So far Rand Paul’s problems have been about his ideas and words, not his behavior. That changed this month. Paul’s upcoming fundraiser with Senate Repub Leader Mitch McConnell may not seem like a big deal, except last September, he pledged not to accept any campaign contributions from Senators who supported the bank bailouts. The Northern Kentucky Enquirer reported at the time:

Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has pledged to not accept campaign contributions from any U.S. Senator who voted in favor of bailing out the nation's banks last fall. Paul's pledge comes as one of his opponents in May's GOP Senate primary, Boone County Republican Trey Grayson, prepares to raise money at a Sept. 23 Washington fundraiser hosted by about 20 Republican members of the Senate…

"A primary focus of my campaign is that we need Republicans in office who will have the courage to say no to federal bailouts of big business. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector and the Republican Party platform specifically condemns bailouts," Paul said.

Yet here’s this, from Politico:

Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul railed against the Washington establishment in his primary campaign, but the Tea Party’s favorite Kentucky candidate will benefit from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s fundraising gravitas in Washington later this month.

McConnell will host a fundraising reception and dinner for Paul on June 24 at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by POLITICO and confirmed by a GOP official. Tickets to the McConnell-Paul event are pricey: Guests must pay a minimum of $1,000 to attend the reception and $4,000 to attend the dinner...

A request for comment to the Paul campaign was not immediately returned.

McConnell, of course, voted for the bailout. Small wonder, then, that in its latest rankings out today, First Read said that this seat is the 2nd best chance for a Democratic pick-up, ahead of the once-hyped contests in Missouri and New Hampshire. The Democrat in this race is state Attorney General Jack Conway.

Bumped from the diaries with an updated timestamp. Rep. Kendrick Meek is the Democratic nominee for Florida's open Senate seat. FWIW, I love his line "You're supposed to make people like me uncomfortable." -Nathan

As you know, Floridians are disproportionately affected by the actions of British Pretoleum that led to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm talking to Floridians every day who enraged at BP and want to make sure that BP pays the full price for it's actions. I'm listening.

I also want to listen to you. I'm going to be one of the leading voices in holding BP accountable. I want your feedback. Tell me actions you'd like to see taken to make sure that BP pays the price for this oil spill.

(Transcript of video below...)

There's more...

The latest edition of Newsweek magazine canonizes former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on its cover as a "saint" in American politics, despite no evidence of Palin performing a miracle during her short time on the national stage.

Quite frankly, the Newsweek cover pictured at left is very unnerving.  

If you consider Sarah Palin completely unbearable now, imagine what may happen if being called a "saint" goes to the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee's head.

Heavens to betsy!

Any thoughts?  Consider this an open thread.

Lisa Murkowski’s failed EPA disapproval resolution had two nicknames: the Dirty Air Act and the Big Oil Bailout. The former was more appropriate, since the resolution wouldn’t have given any money directly to the oil industry. Murkowski’s ideas are bad, but not that bad. John Boehner’s ideas, on the other hand, really are that bad.

The House Republican leader, a long time beneficiary of BP campaign contributions, said yesterday that taxpayers should foot the bill for cleaning up BP’s mess in the Gulf Coast. His comments followed a similar statement from the conservative US Chamber of Commerce. From TPMDC:

In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he believes taxpayers should help pick up the tab for the clean up.

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

Boehner's statement followed comments last Friday by US Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue who said he opposes efforts to stick BP, a member of the Chamber, with the bill. "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game," he said. "Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that."

This is blatant hypocrisy from Boehner, whose office said just this week that “The federal government should be focused on getting its own fiscal house in order, not providing more bailouts with taxpayer money.” Still, we shouldn’t be surprised – according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the Energy and Natural Resources sector has been Boehner’s fifth largest source of contributions over the course of his career to the tune of $896,148, including $15,200 from BP. In general, BP has given twice as much to Republican candidates as it has to Democratic candidates.

Michael Steel, the Repub leader’s spokesperson (not the RNC chair), has been backpedaling furiously since the press conference, telling Greg Sargent, “No taxpayer money for cleanup or damages -- period. BP pays," and the Huffington Post that “Boehner made a general statement… but he has said repeatedly that BP is responsible for the cost of the cleanup." As the HuffPo’s Jason Linkins points out, though, “Do you agree… [that] taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?" is a pretty specific question, and Boehner said what he said. Yet even if Steel does succeed in rewriting history and walking back the leader’s comments, the Chamber of Commerce’s Donohue was even more specific when he said “we are going to have to get the money from the government.” Spin it any way you want, but these are the stated beliefs of the modern Republican Party: oligarchy first, and the people only if there’s time left over.

The BP spill has stolen most of the environmental limelight this month, but the green movement went into hyperdrive this week to defend the Clean Air Act – and succeeded. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s disapproval resolution, written by big oil lobbyists and nicknamed “the Dirty Air Act,” would have prevented the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It failed today on a vote of 47-53.

Additional good news: The fact that coal state senators like Bob Casey, Robert Byrd, and Debbie Stabenow and oil state Senators like Mark Begich and Bill Nelson voted against this resolution bodes well for the prospects of future climate and energy legislation.

The vote was pretty poorly timed for Murkowski, coming at a time when most Americans want BP to pay more for its criminal negligence, not less. I’ve received at least 8 e-mails in the last 2 days from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, VoteVets, and Repower America with subjects like “Stop the Big Oil Bailout,” “One Day Left to Stop Big Oil,” “Protect the Clean Air Act,” and “Murkowski’s Last Stand.”

The eventual climate bill considered by the Senate will likely contain language similar to the Murkowski resolution, but at least it will be tied to new regulations. To ban the EPA from addressing climate change without tying it to such legislation first would cause irreparable harm to the planet. This is so painfully obvious that Murkowski couldn’t even recruit her fellow Alaska Senator to join her. "It is time for Congress to face up to this serious issue, not stick our heads in the sand and deny the irrefutable science," said Mark Begich (D-AK). EPA administrator Lisa Jackson agreed, writing for the Huffington Post earlier this week:

The fact that a single accident at a single offshore oil well can cause billions of dollars in damage, result in thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods and threaten an entire region highlights how important it is that we keep moving America forward, towards energy independence. We can't afford to go back.

That is why it is surprising to learn that on June 10, the Senate will vote on legislation that would take us back to the same old failed policies and increase America's oil dependence by billions of barrels. Senator Lisa Murkowski, with strong support from big oil companies and their lobbyists, has proposed a resolution that would drastically weaken our nation's historic effort to increase fuel savings, save consumers money and cut oil consumption from American cars and trucks.

Senator Murkowski's resolution would take away EPA's ability to protect the health and welfare of Americans from greenhouse gas pollution. The resolution would ignore and override scientific findings and allow big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. It would also gut EPA's authority in the clean cars program, a program that would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut down on air pollution.

No Republican opposed the resolution – even so-called “moderates” like Collins, Snowe, and Brown sided against the Clean Air Act. Six Democrats joined them, including Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Jay Rockefeller.

Powerful stuff:

These ads are compelling not only on in their message -- that Harry Reid has delivered thousands of new green jobs to Nevada in the way that only a leader in Congress can -- but also in their delivery. Notice the silence in the ad, the lack of the standard background music of virtually all other political ads. These spots are different, which will help them stand out. The imagery is also striking. In the first ad, in particular, the narrative arc of the man going to work at a new job in the morning fits perfectly with the broader message of helping Nevadans get back to work. Great spots.

Enjoy.

• State-level 2010 elections important to articulating what's at stake, writes the DLCC in Redistricting Relay.


• Reset: Stephen Kinzer's Vision of a New U.S. Relationship with Turkey and Iran. (Robert Naiman)


• If you have to keep reminding everyone you're not a racist... you probably are.  More ugly news from AZ in Restore Fairness' A mural in Arizona lightens as race issues get darker.


• What is a Recovery Without Widespread Job Growth? (The Opportunity Agenda)


• Heather Taylor-Miesle NRDC Action Fund asks Who is the Worst Offender: The Climate Denier or The Complacent Staller?


• The Media Consortium takes on the spending cut = success meme in their Weekly Audit: Deficit Reduction = Selling Out to Wall Street.

Last night was a pretty good night for organized labor. Their candidate (in the AR-SEN primary) didn’t win, but they turned a blowout into a toss-up and pushed a moderate Senator to the left on at least one major issue. Taking on Democratic incumbents like this is largely unchartered territory for labor, and I’m not naive enough to believe that if you only almost win on a first run, then you’re finished with a stake through your heart. Unfortunately, much of the media is that naïve.

Politico’s Martin Kady says that Senator Lincoln “drove a stake through organized labor last night with her surprise victory over surging Lt. Gov. Bill Halter… Lincoln's victory means that at least for the time being, other moderates in the Senate can breathe easy and keep playing the middle on big ticket legislative items.” A CBS headline asks, "Did labor waste $10 million in Arkansas?" Even First Read says, “Simply put, Lincoln's narrow victory was a crushing blow to organized labor and the internet left, which had rallied around Halter.”

Excuse me, but Lincoln went from 18 points up to 4 points up, from a lock to a dead heat. What if she had started 14 points up? What if the next moderate starts just 10 points up? Organized labor showed they can make up those differences. Since when does that count as “breathing easy?” I’d call that a new and huge headache for Blue Dogs.  

Furthermore, labor started at a severe disadvantage – at just 4.2%, Arkansas has the second-lowest union membership in the country. All of the moderates Politico says can breathe easy are in states with higher union membership than that. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska – 9.2%. Bill Nelson’s Florida – 5.8%. What if labor chose to get involved in primaries in states like Alaska, with 22.3% membership, or Washington, at 20.2%?

A blow-out race in a state unfriendly to unions, and yet labor’s money came very, very close to toppling Lincoln. She was running scared, so stepped it up on derivatives and Wall Street reform – a pretty sweet worst-case scenario for progressives.

There's more...

It was overshadowed by competitive races for governor and other statewide offices, but a critical Democratic primary contest in Iowa House district 66 produced a big victory for marriage equality advocates yesterday. Elder Clair Rudison, a socially conservative pastor, challenged two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad (a longtime community activist who is usually known as "Ako"). Rudison had the backing of the right-wing Iowa Family Policy Center. He sent out at least five direct-mail pieces attacking Ako's record, two of which mentioned gay marriage. I posted the images at Bleeding Heartland. One piece said marriage is a "building block of our community," noting that Clair Rudison wants to "let the people vote" while Ako Abdul-Samad "has consistently voted against allowing the Iowa House to bring this matter to the people."

Rudison's direct mail implied that "a majority of Iowans" oppose Ako's stance on marriage equality, but the latest Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV suggests a majority favor same-sex marriage rights. Iowa House district 66 contains some of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods in Des Moines (Drake area, Sherman Hill, "East Village"), so it's far-fetched to portray Ako as out of step with his constituents. Rudison made other ridiculous charges too, like accusing Ako of facilitating racial profiling because he voted for a law to ban texting while driving.

Most Iowa politics-watchers were confident Ako would win this primary, but in a low-turnout environment anything can happen, so I was relieved to see that Ako won 75 percent of the vote yesterday. The result is important because the only Iowa House Democrat who has consistently worked with Republicans to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote is retiring this year. If Rudison had won the primary, Republicans would be able to continue to claim bipartisan support for their battle against equality and reproductive rights.

That Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV should be a warning to Republicans who think bashing gay marriage will be their winning ticket in November. About 53 percent of respondents said they favored marriage rights for same-sex couples, while only 41 percent opposed them. Support for equality is stronger among women (57-36) than among men (49-46). The same poll showed independents supporting same-sex marriage rights by 58-31, closer to the Democratic numbers of 81-17 than to the Republican respondents, who oppose marriage equality by 83-14.

The latest Des Moines Register Iowa poll by Selzer and Co asked likely Republican primary voters several questions about gay marriage. While 77 percent of them agreed that "Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage," I was surprised to see that 20 percent of likely Republican voters disagreed with that statement.

Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that "Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage." An amazing (to me) 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, "Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal," 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed.

Washington Republicans have been talking up their chances of retaking the House of Representatives for months, and the National Republican Congressional Committee claims many recruiting successes in competitive House districts. However, before this week Republican primary voters had already rejected NRCC favorites in ID-01, KY-03, PA-04 and AL-05.

After last night we can add IA-02 and IA-03 to the list of districts where the NRCC sure doesn't know how to pick 'em.

There's more...