WBEZ | GOP

With FAA, Democrats lose the sequester battle

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:00:00 -0500

Not that Democrats have ever been particularly good negotiators, but it’s possible President Barack Obama’s namby pamby adjudicating may have rubbed off on them, to bad effect.

Just last Friday, finally given a chance to show their courage in the sequester battle, the Democrats blinked — hard. by agreeing to a bill that allows the Federal Aviation Administration to bypass, at least for now, sequester-mandated cuts, the Democrats actually agreed to a strategy that basically hands the budget battle victory to the Republicans.

Do you remember the sequester? It was supposed to be so damn bad both sides in Washington were going to be forced back to the negotiating table, bipartisanship would have no choice but to emerge from the bitter pill of automatic cuts to the federal budget, without regard to need or politics: Head Start, the military — every favorite program was going to be guillotined.

When the Republicans didn’t fall for that and allowed the sequester to go into effect, the White House — which unconvincingly disavows the sequester as its idea — went on a campaign to warn about the hardships the cuts would cause. Things were going to get so bad, we were all going to be really sorry. And, in fact, things were going to get so terribly bad, the people would rise up and blame the GOP and then the Dems would have the upper hand and things would get fixed, probably.

There’s still a White House page with many dire warnings such as this: “Harmful automatic budget cuts — known as the sequester — threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illness and our men and women in uniform. These cuts will make it harder to grow our economy and create jobs by affecting our ability to invest in important priorities like education, research and innovation, public safety, and military readiness.”

Except it hasn’t happened that way. Not that the sequester isn’t slicing and dicing: It is. But the very nature of the cuts means the pain is being administered slowly, over a huge swath of programs, and most people haven’t seen a big change in their lives post-sequester.

Still, the damage is real. In Illinois alone, the sequester affects funding for teachers, funding for special education for kids with disabilities, work study jobs, Head Start programs, child care, vaccines, nutrition programs for seniors, mental health programs, cuts to the FBI, emergency responders, veteran services, senior meals, housing voucher programs, AIDS and HIV services and many more programs.

So you’d think once the cuts actually started to squeeze people in a noticeable way — like say, hours long delays at the nation’s airports because of furloughed air traffic controllers — that the Dems would turn around and say, “See? This is what we mean. And it’s going to get worse.”

And then, you know, maybe the Republicans would at least have to explain their position.

But no. In fact, not at all. The Democrats completed caved. The vote wasn’t even close: unanimous in the Senate and 361 to 41 in the House.

The Dems agreed to a Republican bill that allows the FAA to shift funds to keep air traffic controllers working, and to keep travelers from being inconvenienced. And in doing so, the Democrats have given the GOP a blueprint on how to get around any other cuts to favored programs they’d like to alleviate.

In other words, the Democrats have given away whatever leverage they might have had had — especially because Obama has agreed to sign this bill, as is his wont, without concessions (like, say, Head Start in exchange for the air traffic controllers).

Let me be even clearer: The Republicans have figured out how to save programs important to their relatively privileged constituencies. The Democrats have completely sold their constituencies — especially the poor, young people, and women — down the river.

Obama and the Democrats are back out there now talking about ending the sequester, how it’s unfair to this and that program, and that the Republicans need to come back to the negotiating table. But why would be the GOP ever do that?

The Republicans are enjoying the sequester. It is, after all, what they wanted: cuts to government programs. Sure, they would have preferred more say in what to cut, what to preserve. But in the long run — in terms of goals — the sequester, which both parties signed on to as a strategy, is actually doing what the Republicans — and only the Republicans — wanted.

Rubio's cowardice and ambition could kill immigration bill

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0500

You might have thought that after the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came to an agreement over the weekend on guest workers – historically the trickiest part of immigration reform for unions – that the immigration bill the senatorial Gang of Eight has been working on would find the road a little smoother. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) even went on the Sunday shows this week and crowed about a “substantial” agreement moving forward with both Democratic and Republican support.

Except that the Republican most identified with the bill put the brakes on it. On Saturday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) fired off a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asking him to slow down the possible legislation.

“I am aware that the Judiciary Committee, both under your leadership and under the leadership of your predecessors, has conducted a number of hearings related to immigration reform,” wrote Rubio. “But they cannot be a substitute for fresh hearings to consider specific legislation as part of a national conversation.”

A letter like that from most senators wouldn't make much of a ripple, but because Rubio is the GOP's point man (however reluctantly) on immigration, and because of his national profile, he's not that easy to dismiss. Rubio can kill the bill, and everybody knows that.

Rubio’s dilemma is not actually based on immigration concerns, or even party concerns. While he was busy trying to get the Senate to slow down, fellow senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was busy touting the bill on the news shows.

“We haven’t signed off. There are a few details yet,” Graham said. “But conceptually, we have an agreement between business and labor, between ourselves, that has to be drafted. It will be rolled out next week. Yes, I believe it will pass the House because it secures our borders, it controls who gets a job.”

Next week!

What’s the difference between Rubio and Graham? Besides, of course, that Graham comes from a state much less likely to be open to immigration than Rubio’s Florida, or that Graham is up for re-election in 2014 and Rubio not until 2016? Why, exactly, is the white dude from the South so much more optimistic than the Son of Immigrants?

In a word: cowardice.

In another word: ambition.

Graham isn’t going anywhere but the senate seat for South Carolina, but Rubio’s every move these days is calculated with a shot at the White House.

And here’s Rubio’s dilemma: The country seems to be moving in favor of immigration reform, but the hardcore Tea Partiers – his core constituency, the people who elected him – are still staunchly against anything that smells of a path to citizenship. They're just not too excited about immigration in general, reformed or otherwise.

But that’s not all. The Republican Party desperately needs to attract, or at least neutralize, the Latino vote – the ever growing Latino vote, especially in the South, in places like, say, South Carolina, where the Latino population grew 148 percent in the last ten years compared to about 13 percent for the general population.

That should make Rubio, the senior Latino in the GOP ranks, a Very Important Guy. Rubio, the thinking goes, should be able to talk to his people, explain the goodness of the GOP, and bring them over. He’s good looking, bilingual, and his family has experienced immigration up close and personal.

The problem is that Rubio, not unlike the GOP’s other Latino star, Ted Cruz, has never been on the compassionate side of immigration. He’s not as much of an extremist as Cruz, who uses the term "illegals," and who’d like a bigger fence, more boots on the ground, and absolutely zero chance at citizenship. Truth is, Rubio wants all that, too, except for maybe the path to citizenship, which he's surrendered to.

Sure, Rubio could walk away. But if he wants to run for president in 2016 (which he very clearly does), he needs to show some balls somewhere, sometime, and pass a bill of some sort. (So far, the only senate bill he’s sponsored on his own was a resolution to honor Vaclav Havel. I kid you not.)

But what if Rubio passes the wrong bill? A bill that pisses off the Tea Party, or one that alienates Latinos even more, could mean that even if Rubio gets on the GOP ticket, Latinos may reject him with even greater vitriol for being a traitor than they would some meaningless non-Latino.

Actually, I’m probably getting ahead of myself here. I don’t think Rubio actually gives a crap what other Latinos think of him, just so long as there are enough votes from wherever to keep him in power. And if he has to kill this once in a lifetime chance at immigration reform to keep his sure Tea Party votes in line, then so be it.

Notes on VAWA, 2016 and Illinois Republicans

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 13:15:00 -0600

(Above: In this 2012 video to his constituents, Rep. Peter Roskam extolled the Violence Against Women Act. Last month, he voted against it.)

Everybody knows the Violence Against Women Act passed last week -- after major controversy because of Republican objections over an expansion of tribal court jurisdiction (to pursue non-Natives who commit rape on Native lands) and the inclusions of LGBTQ people. In the end, a bipartisan effort helped move the bill through.

Everybody also knows every single vote against it was Republican.

Here, however, are a few things to consider about the vote, the VAWA, 2016 and Illinois Republicans.

* Though the VAWA passed by a bipartisan majority, it’s being maimed by the sequestration. More than $20 million -- a 5 percent cut across the board -- will be slashed from programs, leaving as many as 34,000 victims without service in the next budget year. At the state levels, programs could see additional cuts of more than $5 million, potentially abandoning thousands more. So the program, which has seemed like the lonely bipartisan light in the 113th Congress, could turn out to be more symbolic than substantial.

* Every single GOP 2016 presidential aspirant in the U.S. Senate voted against the VAWA: John Cornyn of Texas, Ron Portman of Ohio, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Florida’s Marco Rubio.

Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Arizona’s John McCain, usually two peas in a pod, split their votes: Graham, terrified of a primary challenge next year, voted nay, while McCain voted aye.

Among the other GOP senators supporting VAWA were New Hampshire’s “It Girl” Kelly Ayotte, outgoing Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, Alaska’s Lisa “Fighting the Tea Party Has Set Me Free” Murkowski, the Maine twins Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and even Louisiana’s David Vitter, who probably voted without irony.

Illinois Senators Dick Durbin voted in favor while Mark Kirk, still recouping from health problems, didn’t vote.

* The GOP House leadership split: Paul Ryan, perhaps remembering the way women voted in the last presidential campaign, voted for it. Eric Cantor, the Majority Whip, voted against it. Speaker John Boehner, as is his custom, didn’t vote.

* Not every single Democrat in Congress voted for the VAWA. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa of Texas abstained.

* Every single Democratic member of the Illinois congressional delegation voted in favor but they were joined by four of the state’s Republicans: Rodney Davis, Adam Kinzinger, Aaron Schock and John Shimkus.

* Schock not only actively supported the legislation, he and Dem Rep Betty McCullm co-sponsored an important amendment: the McCullom-Schock International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act, which promotes the empowerment of girls in developing countries at risk of child marriage. (Weird fact: In spite of this forward looking bill, Schock votes with his party 95 percent of the time -- even more than Paul Ryan.)

* Davis was one of 16 Republican reps who signed a letter urging the GOP leadership to pass the bill.

* Illinois’ strangest vote might be Rep. Peter Roskam’s nay. A prior supporter of the bill, Roskam gave a 2012 video report to his constituents in which he refers to VAWA quite positively.

"I’m here to report some good news,” Roskam says, looking straight at the camera. "(VAWA) is a very important piece of legislation that is in place to protect victims of domestic violence, and sexual assault and stalking, things that nobody is tolerant of and we all need to be unanimous in fighting against.”

This time around, though, Roskam had “questions of constitutionality as well as the lack of certain conscience protections within the bill.” He hasn’t said what those are. exactly.

Illinois' other nay vote was Rep. Randy Hultgren.

Illinois GOP chair cancels fundraiser amid gay marriage flap

Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:24:00 -0600

The controversial leader of the Illinois Republican Party has now cancelled a major fundraiser as he waits to find out whether party bosses will fire him following his public support of same-sex marriage.

Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady had organized the March 19 event, which was scheduled to feature Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. But Brady pulled the plug on the event over the weekend, after seven party bosses called a March 9 special meeting that could end with his ouster.

Brady said he called off the event to spare the head of the RNC from wading into a nasty internal party fight triggered by Brady’s public support of same-sex marriage, a stance contrary to the party’s platform.

“It hurts party operations,” Brady said, referring to the timing of the special meeting, ten days before the fundraiser. “It hurts our brand. But this is the world that I am dealing with. They can do whatever they wanna do with me. But all this they’re doing right now is doing nothing but…hurting the Republican Party and our chances of winning in 2014.”

Last week seven members of the Republican State Central Committee – a panel of top party leaders – signed a letter calling for a special meeting to discuss party finances and “the leadership, image and appeal” of the state GOP.

A handful of party leaders have been calling for Brady’s resignation since early January, after he released a statement announcing his “full support” for a same-sex marriage bill pending in the Illinois General Assembly. Committeemen bristled not only because Brady bucked the party line, but because he gave party bosses no forewarning.

Since then, two committeemen – State Sen. Jim Oberweis, of Sugar Grove, and Jerry Clarke, of downstate Urbana – have been working behind the scenes to organize a special meeting to vote Brady out.

In an interview with WBEZ Monday, Oberweis said the meeting isn’t just about the same-sex marriage flap, but about broader concerns over the chairman’s fundraising, his lack of communication with party leadership, and other issues.

“It has nothing to do with gay marriage,” Oberweis said. “It has something to do with a CEO of an organization lobbying on behalf of something the organization opposes.”

Oberweis accused Brady of setting up the March 19 fundraiser only after he learned some party bosses were trying to oust him.

“It’s purely a subterfuge to discourage people from taking him to task,” Oberweis said.

Jerry Clarke has not responded to numerous interview requests.

It’s still unclear whether Brady’s rivals have the votes to get rid of him. State GOP bylaws say removing a party chairman requires three-fifths of the weighted votes on the State Central Committee. Each committeeman’s vote is weighted differently, based on voter turnout in their congressional district in the March 2012 primary.

Some committeemen who called for the special meeting said they want Brady to explain himself on March 9, but haven’t decided whether they’d vote to fire him.

“Let’s just put it this way: The evidence is not balancing in his favor at this point, with the exception [being] that if he were to be able to discuss with us why he did what he did,” said Committeeman Eugene Dawson, of Barrington. “I’m not gonna condemn the man before he has an opportunity to explain himself thoroughly.”

Next months’ fundraiser was projected to bring in $250,000 for the party. In addition to Priebus, the RNC chair, the event was to honor former Excelon CEO John Rowe, a party backer who has publicly supported same-sex marriage.

Rowe said Monday the cancellation may be embarrassing for the state party, but he doesn’t feel snubbed.

“The party needs to work its way through this because it’s pretty clear that you can’t be too conservative on the so-called social issues and win in Illinois,” Rowe said.

Mr. Rubio, that was no rebuttal

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:19:00 -0600

Everybody’s having fun with Sen. Marco Rubio’s big gulp, even Rubio himself, during the Republican rebuttal to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union. And perhaps it’s moments like that parched, wild-eyed lunge of Rubio’s for the Poland Springs that will justify keeping the circus going but, honestly, can we just cut the crap?

The State of the Union is constitutionally mandated, no matter who the president is: a war criminal like George W. Bush or a socialist fool like Obama.

It’s right there in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: “He shall from time to time give Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

But here’s what’s not constitutionally mandated: the opposition response. In fact, it’s only been a real thing since the 1966, when Republicans decided to talk back to Lyndon B. Johnson on TV.

But that relatively young tradition has now gone from rebuttal to nothing even close to a rebuttal, to free air time for the opposition party to try out, “American Idol”-style, potential presidential candidates. Before Rubio, the parade included Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels.

Just consider Rubio’s response last night. First and foremost, it wasn’t a rebuttal – the reason the GOP got the air time in the first place. Rubio’s speech was a stump written long before the president even delivered the State of the Union, simple as that.

But let’s say it’s fair that the Repubs have a speech ready, then adjust it to actually contest the President’s proposals. I’d be for that. Except that’s not what happened.

What we got instead was Obama saying, yup, we need to deal with Medicare with “modest reforms” – a huge admission on the part of this president – and Rubio, as if he hadn’t heard a thing, saying, “Anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.”

Or this: The president saying, “It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.”

And Rubio’s ridiculous response: “Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems.”

Who was Rubio talking to? The choir, the same Republican echo chamber that convinced millions of people that Mitt Romney wasn’t just going to win but to whomp Obama and then got up on a Wednesday in November and wondered who betrayed them. (A few, apparently, have continued their wake state and walked away from Fox, giving the channel its lowest numbers in years, both in actual ratings and in credibility.)

As a result, Rubio saddled forth with matters that are standard GOP talking points – facts be damned -- but weren’t even vaguely hinted at in Obama’s speech, like this gem of a paragraph:

"For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring. Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.”

This morning Rubio finally addressed a specific in the president’s speech. Responding to Obama’s call for a higher minimum wage, from $7.25 to $9, Rubio said, “I don’t think minimum wage laws work.”

Instead, he’d like to foster an environment for “good paying jobs” – but how he’s gonna do that, and encourage employers to pay a decent wage based on the goodness of their hearts (as thousands of years of human history have shown of man just doing right by man over and over … ), well, that’s still up in the air.

And by the way, that working class neighborhood Rubio talked about, the place where he lives? His house there is up for sale– for $675,000. Either he’s an ostentatious bastard in his working-class neighborhood, or that’s no working class neighborhood.

And, no, in spite of Rubio’s office’s best efforts to make us believe otherwise, last night was not the first time the SOTU rebuttal has been bilingual, not even bilingually by the same guy: That tradition began in 2004 with then New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Rubio’s not even the first Republican or even the first Cuban-American to give it: fellow Cuban-American, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, gave the Spanish-language rebuttal for the GOP in 2011.

Of course, it wasn’t just Rubio who attempted to rebutt last night. Sen. Rand Paul stepped up for the Tea Party, with a speech that was not much more rebuttal than Rubio’s, but which at least endorsed some ideas worth discussing: the president’s kill list, cutting military spending, education reform.

I realize the news outlets can’t help themselves. They’re like a junkie who’s just been handed the last heroin baggie and will lick at any last possibility to get their high.

But it makes me wonder: When the GOP takes the White House again – God help us – will the networks let the Dems and, say, the Greens, respond to the State of the Union?

The GOP can't stop repealing Obamacare

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:04:00 -0600

It never stops. Ever.

The Republican obsession with repealing Obamacare continues, no matter that a Republican appointee on the Supreme Court provided the vote to determine its constitutionality. No matter that people rejected the party's presidential ticket-- which ran on the premise of repealing the law on the first day of their term.

The Republican-led U.S. House has voted to repeal the law 33 times, with a new effort underway already in the 113th Congress sponsored by Rep. Michelle Bachman. And now the U.S. Senate, where we have come to expect a bit more reason, has a new GOP sponsored bill to consider which would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, thus rendering it useless by uncoupling its programs from its funding mechanism.

And that, of course, is not all. In South Carolina, the state legislature is actually considering making the implementation of Obamacare a crime. Putting aside the Supreme Court’s decision, the state bill declares that "the federal law known as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’, signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is invalid in this State, is not recognized by this State, is specifically rejected by this State, and is null and void and of no effect in this State.”

The law calls for fines for federal officials of up to $5,000 and jail time up to five years. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has refused to set up a state health insurance exchange to comply with the ACA, has been non-committal about the proposed law to criminalize its implementation. New Jersey, Oklahoma and Maine are considering similar bills.

And over in Wisconsin, nine Republican state legislators want to pass a law that would allow the immediate arrest of any official attempting to implement the law. Who are these people? Check this out, straight from the Milwaukee Journal:

“Eight of the nine Republicans also have gone on record saying they also want to write a law that would see airport screeners charged with sexual assault if they conduct overly invasive pat-downs of passengers going through security.

“All nine also told a tea party-aligned group they backed passing so-called ‘right-to-work’ legislation; allowing people to carry guns without having to get permits from the state; allowing people to buy raw, or unpasteurized, milk; and blocking state funding for the federal Real ID law that requires states to develop more secure driver's licenses.”

In South Carolina, State Sen. Bill Chumley, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, is behind the big push to criminalize the ACA. He’s sponsoring rallies and trying to build up grassroots support.

What in heaven’s name is this about? Why this continued push against a government program that was first conceived by the Heritage Foundation, cradle of the country’s conservative thinking?

I could say it again, as I’ve said before and suspect I’ll say again. But then I’d just get accused of uselessly pulling out the race card.

GOP Rep. Aaron Schock considering run for governor

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:01:00 -0600

Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Peoria says he's considering a run for Illinois governor.

Schock tells WMAQ-TV in Chicago that he hopes other GOP hopefuls will step aside. Schock says "the less bloodletting, the better."

The 31-year-old Peoria congressman and former state representative says he knows he can't "tell them not to run." But Schock says other candidates from his party who have run before are wasting their time.

He says his age won't be a factor in whether he runs for governor.

Schock was first elected to Congress in 2009.

Other Republican candidates who have shown interest in the Illinois governor's race include state Treasurer Dan Rutherford, and state Sens. Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard.

The next general election for Illinois governor is in November 2014.

Republican chair calls Obama's gun control proposals a 'power grab'

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:14:00 -0600

WASHINGTON — The head of the Republican National Committee is dismissing the gun control provisions announced today by President Barack Obama as an "executive power grab."

Reince Priebus says Obama "paid lip service to our fundamental constitutional rights" -- and then "took actions that disregard the Second Amendment."

House Speaker John Boehner's office is non-committal, but it is signaling no urgency to act on Obama's proposals.

In a statement, the National Rifle Association quickly challenged Obama's proposals. It said, "Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation." The NRA says the only people who will be affected will be "honest, law-abiding gun owners" -- while children will "remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy."

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says Obama offered some "thoughtful recommendations." He says the Senate will consider legislation addressing gun violence early this year. Reid says the shooting in Connecticut was "the latest sad reminder" that the nation isn't doing enough to protect children and others from gun violence.

Illinois GOP chairman backing gay marriage

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:31:00 -0600

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The chairman of the Illinois Republican Party says support for gay marriage is "the most conservative position" because it keeps government out of personal lives.

Pat Brady says he has been calling Republican lawmakers for several weeks seeking support for the measure sponsored by Democrats.

Brady is at odds on the issue with not only his political party but his church — he's Catholic and bishops in the state are strongly opposed to marriage equality.

Supporters expect the issue to get a vote before the Executive Committee late this morning.

Brady says he's had mixed reactions to his lobbying but believes there are enough Senate votes to OK the legislation.

He says gay marriage is "an issue of equality and we're the party of Lincoln."

The shameful take down of Susan Rice

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:03:00 -0600

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice will not be the next Secretary of State after asking President Barack Obama to withdraw her name for consideration from the post.

And, frankly, I’m kind of relieved. This means that time and energy won’t be wasted on a fight the GOP was determined to have to once more gridlock everything in Congress so that the president will have as thin a legacy as possible. (Good luck with that, given Obamacare.) It’s absolutely certain Rice would have had the votes for confirmation but it’s also absolutely certain that wouldn’t have stopped Republicans from doing everything possible to drag the matter out.

I’m also incensed at how this deal went down: a truly cheap shot on the part of a couple of senators and the right wing blogosphere having a tantrum over Obama’s continued presidency and needing to strike out at someone -- anything -- that could hurt him. This is spite and nothing else.

I have no idea whether Rice would have been a good Secretary of State -- her tenure at the UN suggests she might been exemplary, perhaps even eclipsing the current Secretary, but her financial interests in energy companies, particularly Canadian tar sands, would have complicated her nomination with progressives, and certainly, if confirmed, would have left her open to conflict of interest charges in terms of her duties.

But what I do know is that Rice was hounded out of the nominating process by a handful of Republican senators because they needed a target for their anger and resentment over Obama’s seismic election victory. And Rice, a high-level appointee with close personal ties to the president, made for a perfect target.

Because the GOP’s number one goal for the last four years has been not to create jobs, not to ensure the nation’s security, not to fix the economic mess created by one of their own, but to deny a Obama second term -- to fix the 2008 electorate’s historical error, if you will, and return things to how they presumably used to be.

The audacity of the president’s 2012 triumph is that it has left this sad crop of white men with no purpose whatsoever. Obama’s victory wasn’t merely personal -- a stiff middle finger in the face of all those who insisted he was alien and and un-American -- but a full-on view of the future: an America that is more diverse, more of color, more democratic than it’s ever been.

The 2012 election was the very last time a political party will be able to depend on white votes for a national victory -- which means that all those extreme regional wins (Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky -- I’m talking to you) will ultimately have to be moderated as well.

Is Susan Rice guilty of some kind of cover up about the goings on in Benghazi? Pretty unlikely. Is she guilty of partisanship in her television appearances that fateful Sunday morning? Perhaps.

But what’s galling is that the two senators behind the campaign to kill her promotion were two of the loudest voices protecting former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice after she was caught out and out lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- a lie that wasn’t promulgated on Sunday TV shows but in congressional testimony, a lie which did not influence Sunday TV viewers before an election but which lead us into a war that has cost nearly 5,000 American lives and more than 110,000 civilian lives.

For shame, gentlemen, for shame.