Open Thread

"We've got a socialist in office right now -- how's that working for us?" -- Republican National Committeeman Henry Barbour (R), quoted by The Hill, while talking about the Republican Party's need to improve its brand. Well, Haley, it is working out quite well, actually. The Stock Market is hitting record highs, the economy is growing and showing real signs of a take off this year, the unemployment rate is falling, millions of new jobs are being created each year, and we have cut our deficit in half over the last four years. If that is what socialism is called, then hell yeah, give me more socialism!

You want proof that Hillary will run in 2016? Well, she just released a video announcing her support for marriage equality, which was not a surprise, but since she had to steer clear of making any political statements while Secretary of State, Hillary has been silent on the issue since the 2008 campaign. In my opinion, if she were just a private citizen enjoying her retirement, I don't think such a video would be released.

John Dickerson's Slate post, "Is Obama Setting a Trap for Republicans?" probes white house strategy in the budget negotiations. Sure, the president would like a grand bargain on the budget, and he has to try for one, knowing full-well that the Republicans could string him along for a while, then sink the negotiations at any time. In that event, Obama has the cover he needs to hang tough and reveal, once again, that the Republicans can't govern because they won't compromise -- not a bad meme for 2014.

Roll Call points out that Paul Ryan is required by law and all that is holy to get down on his knees and praise President Obama and his policies, for without him and them, his budget plan would be nothing.

Ryan’s budget eliminates the deficit in 2023 not because of large new spending cuts relative to his past budgets, but because he’s keeping hundreds of billions of dollars a year of President Barack Obama’s own budget policies in place. Ryan’s claim to a balanced budget rests entirely on the 2010 health care law, known in GOP circles as “Obamacare.” Ryan’s budget keeps the tax revenue from the health care law, as well as its $700 billion-plus Medicare trims and other cuts. Ryan included those Medicare cuts in his previous budget blueprints but campaigned against them when he joined Mitt Romney’s GOP presidential ticket last year. Ryan’s budget also would not balance without the $600 billion-plus increase in taxes extracted by the president in the fiscal cliff deal. What Ryan would repeal is the $1.8 trillion in new spending on the health care law, which primarily subsidizes the purchase of private insurance. That includes $263 billion in spending on the law in 2023 alone.

This art installation went live last week on the San Francisco Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland. This is supposed to remain up for 2 years, but I think it should be permanent.

Ever wanted to know what it was like to fall off a mountain? Here you go:

Today's edition in restoring your faith in humanity: The man who secretly filmed Mitt Romney's 47% fundraiser speech to the 1% will be interviewed tonight on MSNBC by Ed Shultz. Why did he do it? Well, it turns out that simple manners, and respect and concern for the staff goes a long way.

Prior to his political fame, the filmmaker worked as a bartender for a high-end catering company. Before that company was hired for the Romney event, it catered a dinner at which Bill Clinton spoke. The bartender/Romney-ruiner told the Huffington Post that after the speech, Clinton went to the kitchen to thank the staff, posing for photographs and signing autographs. So when the bartender heard about the Romney event, he decided to bring his camera with him, just in case the candidate met with the staff like Clinton did. But because he's Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate didn't greet or thank any of the staff working the event, and rushed out shortly after his speech, though not before bartender secretly filmed it, noting that Romney told the dinner guests it was off the record but not the staff working the event.

More facts for the Fact Averse: Peter Beinart is now convinced that “Jeb Bush will never seriously challenge for the presidency—because to seriously challenge for the presidency, a Republican will have to pointedly distance himself from Jeb’s older brother”:

No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. No Republican will be able to promise foreign-policy competence unless he or she acknowledges the Bush administration’s disastrous mismanagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. It won’t be enough for a candidate merely to keep his or her distance from W. John McCain and Mitt Romney tried that, and they failed because the Obama campaign hung Bush around their neck every chance it got. To seriously compete, the next Republican candidate for president will have to preempt that Democratic line of attack by repudiating key aspects of Bush’s legacy. Jeb Bush would find that excruciatingly hard even if he wanted to. And as his interviews Sunday make clear, he doesn’t event want to try.

Welcome to Monday, people. This is one of those Mondays where the list of stuff to get done when you left on Friday had magically trippled by 8:30AM. And don't get me started on the hour that Daylight Savings Time stole from me.

It is a gorgeous Sunday, following a gorgeous Saturday. I'm even thinking about working on my yard this afternoon -- a thing I try to ignore until the very last minute. In any event, I hope you are enjoying this day!

Marc Ambinder agrees with Jason that Jeb Bush will never be President (even though his moves this week clearly show that he is running):

"Bush is an ideal Republican presidential candidate. He has a national stature, an enviable record as governor, a solid temperament, and nothing significantly scandalous in his past. He is one of his party's best voices on immigration. But he is a Bush. That's going to be a problem. It's not going to be an insurmountable problem, but the Republican base is definitely wary of the Bush brand and will not embrace him, no matter how hard he tacks to the right."

It's not the base that is weary of the Bush name. In fact, the GOP teabagging base loves them some George W. Bush. I am sure you have seen the billboards and the Facebook post with the Chimperor smiling and waving saying "Miss Me Yet?" The base loves Bush. What the base does not love is anyone that disagrees with them. And with Jeb Bush being a successful moderate Governor, that necessarily meant that he disagreed with the base over issues. Exhibit A was Immigration Reform, where until Monday, Bush was for a Path to Citizenship. Now he is not, all to appease the base, whose votes he needs in 2015 and 2016. It is the GOP Conundrum. Any candidate they have that is potentially a viable and attractive general election candidate cannot win the GOP nomination without abandoning that which made them a viable and attractive general election candidate.

Michael Kinsley chronicles how Republicans, and their affiliated media, are complaining "loudly about feeling bullied by their opponents."

"Big, bad President Obama, creepy Harry Reid, that B-word Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the gang of toughs called the Democratic Party are picking on the poor defenseless GOP. As a campaigning theme, it seems insane. The GOP has long prospered by portraying Democrats as the wimps, dangerously weak and unfit for command. Does the name Michael Dukakis ring a bell? And in really heady moments, like 1984, when Reagan earned his second term, or 1994 and 2010, when sweeping victories in off-year elections seemed to foretell an imminent landslide, Republican fantasies of one-party rule involved the triumph of their party, not humiliation by the other side." "In fact, moaning about how weak you are compared with the opposition seems so obviously a political mistake that we can only reach one conclusion: This must be sincere."

Remember, it is the bullies themselves that always cry loudest about being hit back.