National

“I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in.” — Dick Cheney, quoted by the Washington Examiner, on Donald Trump’s call for banning Muslims from entering the United States. The Republican Party has reached a point with Donald Trump where they have to repudiate him such that he is banned from all Republican primary ballots and refused nomination or, each and every Republican alive today is branded with his politics, that of fascism. Your choice, Charlie Copeland. Colin Bonini. Greg Lavelle. Mike Castle. If you all have any decency left, you will condemn him and kick him out of the party, and refuse to put his name on the Delaware GOP ballot. Or, you're Nazis.

It must be nice to be Jack Markell at this point in his career. He can just troll the shit out of Republican fuck-wits all he wants.

Delaware Governor Jack Markell, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery in the United States, announced on Sunday a resolution to officially apologize for his state’s role in slavery. "We must publicly and candidly acknowledge the lasting damage of past sins – damage that continues to reverberate more than 150 years after the abolition of slavery," Markell told worshippers at Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Wilmington, Delaware, his office said. The ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution officially ended U.S. slavery on Dec. 6, 1865. Via Reuters

Someone should ask John Carney about this. I wonder what his half hearted agreement would sound like in 3 to 4 weeks?

Matthew Yglesias at Vox on last night's Oval Office address, which I thought was pretty good. But why was it necessary?

The Oval Office address represents Obama's best effort to meet the psychological needs of a frightened nation under attack while sticking on a policy level with a restrained policy that Obama recognizes is emotionally unsatisfying but that he regards as offering the best chance for success. [...] We saw in Paris that firearms attacks lead major newspapers to leap toward declarations like "war in the heart of Paris" (la guerre en plein de Paris) and "this time it's war" (cette fois, c'est la guerre) that are, of course, reminiscent of the post-9/11 declaration of a "war on terror." But a war against whom? And with what purpose in mind? Public policy wars are at times metaphorical (war on poverty, war on drugs) but given that terrorism is a matter of hard security, a literal military war is clearly what the media and the political system desire. But it's far from clear that extended control over physical territory abroad is necessary for orchestrating violent acts in Western cities. On the contrary, as the president said last night drawing more western troops onto Muslim soil appears to be one of ISIS' objectives:

We should not be drawn once more into a long and costly ground war in Iraq or Syria. That's what groups like ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield. ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq, but they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.

The attack in San Bernardino was new and horrifying. But the problem of ISIS is not new. The previous American policy — airstrikes, training, diplomatic work in Syria, no big ground troop presence — was already the policy that Obama thought most likely to succeed. A new attack appears to require a new response, but there is no new response that Obama thinks makes sense.

David Brooks: “When campaigns enter that final month, voters tend to gravitate toward the person who seems most orderly. As the primary season advances, voters’ tolerance for risk declines. They focus on the potential downsides of each contender and wonder, Could this person make things even worse?” “When this mental shift happens, I suspect Trump will slide. All the traits that seem charming will suddenly seem risky. The voters’ hopes for transformation will give way to a fear of chaos. When the polls shift from registered voters to likely voters, cautious party loyalists will make up a greater share of those counted.” He is half right. I feel like they will turn away from Trump, but they will not turn towards Rubio or Christie. They will go for Cruz. Because they want chaos. They do not fear it.

Last night, a theater performance played out in the Senate. Mitch McConnell managed to get the Senate to finally pass a bill, by a vote of 52-47, that repeals Obamacare, defunds Planned Parenthood, and allows terrorists to keep buying guns legally in the United States. They also refused to increase security at Planned Parenthood facilities in the hopes that conservative terrorists will find it easier to commit more attacks. The bill will be vetoed by President Obama, of course, after it is passed in the House. This was all theater so that the GOP could send a message. And that message is that the Republican Party opposes women's healthcare, opposes healthcare in general, and is in support of terrorists and will continue to arm them. The GOP wants you to die, and because you are not dying quickly enough for them, they will arm terrorists to see that you do die.

Copeland has a point. If he was running as a Democrat, (instead of the guy who is next in line to be Governor) he could easily say, "Hell, yes I support the $15.05 minimum wage." But his political career isn't about values, it is about not saying shit that someone might not like.

The GOP wants the angry, motivated, energetically racist Trump voters - but without Trump. They might get there if Cruz comes through as some at DL have predicted. In Cruz you have a slightly more polished politician with all the same tough guy swagger, and stridently anti-PC bravado. But where does that leave down-ticket Republicans? If the NRSC has anything to do with it, it leaves them transformed into an army of Junior Trumps, tweeting angry nonsense and rolling up the electoral spoils.

Yesterday, Robert Costa and Philip Rucker reported that the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee wrote a seven page confidential memo that “urges candidates to adopt many of Trump’s tactics, issues and approaches — right down to adjusting the way they dress and how they use Twitter.” If you can’t beat him, join him.