had to. He could be impeached for making such a decision.

The money will be there to meet out debt obligations; it just won’t be there to do that and continue to pay for all the other activities of the government. Obama could, equally, decide to cut expenditures in wildly unpopular ways like shorting Medicare reimbursements or leaving the troops without their pay, but Democrats in Congress wouldn’t let him get away with that either, any more than Republicans would. The real option after 2 August is to cut expenditures on other operations of the government, including the programs and subsidies that the Obama administration considers its highest priorities.

All of which is why it’s the Democrats who are most alarmed about having to face the choices after 2 August. The GOP position is not a precarious one. It’s a strong and meaningful position, and that’s why Obama and the Democrats are mounting a sustained assault, using every trick in the book to get the GOP to give up the ground it has staked out. Advertently or not, the Republicans have acted according to the strategic maxim of Bismarck’s military genius, Von Moltke the Elder:

A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them.

Why doesn’t the GOP position look more tough and inspiring? For one thing, because our imaginations have been so conditioned to Hollywood productions and the 120-minute movie package that we think victories have to be signaled by the devices of video storytelling, or they aren’t victories.

But in real life, it rarely happens that way. Think back to January and the endless, annoying Cirque du Wisconsin with the runaway Democrats hiding out across the state line in the EconoLodge or wherever it was. There was no Hollywood victory at the end of that sorry episode. Eventually the Democrats just straggled back. On balance, the Wisconsin Republicans have been winning the peace.

But they looked, throughout the pitched confrontation, like a herd of deer caught in the headlights: bemused, a little shell-shocked, a little quizzical. A lot of conservatives wrote them off because they were just a bunch of modern legislator schmoes, doing modern legislature stuff. But while the Democrats and unions are still fighting a vociferous rearguard action, and it ain’t over yet, the momentum has clearly turned to the Republicans’ side.

Consider James Pethokoukis’ reference to Reagan and Reykjavik in 1986 (cited by Ed). Mikhail Gorbachev offered to raise the Reagan ante on strategic arms cuts, the best counteroffer ever presented by a Soviet leader, but Reagan turned it down because Gorbachev’s condition was that Reagan abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative.

This certainly didn’t resonate as a victory at the time. We don’t remember it today, but the Western media proclaimed an atmosphere of civilizational doom after the Reykjavik summit. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting an editorial containing the phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” Even many of Reagan’s staunchest supporters wondered if the old man had finally gone round the bend. Reagan was defending territory he had staked out – territory so alarming to the Soviets that it drove them to act, maneuver, change their approach, move off of their position – and to the observers of the time, that looked like disaster.

What we do remember today, however, is that it was Reagan who got what he wanted in the end.

In politics, victory often comes on little cat feet. I won’t be surprised if the way a GOP budget victory looks to the public is a lot like how it looks in Wisconsin today. An interim solution rather than a grand bargain; a sense of tension maintained rather than the catharsis of a satisfying conclusion.

There will be work left to do, but a shift of momentum. An MSM counter-narrative will be retailed relentlessly, on the water-torture principle. Paroxysms of caterwauling will persist from the Democrats and their constituencies. From the GOP, no glory, no stirring speeches, no one-liners. No string crescendo, no pulsating beat. Nothing but a bunch of Republicans looking weary and dithery, like they just stumbled in from a windstorm – but haven’t forgotten what they went out into it for.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Quotes of the day

“House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:


“Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

***
“I got this from a GOP congressional source later in the afternoon:

“WH is demanding major, unambiguous tax hikes. To get spending caps & entitlement tweaks, greater economic pain appears to be the WH’s asking price. It is increasingly likely that we aren’t going to see a ‘big’ deal if the WH doesn’t budge. Speaker looks to be holding strong…

“[Update 7:39 PM] Appears that the basic framework for future tax reform could not be resolved.

“The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior.”

***
“Tax reform is a worthwhile policy goal, and Mr. Boehner is right to pursue it. But the only way he can avoid being taken for a ride by Democrats is if all parts of any deal are negotiated, voted on and then implemented immediately. Two men, one deal, once. Promises of future action aren’t credible.

“Even if Mr. Obama is sincere on tax reform, he can’t guarantee he can deliver Senate Democrats who are desperate to keep their majority in 2012, much less Nancy Pelosi. We’re told that in Thursday’s White House meeting, Mr. Obama promised to veto any short-term debt-limit deal to give the two sides more time to negotiate. If that’s true, then the President isn’t serious. It means he is using the pressure of the August 2 deadline to bull-rush Mr. Boehner into a bad deal.

“If Mr. Obama is sincere about a long-term spending and tax reform agreement, he’ll take the time to get it right. If he insists on issuing ultimatums, then House Republicans would be better off passing a debt-limit ceiling for a few months with comparable spending cuts and letting Senate Democrats do the same. Mr. Boehner shouldn’t bet his majority on Mr. Obama’s promises.”

***
“In the latest salvo in their campaign to portray Republicans as extremists for not wanting to accept tax increases as part of a budget deal, liberal bloggers led by Ezra Klein have been promoting a chart showing that in the past, the GOP has been willing to accept deals that are far less generous than what President Obama is supposedly offering them. Yet as Conn Carroll pointed out earlier, there’s a big difference between budget deals as negotiated, and budget deals as implemented. The reason why today’s conservatives are much less tolerant of deals that include tax hikes is that they’ve learned from history that the reality of such agreements is that taxes go up as negotiated, but Congress doesn’t deliver the promised spending cuts. No past deal poisoned the well more than the 1990 budget pact, in which President Bush infamously broke his ‘no new taxes’ pledge…

“Back in 1990, the establishment was saying the same things about the need for a ‘balanced approach’ in which all sides sacrifice something to reduce the deficit. Yet what we ended up with in reality was a deal that raised taxes and slashed military spending (in other words, the liberal approach) while entitlements and non-defense discretionary spending rose by an even higher amount than was projected before a deal. Is it any wonder that today’s conservatives are deeply suspicious of budget deals in which Republicans agree to raise taxes in exchange for promised spending cuts?”

***
“The media will initially be all excited about the deal, but will turn almost instantly towards declaring it has no chance to pass, seizing on every criticism of the package or declaration of opposition as sure-fire signs the proposal is dead. The outcry against the package (both before and after the details are known) will be intense on both the left and the right. Interest groups from all quarters will denounce the measure as unacceptable. National security conservatives, for example, will declare that the Pentagon cuts will eviscerate America’s ability to defend itself; liberal groups will deem the entitlement reductions unacceptable. Thumbs down will also come from Paul Krugman, Rush Limbaugh, and every Republican running for president in 2012…

“As the House prepares to vote, the media will declare again that there is virtually no chance of passage. Strange-bedfellow allies, including prominent elements of Big Business and Big Labor – plus, inevitably, Bill Clinton – will make the ‘don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good’ argument in public and in private. As the measure’s details become more known, there will be another round of fly-specking from webizens of the left and the right, declaring the package the worst thing ever considered by Congress in American history. Obama will give some blockbuster speech explaining why the bill must pass. The measure will appear dead both before and immediately after his speech. Then a handful of liberal and conservative House members will come off the fence and declare themselves in favor (some might even flip from declared opposition)…

“And, then, the bill will heart-stoppingly pass the House, with some secret backroom deals and lobbying that will be revealed (if ever) only long after the fact. Reps. Bachmann and Pelosi will vote against. And then it will fully dawn on Boehner and McConnell at the White House signing ceremony (likely as Obama is handing them their souvenir pens) that they were part of history, including part of the part where Obama was able to take off the table the single most damaging issue that could be used against him in 2012.”

***
“Politicians have always postured in public and played poker in private, but as both sides dithered over the debt ceiling, even grizzled veterans grew disgusted. ‘My side’s just as guilty. I think we’re going to have a crisis because politics is going to trump the good of the country,’ says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn. ‘It doesn’t sound like there are any real adults any more, including in the White House.’”

***

Charlie Rangel on debt: What would Jesus do? Huckabee to Rangel: Well, for starters, he’d pay his taxes

To cleanse the palate, via Mediaite, an easy joke but a gratifying one.

We’ve actually reached the point of class warfare in American politics where Rangel’s pander isn’t even the dumbest one this week.

The New York Times: Lying For The DFL

The New York Times opts to toss facts under the bus in an editorial this week about the Minnesota Shutdown:

How far will Republican lawmakers go to protect millionaires? Those who think a default on the federal government’s credit seems implausible should take a sobering look at the “closed” signs dotting Minnesota. The Republican Party there readily shut down the state’s government on Friday by refusing to raise taxes on the 7,700 Minnesotans who make more than $1 million a year.

Well, no.

The GOP refused to raise taxes. Period. Dayton chose to make it about “millionaires”, and before that “the rich”. Had Dayton chosen to raise, say, the gas tax (like the DFL majority in 2009 did), a terribly regressive tax that squats all over working-class prosperity, the GOP would have opposed that, as well.

For the Times to turn the GOP’s opposition to a tax into ”protecting millionaires” is a craven bit of rhetorical dishonesty.

Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, campaigned for office last year promising to raise taxes on high earners, so it was no surprise when he proposed a tax increase on families making more than $150,000 a year to help close a $5 billion budget gap. In negotiations with the Republican majority in the Legislature, he compromised and reduced the increase to those making $1 million or more, but Republicans are refusing to consider any income tax increase.

Note the rhetoric: Dayton keeping a campaign promise? Good. The GOP? Can’t be good, can it?

Like Republicans in Washington, they have the delusion that they can balance the budget entirely from cuts.

The Times’ “editorial” was apparently written by the MNDFL’s chair, Ken Martin. The GOP budget is the biggest spending increase in Minnesota history.

The governor proposed more than $2 billion in cuts but refused to slash billions more from education, health care and public safety programs.

All of which the GOP compromised on, meeting Dayton much more than halfway.

The Legislature also wanted new abortion restrictions and a voter ID law that Mr. Dayton had already vetoed. When he said no, lawmakers allowed the fiscal year to end without a budget, and state government officially shut on July 1.

The Times apparently believes the GOP should “negotiate” like a Saturn dealer; start with their “final offer” and work backward from there.

Also unmentioned by “the Times” editorial writer: Dayton walked out of the negotiations every time. The GOP Legislature was waiting in the Capitol, ready to negotiate and/or pass a “lights on” bill, to keep govermment running

More than 40 state agencies have closed, including the state parks over the July Fourth holiday. Courts and public safety agencies are operating, but essential services for the poor, like food pantries and child care subsidies, have evaporated. Many parents say they may have to quit their jobs if state-subsidized child care does not resume quickly. The shutdown will cost the state money, since many of the 22,000 laid-off workers will receive unemployment benefits and health insurance, while the treasury is unable to collect on tax audits, lottery tickets and park fees.

Unmentioned by the Times (or any of the Twin Cities media); the evidence is overwhelming that Governor Dayton rigged the shutdown to cause as much pain as possible, specifically to drive those dependent on state employment or services to try to push moderate Republicans into wobbling.

As painful as the closure may become, the governor is right not to yield to the extremist ideology the Republicans are pursuing in St. Paul, Washington and across the country.

“Extremist ideology”.

The GOP ran very openly on a platform of holding the line on taxes and spending. Perhaps you remember the Tea Party – it was in all the papers, including the Times.

Extremist? Governor Dayton won with 43% of the vote; the GOP majorities had, by definition, over 50% of the state’s voters pick them (since the third-party challenges were virtually nonexistant in legislative races in 2010). Can a policy chosen by over half the voters be “extemist?”

----
from: hotair

Has Pelosi been marginalized?

Time’s Jay Newton-Small asks this question after former Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked a question that made her appear completely out of touch in the debt-ceiling debate. Despite losing the midterm elections on the issue of spending and deficits, Pelosi wondered aloud in a White House strategy meeting why debt-ceiling negotiations had to involve spending cuts at all, surprising everyone else in the room:

At Thursday’s White House meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out in stark terms the awful economic repercussions of allowing the debt ceiling to lapse. Everyone in the room agreed that defaulting on U.S. debt would be disastrous and that something must be done. At that point, Nancy Pelosi asked: Why couldn’t the debt ceiling be decoupled from deficit reduction?

Her query, after so many weeks of reports and talks centered on deficit reduction tied to a debt ceiling deal, visibly surprised some leaders in the room, several Republican and Democratic sources say. Obama politely informed the House Minority Leader, those same sources say, that that train had left the station weeks ago.

As the leader of a House caucus in a clear minority, Pelosi has already become largely irrelevant, especially after losing the midterms in such spectacular fashion. Now Newton-Small says that Barack Obama might make her even more obsolete by directly dealing with her lieutenant, Steny Hoyer, to get the moderate Democrats on board any deal:

But some Republican and Democratic sources point to Pelosi’s question in Thursday’s meeting as one that highlights how out of touch Pelosi has become on policy as she crisscrosses the country fundraising and recruiting candidates, working to regain the majority and her speakership. The President, these same sources suggested, could rely on House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer to deliver moderate Democrats to help pass the debt ceiling, thus circumventing Pelosi.”I think it’s clear she is not taken seriously by White House, Senate and Republican leadership,” said one Democratic member on the condition of anonymity. …

Boehner will likely need Democratic votes to get a debt ceiling increase passed, which is why Pelosi last week demanded a seat at the negotiating table. She has drawn a line – and made it clear to the President – that she would vehemently oppose cuts to entitlement benefits. Of all the participants in negotiations, Pelosi has the most to lose if Boehner and Obama pass a sweeping grand bargain. Such a move would burnish Boehner’s credentials as someone who can get things done, while shoring up his Tea Party support by cutting trillions of dollars from the budget. His success would undercut her argument that America would be better served with Democrats running the House.

True enough, although that train left the station long ago, too. Pelosi and the DCCC tried using a Republicans-are-Tea-Party-extremist-nutjobs campaign in 2010, and it didn’t exactly work out too well for them the first time. Republicans managed to craft a deal on the FY2011 budget within weeks while only controlling one chamber of Congress, something Pelosi couldn’t do all year with total Democratic control in Washington.

Still, I expect that this report from The Hill that provides some corroboration of Boehner’s increasing stature will make a lot of conservatives … nervous:

The relationship between Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama is building as they head into a critical meeting aimed at ending the impasse over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Since their high-profile golf outing last month, Boehner and Obama have held two private meetings to discuss a debt-limit remedy. Details of the meetings weren’t leaked to the media, and the White House has even refused to confirm they occurred.

After successfully navigating the first major legislative battle over a measure to fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year, the two men have been “building” their relationship, according to a source close to Boehner.

“They are getting to know each other better, they’re talking more often,” the official told The Hill.

Shouldn’t this be good news? After all, Republicans only control the House. In order to get any of the GOP agenda enacted, it will have to get Obama’s signature, as well as passing the Senate. The House cannot dictate policy, after all, and Republicans need cooperation at some point to succeed in getting spending reductions and other major goals of the party in this session. In order to get that kind of cooperation, Boehner needs to build a relationship with the President, who is never irrelevant, as Democrats discovered in 2007-8 when they controlled both chambers of Congress.

Still, Boehner has never really enjoyed the full trust of conservatives, not even when he held the Republican House caucus in unity against the Obama agenda in the first two years. The perception will be that Boehner is likely to get rolled rather than accomplish the rolling himself. People will point to the resolution of the FY2011 budget and their dissatisfaction with the meager level of cuts, and not without some justification, but it’s also true that Boehner has led a sea change in the terms of the debate on Capitol Hill. The debate is no longer whether to cut, but how much and where.

I’m neither encouraged nor discouraged by this development; I’d call it expected. Boehner needs to get cooperation from the White House before he can accomplish anything, and he’s doing his job — and it’s the changed political environment that has Obama suddenly seeking a cross-aisle relationship. Pelosi’s downfall demonstrates how effective Boehner has become in avoiding marginalization himself. Indeed, Democrats seem more suspicious of this development than perhaps conservatives are:

Democrats, meanwhile, have been growing more frustrated with the president for not consulting them more.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a respected member who rarely speaks out against the White House, warned the administration this week that it should not take Democratic votes for granted.

In an interview with The New York Times, Whitehouse said called it “a risky thing for the White House to basically take the bet that we can be presented with something at the last minute and we will go for it.”

Some Democrats are very worried that Obama will blink in his negotiations with the GOP. Some of them contend that Boehner got the best of Obama in the negotiations on tax cuts late last year and the fiscal 2011 budget showdown.

Well, he did, in large part because the terms of the debate changed among voters. The midterms delivered that unmistakable message, and Obama needs to respond to it in some credible manner. Democrats in the Senate ignore that reality at their peril, including Whitehouse, who has to stand for re-election in 2012. Rhode Island is usually a reliable Democratic stronghold, but even there voters may be tiring of the spendthrift federal government and those who continue to enable it.

Shep Smith: C’mon, do we really need a new law aimed at Casey Anthony situations?

Via Mediaite, a screechy follow-up on “Caylee’s Law,” which I touched on in yesterday’s post about the deep, deep thoughts of the Anthony jury. This could have been an interesting segment: See, for example, this survey in Salon of laws passed in response to specific crimes and how they’ve fared in practice. How often will police and prosecutors need Caylee’s Law? Will it do more harm than good by exposing the innocent to unfair charges? Shouldn’t there be a cooling-off period of reflection before writing legislation in response to an infuriating event? (“Yes!” say Patriot Act opponents.) Good questions all, but we never get to them because Shep’s too busy trying to parse whether Caylee Anthony was ever really “missing” when she was almost certainly dead from the start and mommy dearest knew it. Except … mommy dearest insisted that she didn’t know it and she got 12 people to kinda sorta believe her on that. From the jury’s perspective, Casey did think Caylee was genuinely missing and just didn’t care enough to report it. That’s what the law’s designed to address. Would have come in handy once all the other charges fell apart, no?

Maybe all Shep’s saying is that it’s unlikely the law will deter anyone. Any innocent parent will report their kid missing the instant they know about it whereas any guilty parent who’s responsible for their kid’s disappearance either won’t report it, notwithstanding Caylee’s Law, or will report it only after they think the incriminating evidence is gone. Fair enough, but deterrence isn’t the point. The point is to give prosecutors a fallback charge in cases like Anthony’s where there’s good reason to believe that a parent’s killed or abducted their kid but not enough evidence to convict them of one of those more serious crimes. How often that unusual set of circumstances obtains, I don’t know, but unless you think we’re in for a wave of future child killers refusing to call the police because they saw how that strategy worked for Casey, the effect will likely be negligible.

Oh — since we’re on the subject, you’ll be pleased to know that the first million-dollar interview offer has been withdrawn by “The Jerry Springer Show” after an immediate backlash. That’s how toxic she is. Too toxic for … Jerry Springer.

In which I defend Michele Bachmann

It’s funny sometimes how the plastic, contrived world of national politics can mimic the real world. While it is surely of little interest to the readership at large,
I have a friend who is a local musician. I don’t know if he’s ever going to be showing up on any top ten lists, but as a local blues / folk guy he’s pretty good. Last summer he had a show scheduled at a local bar which is fairly popular with the denizens of our area.

Unfortunately, the date coincided with an annual street festival in the city which features a major music event in the park with many talented groups. The bar wasn’t expecting much and went so far as to offer two for one drinks for ladies in a vain effort to draw in a crowd. My friend was resigned to playing to an empty room, but I said I’d drop by anyway in a show of moral support. (Even if I didn’t qualify for the free drinks.)

That summer, the weather gods turned a dim eye on the festival with rain drenching the area for two days before and predictions of more to come for the next 48 hours. The local paper’s “scene” reporter happened to catch up with my friend and half jokingly asked if a major rain-out of the street festival might help attendance for his show at the bar.

“Gee, I sure hope so,” he quipped.

Later he admitted to me that he felt awful about saying it. (Particularly after it was printed, though nobody really made a fuss over it.) He didn’t really want anyone’s good time ruined. But if it was going to be too rainy and miserable for folks to be out in the park anyway, they might as well come hear him, right?

I was reminded of that story for some reason when I saw this headline today.

Bachmann: ‘I Hope’ Higher Unemployment Will Help My Campaign

Appearing on CNBC this morning, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was asked about this morning’s dismal jobs report and whether higher unemployment rates might help her chances of winning in 2012. “Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up, your chances of winning office also go up?” host Carl Quintanilla asked. “Well, that could be. Again, I hope so,” Bachmann replied.

That’s a pretty provocative title and lede, isn’t it? What a horrible thing to say! So this POTUS candidate is actually cheering for American’s to suffer more just so she can edge out a couple more points in an electoral battle? You… You… #(*&#ER#

But… no. You won’t have to look far around these digs to discover that I am far from one of the “Bachmanniacs” in terms of the 2012 GOP field, but things are once again not as they seem. That headline and now widely touted story (I already saw it on MSNBC) is actually far from an accurate report. If you watch the entire video, Michele Bachmann is answering in very much the same way as my musician friend did last year. Nobody – including Bachmann – wants to see high unemployment numbers. But if government policies continue to fail to correct this critical issue and it works to the benefit of the challenger, no candidate would fight to drive off voters. They would remind them that high unemployment is a bad thing, then go on to point out the policies they would implement in office which would hopefully correct that situation.

That’s all that’s happening here, folks. Move along. Nothing to see.

Oh, and if you have a chance to hit any jazz / folk festivals this summer and it’s not raining, stop by. You’ll be doing yourself a favor.

Update (Allahpundit): Via Think Progress, here’s the clip.

From: hotair

Obama’s reaction to jobs report: More of the same deflection

President Barack Obama still refuses to take any responsibility for delayed action on the budget, to acknowledge that, perhaps, he could have led differently (and more effectively) on this issue.
This morning, when he gave his brief reaction to today’s dismal jobs report, he implied he has been doing everything possible to strengthen the economy and again deflected blame to Congress, calling on the House and Senate to take action “right now” to alleviate the economic hardship of millions of Americans.

“The economic challenges that we face weren’t created overnight and they’re not going to be solved overnight, but the American people expect us to act on every good idea that’s out there,” Obama said.

The president says he knows that includes “rein[ing] in our deficits and learn[ing] to live within our means” and he again praised the deficit reduction meeting he hosted yesterday, but he gave Congress little to no credit for driving the debt ceiling debate.

“We had a good meeting yesterday … but real differences remain,” the president said. “We agreed to meet back here on Sunday. … The sooner the markets know that the debt ceiling will have been raised, the sooner we have a plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner we give businesses the certainty they need to grow and hire. … I’m ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work over the next several weeks and next several months.”
He’s right, of course, but it all just seems like “too little, too late,” given how perseveringly Republicans in Congress have clamored for a concrete plan from Democrats.

The president also again disingenuously mentioned various stalled free trade agreements as though Congress has been the only hold-up, when the president procrastinated sending the agreements to Congress in the first place. He even included a jab at state budget cuts — citing those cuts among reasons unemployment is up.

Despite WH pleas, Mexican meets death penalty in TX

In a case that might have implications for U.S.-Mexico relations, the safety of Americans abroad and even the 2012 presidential race, Mexican national Humberto Leal was executed last night — as previously scheduled — for the 1994 torture, rape and murder of a San Antonio teenager.

Leal was just a toddler when he and his family moved to the U.S. from Monterrey, Mexico, but his citizenship became a key element of his attorneys’ appeals. They said police never told him following his arrest that he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under an international treaty.

Mexico’s government, President Barack Obama’s administration and others wanted the Supreme Court to stay the execution to allow Congress time to consider legislation that would require court reviews for condemned foreign nationals who aren’t offered the help of their consulates. The high court rejected the request 5-4.

But questions remain over how Leal’s execution may affect relations between Mexico and the U.S. – and Texas, the country’s busiest death penalty state that shares a roughly 1,250-mile border with Mexico.

In his last words, Leal apologized to the victim’s family, admitting his actions for the first time, before shouting twice, “Viva Mexico!”

Prior to last night’s execution, some framed the question of whether Leal should or would face the death penalty as a showdown between President Barack Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is considering a bid for president:

Perry, however, has shown no sign of backing down. And the case has thrust the conservative governor into the international spotlight as he weighs an entrance into the presidential race. That introduces politics into any decision he makes about Leal.

If he stays the execution, he runs the political risk of being called weak by conservatives. Allowing it to go forward, it could cast Perry as a staunch conservative who doesn’t give in to the demands of Washington and international pressure. But it also invites comparisons to former President George W. Bush, who was criticized for a go-it-alone approach on foreign policy.

But Perry was not the only person to think Leal’s execution should go forward. In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court majority expressed skepticism that Leal’s execution would have any grave international consequences. Furthermore, the Court said, “Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what the law might eventually be.” Similarly, Perry’s responsibility as governor of Texas is to execute Texas state law.

The belated timing of the administration’s attention to this case and Perry’s connection to it make it seem almost as though the president had political motivations for this sudden and public effort to shore up state compliance with international treaties. Hopefully, that thought will be dispelled by the administration’s ongoing commitment to the cause of consular reciprocity — which is, as Ed pointed out, an important one, for obvious reasons. If the president feels as strongly as his intervention in this case suggests, he can certainly continue to push for the passage of related legislation recently introduced by Vermont Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. That bill would require states to abide by the Vienna Convention, the international treaty that ensures consular access in these types of criminal cases involving foreign nationals.

DSCC chair hits Koch brothers up for donation

Chutzpah, cluelessness, or a combination of both? Democrats have spent all year demonizing the Koch brothers, industrialists who support pro-growth conservative policies and donate to like-minded organizations.
The national party practically accused Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of having a hotline installed from Koch Central to his office, and Democrats and unions both howled with outrage after Walker took a prank call supposedly from David Koch during the PEU-reform crisis this winter.

Perhaps all is forgiven … now that Democrats need some cash. As chair of the DSCC, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) gave the Kochs a call inviting them to their soiree this summer. If it’s hard to imagine a less enticing invitation than a chance to spend hot, sweltering days with people who routinely paint you as the devil, Koch Industries found it impossible. Here’s the audio:

And … here’s the response, emphases mine:

For many months now, your colleagues in the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee leadership have engaged in a series of disparagements and ad hominem attacks about us, apparently as part of a concerted political and fundraising strategy. Just recently, Senator Reid wrote in a DSCC fundraising letter that Republicans are trying to “force through their extreme agenda faster than you can say ‘Koch Brothers.’”

So you can imagine my chagrin when I got a letter from you on June 17 asking us to make five-figure contributions to the DSCC. You followed that up with a voicemail* indicating that, if we contributed heavily enough, we would garner an invitation to join you and other Democratic leaders at a retreat in Kiawah Island this September.

I’m hoping you can help me understand the intent of your request because it’s hard not to conclude that DSCC politics have become so cynical that you actually expect people whom you routinely denounce to give DSCC money.

It is troubling that private citizens taking part in the discourse have become the targets of White House and DSCC fundraising missives, and we would certainly encourage you to rethink that approach. Ultimately, I expect voters will see through that and will weigh the issues on the merits alone. But in the meantime, if you could provide me some insight on what exactly you are asking of us and why, I would be most grateful.

So the lack of an RSVP on the letter to their personification of political evil failed to generate the obvious conclusion in Murray’s mind, so much so that she decided to make a personal call to the bêtes noirs of the DSCC to dangle an access-for-cash deal. Maybe it’s both cluelessness and chutzpah, but I’m betting heavily on the former.

Video: “The Undefeated” trailer

Breitbart TV lands the exclusive. This afternoon wasn’t kind to movie teasers about iconic conservative women; I’m guessing this evening will be better. The film debuts in several cities on July 15,
but if you’re eager for early reaction, Ed reviewed a rough cut last month. He found the style vertiginous but thought it made a compelling case for Palin the politician. Good thing he caught a sneak preview: Kyle Smith, a New York Post movie critic (and Palin fan), unloaded on the movie for similar stylistic problems and got himself banned by a publicist from a Manhattan screening tomorrow.

Andrew Breitbart, who appears in the film, reacts to the trailer at Big Government. Exit quotation: “Rebels of all stripes who come to this film with open eyes will be inspired by a daughter, a wife, a mother, and a warrior who took on the system and won.”

The Undefeated Teaser Trailer from Dain Valverde on Vimeo.
--------
from: hotair

Report: Obama’s oil company tax proposal would jeopardize thousands of jobs

Earlier today, I posted excerpts from Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio’s excellent floor speech about President Barack Obama’s proposal to address the deficit with tax hikes. Among other things, Rubio asked just how many jobs the president’s proposed tax on oil companies would create. Turns out, energy analysts at consulting firm Wood Mackenzie have the answer.


According to their analysis, increased industry taxation of $5 billion a year (a little off of the approximately $4 billion currently under discussion, but still applicable) would cost the country about 50,000 jobs by 2014, an additional 15,000 by 2020 and 8,000 more by 2025. That doesn’t even take into account the indirect employment effects. Related industries would also suffer staggering job losses – 120,000 by 2014, 35,000 by 2020 and 20,000 by 2025.

Ironically enough, the proposal would also eventually decrease government revenues. While, in the first five years, a $5 billion tax increase would generate an additional $3 billion in revenue each year, by 2020, it would result in an estimated $6 billion less in revenue — and, by 2025, an estimated $10 billion less.

And neither of these effects even touch the effects on production — but that, too, would dramatically decrease, ultimately leading to a rise in gas prices and oil-based products for all of us.

In light of the facts, it’s hard to understand why the administration wants to end these tax breaks for oil companies, other than that it’s easy to make it sound sleazy that the federal government grants “tax subsidies” to oil companies. But, as J.E. Dyer explained so well yesterday, these tax breaks aren’t “subsidies” at all. Furthermore, the tax breaks in question apply to all companies, even though politicians like to make it sound as though oil companies benefit from special breaks. What politicians are actually talking about when they propose “ending tax subsidies for oil companies” is the imposition of a punitive tax on those companies. Why? Because they’re successful? Because they provide thousands of jobs? Because they supply affordable energy for the country? An honest explanation might be nice.

----
from: hotair

Another high-profile rape case collapsing?

While the prosecution of the indictment for rape against Dominique Strauss-Kahn looks flimsier after revelations about the alleged victim in the case, another high-profile rape case appears in danger of foundering on the credibility of the accuser.
Four years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones made headlines and became a cause celebre on the Left after accusing KBR employees of gang-raping her and the company of imprisoning her when she attempted to report the crime. The lurid accusations and Jones’ singular drive to seek justice, combined with the controversial American military action in Iraq and questions about the control the US had over its contractors there, made Jones into a celebrity, and she plays a starring role in a new documentary about the struggle to access the justice system in America.

The story fell out of the headlines a few years back, but Jones now finds herself in the trial she sought in a civil suit against KBR. But as Mother Jones reports, Jones may well lose her case, thanks to a raft of evidence that rebuts most of her accusations and statements in the last four years:

Jones’ trial, which started on June 13, is highlighting significant holes and discrepancies in her story. Not only has the federal trial judge already thrown out large portions of her case, evidence introduced in the trial raises the question of whether Jones has exaggerated and embellished key aspects of her story.

None of this means that Jones was not raped in Iraq. But the evidence does undermine her credibility and could create serious doubts in jurors’ minds.

Mother Jones is hardly an unsympathetic outlet for the case, so the detailed report from Stephanie Mencimer is all the more remarkable, and particularly well-written. Mencimer had previously thought that KBR’s court filings accusing Jones of fabricating key components of the case was a sign that “KBR was headed to the gutter” to discredit her. The court filings that Mencimer has read now indicate that KBR wasn’t trying to bluff Jones into a settlement, but had good reason to make those accusations. She compiles quite a list of Jones’ statements that evidence now contradicts, including key components of the case:

Jones accused an unknown KBR employee of spiking her drink with a date-rape drug. No such drug was found in her system, but testimony indicates that Jones drank more than she admitted and may have been drunk enough for amnesia.
The original accusation was that of gang rape, but the evidence strongly suggests that sexual contact took place with just one man — who insists that the contact was consensual.
She claimed that KBR locked her in a container and surrounded it with armed guards. Not only does KBR not have armed guards, the imprisonment accusation didn’t arise until two years after she first filed a sexual-harassment complaint over the incident with the EEOC.
Jones also insisted that she never had any history of mental problems, but her medical records indicate that she had been prescribed medication for bipolar condition, an anti-depressant, and an anti-anxiety drug before she started working at KBR.
Her medical records also “suggest” that Jones has made other accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, once at KBR and one time before her employment, separate from these allegations. The alleged incident at KBR predated her transfer to Iraq by a few months.

Finally, one of the claims that Jones makes in her civil suit is that her treatment by KBR has left her an agoraphobic, unable to leave her house or pursue a career. Mencimer reports on the evidence that disputes that claim:

Jones has maintained that the attack in Iraq has rendered her agoraphobic, afraid to leave the house alone, unable to work, and unable to sleep. She has filed disability claims to this effect. As a result of these claims and her lawsuit, Jones has undergone extensive psychological evaluations. That paper trail contains several land mines.

Some of the conflicts are fairly obvious. At the same time Jones was telling therapists and psychiatrists that she was virtually disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder and could not work, leave the house, drive, or have meaningful relationships with men, she has completed three college degrees, including an MBA; gotten married; had two babies; worked as a teacher and now as a part-time college professor; testified repeatedly before Congress; gone on TV; appeared in a documentary; and started a foundation to support women working as contractors overseas. It’s not the résumé of someone as paralyzed by trauma as Jones has claimed to various therapists and psychologists.

And that’s not all. Mencimer also reports that Jones and her attorney had been shopping a book and/or screenplay based on her story. A producer of documentaries, Paul Pompian, bought the rights and is trying to make a film and have a book written to support it. When KBR found out, they demanded access to the manuscript and its supporting documents, which Jones’ attorney attempted to block by declaring the project “a work of fiction.”

As Mencimer says, that doesn’t mean Jones didn’t get raped in Iraq. The circumstances of the acknowledged single sexual encounter are murky, and one can also consider whether a woman so drunk as to incur amnesia can truly give effective consent to sex as an issue. Since this is a civil case and not a criminal prosecution, there is a lower standard of proof than in the DSK case in New York City. In both instances, though, the alleged victim appears to have misrepresented the facts of the case — and since both cases come down to the credibility of the victim, it’s likely that neither will get the outcome they sought.

Republicans discuss revenues, yet still insist on no tax hikes

The president and congressional leaders met this morning at the White House to discuss ways to reduce the deficit — and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) says there’s a 50/50 chance a debt limit deal will be reached in 48 hours — but just what the meeting accomplished is not yet clear.

Prior to the meeting, Republicans sent seemingly mixed signals about whether they would be open to “revenue increases” — a term all too often used as a euphemism for tax hikes.

Yesterday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No. 2 GOP senator, said Republicans have agreed to between $150 billion and $200 billion in revenue increases. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 GOP representative, reiterated the party’s commitment to no new taxes.

Of course, tax hikes aren’t the only way to raise revenues, and Kyl, especially, promotes the sale of government lands as an alternative to tax increases. He has also proposed increased fees for government services. Cantor has suggested a sort of tax compromise, saying Republicans would agree to close certain tax loopholes as long as those loopholes were offset by tax cuts elsewhere.

These comments make it hard for me to not be cynical about the result of the deficit reduction meetings. How much you want to bet they will net moderate cuts and the least controversial revenue raisers the Republicans can muster, but no more? Procedural reforms — those most important to ensure the country doesn’t run up against the debt ceiling issue again and again — will likely be lost in the shuffle, leaving principled conservatives in Congress with little choice other than to vote against a deal that will ultimately pass. After all, the closer we’ve gotten to the debt ceiling deadline, the less the key players seem to talk about anything other than cuts and revenues. Very few have continued to talk about the debt ceiling itself and, to my knowledge, no Democrats have yet signed on to “Cut, Cap and Balance,” nor have they proposed procedural reforms of their own. (Please somebody tell me if I’m missing something here — I’d love to find out I’m wrong on this!)

In the interest of staying positive, though, I’m going to reflect back on Sen. Ron Johnson’s comments on a conference call this morning and Rush Limbaugh’s impassioned remarks on the subject on his show today (more on that shortly). Too bad neither of them were in the meeting at the White House.

Update: The president issued a brief statement at the end of this morning’s meeting to say nothing has been agreed to and talks will continue through the weekend. Whoop-de-do.

Update: Kyl’s office responded to my story, concerned that this post makes it sound as though Kyl said Republicans agreed to tax increases (as Reuters and others wrongly tweeted). I thought I made it clear the revenue increases Kyl was referring to were land sales and government service fee increases, but just to be sure there’s no confusion about what he actually said, here are his on-the-floor remarks, posted at Breitbart TV:

Of course, I’m far more OK with the revenue increases Kyl’s talking about than I am with tax hikes, but it doesn’t change that I’m disheartened by all the discussion of revenues, in general. I’d rather Republican leadership put Obama on the defensive for not more seriously and publicly discussing procedural reforms like statutory spending caps.