Thursday Open Thread [4.9.15]

Roger Simon: “There is a poison pill inside the Republican Party and if its presidential hopefuls keep swallowing it, they are going to choke off their chances for the White House. The religious right has managed to convince some potential candidates that it is extremely powerful. It has convinced the more gullible ones that they must grovel, kowtow and genuflect before it. This is nonsense. As I have written before, the religious right has not gotten the nominee it has wanted since Ronald Reagan. It is a paper tiger. And by taking the poison pill that the religious right offers, the potential candidates risk alienating the rest of the nation.”

But that’s not what the right wing is saying. They are telling this frightened cowards of candidates that they cannot ever hope to win without them. On Monday, Iowa’s Steve Deace was talking to the Family Leader’s Bob Vander Plaats about the necessity of opposing marriage equality. Vander Plaats, who has previously said that “You cannot run away from the heart of God and expect God to bless the country,” told Deace that Republicans are hurting their election chances by not standing firmly enough against gay rights. Vander Plaats insisted of Republicans that “They’ll never win again without this base.”

Has the base not been with the GOP in 2008 and 2012? The religious right loved Sarah Palin and they turned out for her, and she and they got destroyed in a massive landslide for Barack Obama. The religious right was with Mitt Romney because they wanted to get rid of Obama in 2012. They all believed, seriously believed, that Romney would win and they were devastated when he did not.

I always love this instantly revisionist denial that Republicans and conservatives go through when they lose. I guarantee you that when GOP Nominee Ted Cruz loses 49 states to Hillary, the religious right will say he was not conservative enough and that is why he did not win.

Politico: “Yet for all her challenges, self-made and otherwise, [Hillary] Clinton has demographic advantages that could swing decisive battleground states her way. She is not young; she is not black; and she’s not a guy. All of which gives her an edge in her quest to succeed the young, black guy now occupying the Oval Office. For reasons that are not pretty, nominating Clinton could stanch the flow of white seniors and white working-class voters, particularly men, away from the Democratic Party.”

“But there are also positive reasons for why Clinton may rally voters to the polls. Women of all ages and races who are electrified by the prospect of a female president would be an army for Clinton, much as black and youth voters were for Obama. And she’s not going to squander that opportunity this time around.”

Gov. Scott Walker is the Mitt Romney of 2008: “Adopt positions that are more conservative than your record, in an attempt to appeal to the Republican base. But the strategy is raising questions about his core convictions, and threatens to take him out of the top tier of candidates in the crucial early-voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire,” the Boston Globe reports.

Said Iowa GOP operative Craig Robinson: “These flip-flops or kind of maneuvering on issues has put an end to the Scott Walker honeymoon in Iowa. The thing is, people are looking for consistency and when they look at Walker they’re not getting that today.”

National Journal: “One day into his presidential campaign, Rand Paul is building on a reputation that could be hard to shake: when he’s confronted by reporters—especially women reporters—about things he doesn’t want to talk about, he gets antagonistic.”

If by some miracle he wins the nomination, he will go the way of Rick Lazio. Everyone remember him and what he did?

First Read: “As we all wait for Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential movement this month (and possibly as early as next week!), there is a reason why you might see her campaign aggressively in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, even if she doesn’t face real primary opposition. In fact, there are 16 reasons — the combined electoral-vote total of those early states. The logic: The money you spent and infrastructure you put into place will remain there for the general election.”

Greg Sargent on Iran:

[Scott] Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms — I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! — when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could result from blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”

It’s in this contrast that the outlines of the 2016 argument can be discerned. In her statement indicating support for the emerging Iran framework, Hillary Clinton did say that the devil will be in the details of a final deal. But she unequivocally endorsed the idea that a negotiated diplomatic settlement between the U.S., Iran, and the “major world powers” is the best way to achieve the goal of blocking Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and strengthening the national security of both the U.S. and Israel.

The Hill’s Bernie Becker and Peter Schroeder report on a big Obama success:

President Obama’s battle against offshore tax evaders hasn’t gotten the publicity of some of his other priorities but under his tenure the IRS has amassed a string of victories — perhaps none larger than undercutting the Swiss banking sector’s status as the gold standard for secrecy.

Just last week, the Swiss bank BSI agreed to pay a $211 million penalty to the United States, becoming the first financial institution to reach an agreement under a Justice Department program targeting the clandestine sector. Swiss banks have now paid nearly $4 billion for assisting tax evasion.
On top of those law enforcement efforts, Obama signed a 2010 law, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), to compel foreign banks to help deter U.S. taxpayers from hiding income offshore.

The IRS, meanwhile, is administering a voluntary disclosure program for Americans with offshore accounts that has so far brought in more than 50,000 taxpayers and recovered $7 billion in taxes, penalties and interest.

Taken altogether, the crackdown appears to be having an impact, according to experts. “The risk calculus for an American to hide money somewhere has changed dramatically from where it was 10 years ago. Dramatically,” said Scott Michel, an expert on offshore tax issues with Caplin & Drysdale.