The favorites from the week so far, with a bonus quote of crazy for your Wednesday afternoon.  Enjoy.

• Things get messy once you start shouting "hang them all" write theyoungturks in Rep. Rogers: We Should Have Considered Executing Daniel Ellsberg.


• Ralphlopez adds perspective in Rep. Rogers Wants to Execute Manning, But Voted for Taliban Funding.


• Btchakir is experiencing War Fatigue.


• Happening today: A chance at democracy in Kenya may bring violence writes Chuckie Corra in Kenyan Constitutional Referendum Vote in 2 days! Families begin cautionary evacuation.


• How poll question phrasing creates headlines in The Opportunity Agenda's Mixed Numbers on Unemployment.


• Cuts kill jobs.  Period.  The Media Consortium's Weekly Audit: Silencing Conservative Deficit Hawks.

And your Quote of the Day:

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed. [...] This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."

- CO Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes on Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's efforts to boost... bike riding! 

In an interview with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wiles back in April, Sharron Angle, the Tea Party extremist who is now the GOP nominee for the Senate in Nevada, touches on her religious views going as far as to claim that government entitlement programs are a violation of the Bible's First Commandment - Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me.

"And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment," said Angle, "we have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Angle: As believers we know that we have to lean on the Lord daily. And I’ll tell you in this political walk that I’m walking… and I think it is a calling that God has on my life. I have watched him walk with me through politics and help me to see the pitfalls of the political machinery, the seduction of the Party, and even those outside the Party: the lobbyists – all of that to say that the Lord shows me daily where he wants me to walk. And I think that’s what he always wants from us, is not to worry about tomorrow or what is past yesterday, but just take the troubles of the day and work through them with Him. My husband and I pray every morning together, and what we pray is that the Lord would order our day according to His will, not our own. We all have plans, but at the end of the day we need to be content with that thought that God has ordered this day and that he will work it to get it for our good according to Romans 8:28. And also those things in the Old Testament where he says the world means it for bad, but God means it for good.

Wiles: Sharron, why did you get in the race to defeat the biggest Democrat in the U.S. Senate, the majority leader of the entire Senate? Why did you get into this race?

Angle: We’re at war in this country – for our freedom, our culture, for our liberty, our Constitution, and we need a true, battle-tested, proven, Constitutional conservative to take out Harry Reid. It isn’t just about anybody but Harry. Harry is a consummate politician. He reinvents himself at each one of his elections as a conservative. And he has a record that works on both sides of the issue. So, we needed someone who can run to the right and stay to the right of this fellow. When he says that he’s voted seven times against partial-birth abortion, we need someone who can say, “And I have a better pro-life record than you, Harry Reid, and we don’t like the way you confirm our Supreme Court judges, who are all pro-choice. And we all know that the battle has been in the Supreme Court all along for life.” The same thing stands for those who love our Second Amendment. Harry Reid now has the NRA saying, “Thank Harry Reid for all his pro-gun votes.” Well, I have the GOA endorsement and we know that once again those Supreme Court judges would take away our right to keep and bear arms. I’m the only one in this race with a battle-tested, proven, Conservative record that I can stand on. The rest of them fall out in this area fighting Harry Reid. And I knew that all along when I started praying over a year ago over it. And this just seemed to be the battle that I needed to go to war with. And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change.

Wiles: Then I saw the report the other day that 47 percent of the American public will pay no income tax in this country this year. This explains the divide.

Angle: Yes.

Wiles: Half of the country is working to produce and pay the taxes and pay the bills, the other half is living off the taxpayers -- they’re living off the other 51 percent.

Angle: We’re right to that point in the graph where it says, “government dependency.” And we know that once we have a majority that are dependent upon the government, we will lose our freedom; it says we go into bondage. That’s the next stage. Our Founders warned against this. They said don’t… that your liberty is only as secure as the people are. Because once they, um, get the ability to vote themselves entitlements from the largesse of the government, liberty is done; freedom is over with. We were warned. We are there. We’re right on the cusp of it, and you’ve identified those numbers. That’s the war that we’re in. You know, when I talk about a war and a battle and soldiers we have to take up our…our cry for freedom. And we can do it right now at the battle box… I mean at the ballot box. I’m not sure what continues on after 2010. I know people are very frightened about what’s going on in this country. And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government. And you’ve just identified the real crux of the problem. I’ve also been endorsed by a PAC out of Washington D.C. and the name of that PAC is Government is not God. And I thought that that was so appropriate because that is really what’s happening in our society and we need to take our country back.

You can listen to a snippet of her interview with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wiles here.

Michigan Primary Results

The big news from Michigan is the defeat of seven-term incumbent Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick who was ousted by State Sen. Hansen Clarke in the Democratic primary in Michigan's 13th Congressional District that encompasses most of Detroit. Clarke won with 48 percent of the vote to 41 percent for Rep. Cheeks Kilpatrick.

It's the end of a political dynasty, a mother done in by the corruption of her son, Kwame Kilpatrick, the disgraced former Mayor of Detroit, now serving a jail sentence and awaiting yet another trial in Federal court for additional crimes related to alleged misuse of campaign funds. Rep. Cheeks Kilpatrick serves on the House Appropriations Committee and had served a term as the chair of the Black Caucus. She becomes the fourth House member to lose her seat to a primary challenger.

Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero won the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Michigan while former Gateway Chief Executive Officer and political novice Rick Snyder, another of those self-funded millionaires, won the Republican primary for Governor beating out four candidates including the current Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, the nine-term Congressman Pete Hoekstra (MI-02), and two others.

Bernero, who was backed by labor, won the Democratic nomination over State House Speaker Andy Dillion. Snyder is seen as the favourite to win the Governorship in the Fall.

Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, is termed out.

More from the Detroit News.

Missouri Primary Results

The big news likely through when hell freezes over among conservatives is the largely symbolic slap at the Obama Administration's health reform which went down to defeat by a three to one margin in Missouri's Proposition C. From the New York Times:

The measure was intended to invalidate a crucial element of President Obama’s health care law — namely, that most people be required to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Supporters of the measure said it would send a firm signal to Washington about how this state, often a bellwether in presidential elections, felt about such a law.

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population’s attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote’s fate.

Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what effect the vote will have. The insurance requirement of the federal health care law does not come into effect until 2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.

“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.

For some, the outcome was not merely about health care, but about the role of states in setting policy.

“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”

Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma have similar measures on the ballot this November. Here's more on this story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Beyond the nonsense in the Show-Me State, Missourians also went to polls to decide meaningful contests in the race to succeed the retiring Senator Kit Bond, a Republican. In the two primaries, two members of Missouri political dynasties prevailed. On the Democratic side, Robin Carnahan, the current Secretary of State in Missouri and the daughter of Mel Carnahan, a former governor won easily, while Republicans chose Representative Roy Blunt whose son Matt was also formerly governor. Rep. Blunt is the former Republican Whip, the number two leadership position, in the House. He represents the Missouri Seventh Congressional District in the southwestern part of the state that borders Oklahoma and Arkansas.

More on Missouri results from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Kansas City Star.

There's more...

This week it is the turn of George Packer, the noted journalist, columnist for Mother Jones, author and playwright, to write on the United States Senate. Taking to the pages of the New Yorker to pen this latest installment of what has become an all too regular occurrence among observers of our body politic, Packard asks the now oft-repeated question of just how broken is the Senate?

The answer is very. His twelve page masterful essay, full of insightful anecdotes and telling quotes, traces the descent of the Senate. Once a "cozy atmosphere that encouraged both deliberation and back-room deals," the Senate has become a dysfunctional, fractious chamber populated by “ideologues and charlatans” - to quote the oft-used characterization made by the Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein - who are governed by arcane, byzantine, and frankly absurd procedures and incapable of producing the necessary legislation or confirming the necessary appointments to keep the country moving forward. 

Packer's essay is a must read. I've opted to pull some of the anecdotes and quotes and offer some thoughts as well as add some supplementary evidence.

Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, “Sit and watch us for seven days—just watch the floor. You know what you’ll see happening? Nothing. When I’m in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they’re doing in China right now?”

While academics and even Chinese officials are divided over whether there is such a thing as a "China model," the debate is more over whether the China model can be copied and transferred to other developing nations rather than over whether a Chinese path to development exists. Clearly, one does. The main advantage of the Chinese model is that being highly centralized decisions are made quickly and the resources committed.

To take one example, just look at the Chinese development of its rail and high speed rail transportation infrastructure. Beginning in 2005, China embarked on the second largest public works program in history, surpassed only by the Eisenhower-era Interstate Highway System in size. China plans to spend more than $1 trillion (or more than our $787 billion fiscal stimulus and as measure of comparison the Obama Administration has committed $8 billion in ARRA funds for high speed rail plus another $5 billion over 5 years) on expanding its railway network from 78,000 km today to 110,000 km in 2012 and 120,000 km in 2020 with 13,000 km being high speed rail. The Beijing-Hong Kong line would be the largest single element of the system, at more than 1,000 miles long. A comparable line in the US would run from Boston to Miami. And as our transportation infrastructure crumbles, Republican Senators would prefer to give tax cuts to the wealthy and than to reinvest in America. The monies are there but the will is lacking.

There's more...

Senator John Kerry, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee delayed a vote on the new START arms control treaty (pdf) with Russia today after Republican Senators requested more time to review documents and hear comments from the Armed Services Committee.

The treaty was signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. Both the US Senate and Russian parliament must approve the treaty before it enters into force. There have been nearly 20 hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees but getting the 67 votes required to ratify the treaty has proved elusive. The Democrats need the 59 members of their caucus plus 8 Republicans to assure passage. To date, only one Republican, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, is on the record in favor of the new START agreement.

Since the original START treaty expired in December 2009, no treaty and no verification mechanisms are in place to manage the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. This fact alone should spark haste but in today's partisan ad absurdum Senate, most of the GOP would rather play political games than to work on issues of compelling strategic importance.

Under the new START treaty, the United States and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the treaty enters into force. Each party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits set by the treaty.

These limits were established on the American side by a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the Obama-mandated 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (pdf).   
 
Aggregate limits:

• 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit. This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.


• A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.


• A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments. This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty. 

Verification and Transparency: The START treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty negotiated by the first Bush Administration with new elements tailored to the limitations of the treaty. Measures under the new START include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry, a technology that allows remote measurement and reporting of information.
 
Treaty Terms: The treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the treaty for a period of no more than five years. The treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the new START Treaty.

No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The new START does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

The New York Times notes what the delay means:

The delay means that the Senate will not consider the treaty until the fall, during a hotly contested campaign season. The timing distresses the treaty’s supporters, who worry that it will get caught up in the partisan crossfire. Unlike other elements of Mr. Obama’s legislative priority, he cannot push it through with just one Republican vote; because a treaty requires a two-thirds vote, he needs at least eight Republicans.

Mr. Kerry plans to call a vote in mid-September, but even if that vote occurs on time, it remains uncertain whether it will be considered by the full Senate before the November election. Democrats could bring it to the floor after that, but doing so would entails risks. If Republicans pick up a sizable number of seats, they may argue that a lame-duck Senate should not approve something of such magnitude.

There's more...

Having already set aside comprehensive energy and climate legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today pulled the plug on the more modest energy bill that was to address the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and set a few new energy standards.

"It’s a sad day when you can’t find a handful of Republicans to support a bill," Reid told reporters.

From The Hill:

Reid had planned to debate and vote on competing Democratic and Republican spill plans Wednesday but he said "it's clear Republicans were going to be determined to stand in the way of everything."

Reid promised that, "in the interim, we will continue to work for Republican votes."

"We are going to continue to listen to people during the August recess," Reid said, "and we are going to continue fighting for energy legislation before we leave this Congress."

He said it will be easier to do so after the summer break "because we’ve had some very good conversations."

"I think before the end of the year, the answer is absolutely yes" that energy legislation will be passed.

The GOP spin:

Robert Dillon, spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), pointed out that Reid did not even have all the members of the Democratic caucus standing behind his effort - and that was the reason he had to pull it.

"The reason Sen. Reid pulled the bill is because his own members were set to vote against it and for the Republican bill," Dillon noted in an email. "We believe our bill is better and less costly. Instead of playing the blame game, Democratic leaders should allow an open and transparent process where both sides can contribute ideas."

The reality:

The decision to abandon the legislation comes amid concerns among some Democrats that the energy provisions — which focus on home efficiency retrofits and natural gas-powered and electric vehicles — were too modest.

"I think there was substantial concern on the Democratic side that the energy bill did not do enough," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

 And so it goes. Senator Reid will attempt to steer passage of an energy bill in some form after the Congress returns from its August recess.

Here are some other items making the rounds today.

It's primary day in Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri. CNN has an overview.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to hold a narrow edge over the Tea Party extremist Sharron Angle in Nevada in the latest Reuters-Ipsos poll Among voters who said they are likely to vote, Reid held a 48-44 percent lead.

The Senate on Tuesday opened floor debate of on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Five Republicans have already stated their intention to confirm while one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, will not vote to confirm. The vote will likely be held Thursday or perhaps Friday before the Senate adjourns for its August recess. More from the New York Times.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged Tuesday that President Obama's presence in some districts would hurt Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. The Hill has more on Gibbs' remarks.

David Corn of Mother Jones profiles the outgoing GOP Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina who was ousted by the Tea Party backed candidate Trey Gowdy. In the article, Congressman Inglis Bob Inglis slams Republican demagoguery, bemoans anti-Semitic tea party conspiracy nonsense, decries Sarah Palin's ignorance, while he looks for a job.

Speaking of conservative extremism and purity tests in South Carolina, the Greenville County Republican Party voted 61 to 2 to rebuke Senator Lindsey Graham for not being conservative enough. The story from CNN.

Safe to say that at the rate billionaire Republican Meg Whitman is going, she'll top the $150 million spending mark before the first Tuesday in November. That's because the former eBay CEO's spending hit $531,378 a day during her successful effort to win the GOP nomination for Governor in California. The Whitman campaign reported Monday that it had spent nearly $20 million in the six-week period ending June 30, which included the weeks immediately before and after California's primary. Her campaign said the first-time candidate and occasional voter spent $71 million to win the GOP primary against state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

Of the near $100 million, $91 million has come from Whitman's own pockets. Meanwhile, the Jerry Brown campaign has spend a little more than $633,000 total since January 1. Whitman has outspend Brown by an outrageous 150 to 1.

Despite Whitman's spending, a poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California found the candidates about even among likely voters, with 37 percent backing Brown and 34 percent favoring Whitman. A quarter of respondents were still undecided. Whitman is seen unfavorably by 50 percent of voters and favorably by 30 percent, with 20 percent not sure. Opinion is more divided on Brown, with 43 percent viewing him unfavorably while 41 percent regard him favorably, with 16 percent unsure.

Brown has $23 million cash on hand, while Whitman has about $10.3 million but Whitman is aggressively tapping her billionaire friends. Among those giving to the Whitman campaign are Berkshire Hathaway executive Charles Munger Jr., who gave Whitman the maximum $25,900 contribution; Spanish-language television magnate Jerry Perenchio and his wife, Margaret, who each gave $25,900; Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad, who gave $25,900; and Barron Hilton, chairman of the Hilton Hotels empire, who gave $20,000. Even so, Whitman's TV ad buys in the last week of July ran $2.3 million.

More on Whitman's obscene profligacy from the Sacramento Bee and CBS-5 San Francisco.

The Democratic primary in Colorado pits Senator Michael Bennet, who was appointed by Governor Bill Ritter to fill the vacancy left by Ken Salazar's departure to become Interior Secretary in the Obama Administration, versus Andrew Romanoff, a member of the Colorado House of Representatives from 2000 to 2008, serving as Speaker from 2005 to 2008. For Bennet, this is his first run for elective office. 

The contest is intriguing on various levels. To begin with, the Obama Administration has backed the incumbent while former President Bill Clinton has endorsed Andrew Romanoff, who is considered the more progressive of the two. The race is also the most competitive of any in the current cycle. Though Senator Bennet held a 17 point lead back in early June, Romanoff has managed to turn the race into a dead heat. While most polls show Bennet with a slight lead, a new poll in the Denver Post conducted by SurveyUSA gives Romanoff a narrow three point edge. The primary is August 10th.

The race has also turned increasingly negative. Romanoff's rise in the polls has come after a sustained month-long ad campaign that's attacked Bennet for taking corporate PAC money. Here are some of the ads being run in the campaign. 

Senator Michael Bennet

This second ad is a response to the Romanoff ads shown below.

Andrew Romanoff

The above spot is entitled A Senator for the Rest of Us while the one below is entitle I Stand With You. Both are 30 second spots.

This third spot is the one that caused the latest ruckus.

A short article in The Hill points to a longer profile of Rand Paul, the Kentucky Tea Bag candidate for the Senate, in Details magazine in which the libertarian Paul declares that Congress has no business formulating mine safety rules or enacting environmental standards.

Paul believes mountaintop removal just needs a little rebranding. "I think they should name it something better," he says. "The top ends up flatter, but we're not talking about Mount Everest. We're talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I've seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass." Most people, he continues, "would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it."

"Let's let you decide what to do with your land," he says. "Really, it's a private-property issue." This is a gentler, more academic variation on a line he used the evening before, during his speech at the Harlan Center: "If you don't live here, it's none of your business."

It's the kind of catchphrase that may serve him well in Kentucky, where he has remained steadily ahead of Jack Conway in polls, even after the Rachel Maddow incident. (The small size of Kentucky's African-American population—just seven percent—may have softened his comments' impact back home.) Barring, or maybe not barring, any further philosophical tangents, Rand Paul seems poised to enter the United States Senate, where he'll bring the ideological zeal inherent in that mantra—"If you don't live here, it's none of your business"—to 99-to-1 votes, as well as 51-to-49 ones.

Yet that battle cry, presumably, is what Harlan County's coal operators shouted when they kept a brutal anti-populist grip on their fiefdoms.

"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs. I know that doesn't sound..." Here he stumbles, trying to parse his words properly but only presaging his campaign misstep. "I want to be compassionate," he concludes, "and I'm sorry for what happened, but I wonder: Was it just an accident?"

So property rights are sacrosanct, workers' lives not so much. A property owner has the right to pollute in Rand Paul's world and he may have a moral obligation to protect the lives of his employees but the government should not interfere in either case. If the extremism of Rand Paul's views are not evident, then we are truly lost.

It's quite probable that Rand Paul has never seen Harlan County USA, the 1976 Academy Award winner for best documentary that covered the bloody struggle to unionize mines in eastern Kentucky.