Daily Kos

It's been a Rick Perrypalooza since he jumped into the Republican race for the crazy crown this weekend. And while some might be thinking, "Hmmm ... another Bible-thumping, execution-loving Republican governor from Texas might not be such a good idea right now ever again," Perry wants us to know he's no George Bush:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry dismissed comparisons between himself and former president George W. Bush on Monday, calling them "inevitable" but unfair.

"I am Rick Perry and he is George Bush," Perry declared as he marched through the Iowa State Fair, surrounded by reporters. "And our records are quite different."

Asked what the biggest difference is, Perry responded: "I went to Texas A&M. He went to Yale."

That's the biggest difference? Where they went to college? Surely, if it's unfair to compare the two, there must be other differences. Policy differences.

He did not answer when pressed to name a policy difference.

Oh. Never mind.

Isn't there something in the syllabus at GOP candidate school that tells them to avoid shots like these?

This picture of Michele Bachmann (and this one) is just unfortunate:

Then there's Marcus Bachmann, who is totally butch! Most of the rest of the field refused to be caught on film doing, um, the thing it is that the Bachmanns are doing. Mitt Romney just walked around with a half-eaten corn dog: That was pretty smart—pretend to eat that thing, but not actually ingest that monstrosity in public. It's nice to have servants do his dirty work. Reporters apparently fell asleep before Tim Pawlenty swallowed his, and really, I'd shoot myself if I came across a photo of Newt Gingrich performing fellatio on a corn dog.

But Rick Perry? He's not going to let Bachmann upstage him!

He wins.

And yes, in case you suddenly started wondering—there are long-running persistent rumors that Rick Perry is gay.

(Via)

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson

I'm not sure what to make of this. From Ben Smith at Politico:

On her victory lap of Iowa yesterday, Straw Poll winner Rep. Michele Bachmann paid repeated tribute to her local roots, and repeatedly mentioned her family reunion that day, citing it as an excuse for her late arrival at a local party event in Waterloo.

But Bachmann's mother and two cousins told POLITICO's Emily Schultheis that Bachmann didn't attend the reunion, though her husband and children did. Her spokeswoman, Alice Stewart, didn't respond to two emails asking for an explanation of the disparity.

On Sunday, she told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that she'd be seeing her relatives at her "big family reunion." Later that day, after she showed up late to the Black Hawk County Republican Party dinner in Waterloo, she told a reporter:

“We had a big family reunion just north of Waterloo," she said. She also said she'd visited a local "shut-in."

So the reason she was late for events was that she had a busy day going to a family reunion that she didn't actually show up for? But her husband and children were at the reunion, so ... what, was Michele personally driving them all down there in the campaign bus? And then did she sit in the bus the whole time? Was she just such a wallflower at the event (mind you, this is Michele Freaking Bachmann we're talking about) that her own mom didn't notice her there?

I'm not really sure how to parse that. I guess the options are (1) she went to the event with everybody else, but stayed in the car the whole time because that's just how much she hates her relatives, or (2) it was a costume party, and she went as, I don't know, Darth Inheritance Tax or something, or (3) she's just lying about the whole thing.

Then there's a part about "visiting a local shut-in". That may be just as strange as the reunion thing: it sounds noble enough, but usually "visit local shut-ins" is far, far down the list of presidential campaigns. For starters, local shut-ins provide surprisingly few primary votes. "So, Mr. or Ms. So-and-So, can I count on your vote next year, as well as the votes of your many, many cats?"

I think what I would prefer to believe is that Michele Bachmann had promised to go to her family reunion by handlers who thought it would make a nice photo op, but at the last minute, Michele panicked over having that whole "I'm telling you mom, Marcus is as straight as you or me or Rick Perry" conversation for the umpteenth time, and bolted the scene behind the wheel of her own campaign bus. After a high-speed bus chase down the interstate, her campaign team in hot pursuit, she then holed herself up in the home of a devoted local cat fancier, vowing not to come out until she had watched Princess Fluffykins have all her kittens.

But it's probably not that exciting. She probably just got caught lying about going to her own family reunion.

Politico, before the Wisconsin recalls:

In the three campaigns it has polled thus far this cycle, PPP has been within one point in one special House election, within two points in another and within three points of calling a gubernatorial primary.

It's a record that should make it more difficult for outsiders -- in most cases, Republicans -- to take shots at the North Carolina-based pollster when it unloads numbers that don't line up with their own desired outcomes.

It's not just Republicans dismissing PPP. Delivering consistently accurate results hasn't been enough for many legacy media outlets, like the Washington Post:

Our editorial judgments are based on how polls are conducted, not on their results, or apparent accuracy. Now, we flag polls that have really bad track records, but end-of-campaign precision is a necessary, not sufficient condition in our assessments.

Well, unfortunately for the Post's political writers, they will continue to be deprived of the most accurate polling since forever. Check out PPP's final numbers with the election results from last week:

PPP underestimated the blowout in the Moore-Harsforf race by seven points (not a flub, by any measure). Other than that, they were just off by inches. (My bad, I mistyped Moore's number from that final PPP poll -- I typed in 45 points, but PPP actually had her at 42 -- just like the final outcome.)

This has to be the holy grail of polling—scoring near-perfect results for a rare recall election in the middle of summer. Who gets those right? Does ABC's polling outfit? Who knows? It's not like they put their ass on the line polling this kind of contest. They'll stick to safe and much easier to poll statewide races. And then they'll force their writers to ignore data all the best political writers elsewhere can use to inform their writing.

Fact is, no matter how many methodological problems people may have with robo-polling (and the lack of access to cell phones is the biggest), it's not currently affecting the accuracy of PPP's polling. It may in the future, but that future is still not here.

As for now, PPP is having a dream election cycle. It has been scary accurate.

Aw, how cute ... Rick Perry tells Ben Smith that he might be carrying a concealed weapon on the campaign trail:

I asked Perry whether he's armed today. He declined to say. "That's why it's called concealed."

I've never owned a gun and probably never will, but I understand that that for many people, owning a gun is an important thing and I respect their right to do so.

That said, it's totally bizarre for Rick Perry to want people to think he might be carrying a pistol in his trousers. I can't imagine he really is, but if he were, wouldn't it be stupid beyond belief?

I mean, imagine he's in the middle of a crowd, getting mobbed by supporters, shaking hands and dishing out high fives ... in that scenario, how in the world is he supposed to maintain control over his weapon? Obviously, he couldn't. As a public figure constantly surrounded by people he doesn't know, there's just no way for Rick Perry to safely carry a firearm.

It's one thing for him to make the case for concealed carry permits, but it's another thing altogether if he's actually carrying as a candidate ... it's strange and it's reckless. I guess he thinks that's what America is looking for in a president.

Teabaggers are so fickle:

One-time Tea Party hero Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) will meet with a local Florida Tea Party group today to discuss why he voted to increase the debt ceiling earlier this month, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

West, who rode Tea Party support to a 10-point win over then-Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) in 2010, angered many local conservatives when he agreed to support House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) plan to increase the debt limit.

After some local Tea Party supporters threatened to find a primary challenger to West because of his vote, the always-forceful West hit back, accusing them of "schizophrenia" for their quick changes of heart towards him.

Seems like it was only yesterday that Allen West was a hero to the teabaggers. One lousy vote, and he's the enemy? Just like Sen. Scott Centerfold Brown. Just like any formerly beloved nutjob who has the audacity to put country before crazy, even if only for one split second.

Too bad for Allen West. I guess he's learning that while he may be "Steadfast and Loyal," the crazy people who swept him into office are anything but.

We've already explored the gearing up of the lobbyists for the Super Congress. At Mother Jones, Andy Kroll looks at the specific committee members and where their special interest support has come from in their careers.

These 12 lawmakers cover the ideological gamut, from the most hawkish fiscal conservatives to deep blue liberal Democrats, but they all have this in common: Their careers have been greased by the money of powerful lobbies and political advocacy groups. Using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the folks at MapLight, a group focusing on money in American politics, have calculated the biggest donors behind the Super Committee

The heaviest hitters are no surprise: lawyers and law firms (who often top lists of political donations), big banks such as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, and political outfits including the lefty EMILY's List and the conservative Club for Growth. As the Super Committee begins debating further spending cuts and (maybe) revenue increases as part of a deficit reduction package due by November, it's worth bearing in mind, as with any big debate in Washington, that there are big donors behind the lawmakers at the bargaining table.

Looking at that industry list, defense is shockingly missing, but given its inherent advantage with the committee—every Republican and two Democrats (Murray and Kerry) with significant defense installations in their states—they might not need to worry about their contribution record with these guys.

On the organization side, the scariest number Kroll reports is the $990,066 the Club for Growth has poured into the mix, reinforcing the argument that there won't be much in the way of revenue hikes in this venture.

It seems that Michele Bachmann has settled on her strategy for dealing with past statements that would scare the bejeebus out of normal, thinking Americans:

Rep. Michele Bachmann was grilled by the hosts of several Sunday morning talk shows about her views on gay and lesbian Americans. When pressed about her past statements about LGBT issues, she repeated “I am running for the presidency of the United States,” several times in lieu of answering the question. “I’m not anyone’s judge.”

And there you have it. Don't deny, don't explain, just ignore (to name just a few) her past comments about gays:

If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.

... or her bold plan to fight against health care reform:

What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.

... or her deep thoughts on war after visiting Iraq:

I turned to my colleagues and said there’s a commonality with the Mall of America, in that it’s on that proportion.

Act like it never happened, chant, "I'm running for the presidency of the United States" and pretend that you're not full of Fruit Loops. The teabaggers will think she's swell, the media will call her mavericky and the rest of us will pull out our hair. On the bright side, the "rest of us" includes the Republican establishment.

Go, Michele!

What you missed on Sunday Kos ...

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson Friday, the Communications Workers of America filed unfair labor practices charges against Verizon for its failure to negotiate in good faith. The same night saw one CWA regional bargaining team reporting "some slight movement at the table," but bargaining reports since then and from another bargaining team have not built on that hopeful note.

In several states, Verizon has received injunctions putting limits on picket lines.

A New York Times story by Steven Greenhouse is revealing, placing the workers' view—that Verizon's demands are an assault on middle-class jobs—against Verizon's argument that that's not the case because Verizon workers could take a pay cut and still be considered middle class. That's the company's argument: There shouldn't be a problem driving down benefits and job security, because by some measures workers will still be in the middle class—just hanging on by their fingernails instead of solidly so.

So to management, the idea that this is about middle-class jobs is just some kind of cynical talking point. And that's probably the most revealing evidence of just how much this is about middle-class jobs, because it's about the very definition of what it means to be in the middle class (always a nebulous term anyway). Verizon's official position is that what used to be a middle-class job—that what Verizon negotiated in their last contract as a middle-class job—is now too good for regular working people and that big chunks of the job security and benefits it offered must now be removed for that same job to count as appropriately middle class. If that's not an idea to fight back against, I don't know what is.

No, this is not a story from the Onion.

Teabagger and deadbeat dad Rep. Joe Walsh thinks gay people shouldn't be parents. Via Think Progress:  

Walsh is a supporter of traditional marriage between a man and a woman for economic reasons. He also stated that studies have shown it is more beneficial for a child to be raised in a home where a mother and father are present rather than in same-sex households. The congressman, however, said he was open to further information and research that might disprove that.

Gee. Instead of citing debunked talking points, maybe Walsh should look into the ill effects on the children of deadbeat dads.