National

Come inside to watch a video from Randall Paul, which some pundits are saying will end his 2016 candidacy because he dared question Dick Cheney, the Iraq War and the military industrial complex. I am not so sure. David Corn explains:

Critics of President George W. Bush and Cheney have long assailed the pair for pushing a WMD-centered case for war that was false and questioned their reasons and motives for invading Iraq. But it's notable that a member of the Senate who might be a leading contender for the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination thinks that the most recent Republican vice president snookered the nation into war to boost profits for a company he once steered.

This is not news to us. We long believed that this was what Cheney did. We believed it then, in 2002 and 2003. And we were proven right. But we are dirty liberals, right? Who cares if we are always right. We're "libruls!!!!!" Now that a libertarian-tea-party-conservative-clinton-hater confused Republican is saying it, finally, the notion that Dick Cheney committed treason may finally sink in.

Looks like I was right yesterday when I said someone had flipped on Christie. I was just wrong on who had flipped. Instead of Kelly, it appears that David Wildstein has flipped. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush is getting a lot of pub recently. Hell, even he is speaking about illegal immigration being an act of love rather than a crime, which should eliminate him as a contender for the GOP nomination. But establishment types are talking him up because he is all they have right now. Christie is gone (see above). The rest of the bland midwestern governors stand no chance against Hillary, and that is assuming they all win reelection (and some of them won't). So who is left besides Ted Cruz and Rand Paul? Jeb Bush. But don't get your tickets for Clinton v. Bush II: The Sequel just yet. Also, this New Yorker cover is awesome...

I missed this on Friday because I was busy with work, but the US Attorney in New Jersey has convened a grand jury to investigate Governor Christie's involvement.

"The convening of the grand jury is evidence that the U.S. Attorney's investigation has progressed beyond an inquiry and moved to the criminal phase." Newark Star Ledger: "Legal experts say the hearing of grand-jury testimony is an important development that means U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman has accumulated enough evidence to move past a preliminary inquiry into the controversial lane closings and into a grand jury investigation of them."

Indeed. If there wasn't something there, there would be no grand jury investigation. Another question: why did Chris Christie's administration trash Bridgett Kelly in their "independent" report? She seems to be a key player in all of this, and could sink Christie if there really is something there there. It seems stupid to antagonize her. Well, the trashing of Kelly and the convening of the Grand Jury tells me that Kelly has flipped and is providing state's evidence. So now Christie et al are trashing her credibility.

Andrew Sullivan:

Last fall, I argued that Obama’s presidency, already historic in significant ways, would become as influential as Reagan’s if two things happened: if the ACA stuck and American entered an era of near-universal healthcare; and if the negotiations with Iran led to an end of sanctions and a controlled Iranian nuclear capability. Both would be generational game-changers – one in domestic policy, the other in foreign affairs. [...] So where are we? Too soon to tell on Iran. But after a clear, self-inflicted disaster – the website’s debut – we’ve seen a classic Obama pattern. The fail is replaced by a dogged, persistent, relentless attempt at repair. I’d argue that the competence behind the repair of the site and the revival of the ACA’s fortunes has been as striking as the original incompetence. And we do not and should not judge a president by his mistakes; the critical judgment is in how he responds to those mistakes. As Dick Cheney might put it, the results speak for themselves[.] Now look at the economic forecast: the IMF is predicting growth of 2.8 percent this year and 3 percent in 2015, easily the best performance among Western economies. We may see further declines in unemployment. This does not seem to me to be compatible with declining support for Obama and his record. In fact, I’d be surprised – barring, of course, any number of game-changing events – if Obama’s approval ratings were not ticking up by the summer. We’ve been here so many times before with this president – when he seems temporarily becalmed, inert, unable or unwilling to seize every moment. But over the long run, you see the virtues of persistence, relentlessness and pragmatic advance. The hopes he once inspired may be dimmed or dashed right now; but in the cold light of day, they shouldn’t be. Like the slow, excruciating accumulation of delegates in the epic 2008 primary campaign, Obama never puts it away until he puts it away. But it’s coming. And more and more people are beginning to see it.

In December 1986, it seemed reasonably possible that Reagan, then beset by the Iran Contra scandal with polls in the low 40s, might be impeached. And yet, he is generally remembered among the general population fondly and having a successful Presidency. Sullivan has always made the comparison of Obama to Reagan as far as how their respective Presidencies played out. And I think he is right. In the end, Obama will be remembered as fondly as Reagan is or was.

The Delaware Bar association and others will tell you - the AG office lawyers are the true victims in the "du pont heir will not fare will in prison" case. They are hamstrung when trying to convict wealthy people because the wealthy people can hire lawyers. (Lawyers from the very best firms that the AG office lawyers may hope to join in a year or so.) They also have to contend with the fact that they have a boss that leaves the trickiest decisions most fraught with huge downsides entirely to them. How can we expect the AG office lawyers to prosecute a case they may lose? Obviously we can't. The AG office lawyers in this case were facing a lose/lose situation. Either they prosecute the rich guy and likely lose because they are utterly outclassed by the defense lawyers and the child rapist goes free, our they cut a ludicrously lenient deal that allows the child rapist to go free. Obviously in that situation, you cut a deal.

Salon: "Here's a riddle for anyone who thinks the politics of Obamacare are straightforward, and toxic for Democrats. How is it possible, in defiance of public rebuke, widespread misinformation and other headwinds, that insurance enrollment is surging in just about every state in the country?" Is it because, when people tried it, they liked it, and told their friends? Is it possible that when they tried it, they realized that everything they heard from the Republicans were lies? For the first time since ABC News and Washington Post started polling on public support for Obamacare, the law is viewed positively. 49 percent support. 48 percent oppose. The shift proves the argument that Democrats and liberals have made: that when the benefits of the law prove all Republicans liars, people will support and approve of the law. Sally Kohn at CNN lists the benefits of the law, a law that benefits all Americans.

Someone challenged a DL blogger to name recent progressive victories. Here is a very partial list.