Our Job-Killing Senate

— By Suzy Khimm

| Thu Jun. 24, 2010 11:40 AM PDT

Senate Republicans—with the help of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)—are poised to kill an economic benefits package today, delivering what could be a serious blow to the country’s recovery, as Matt Yglesias points out. Known as the "tax-extenders" bill, the legislation would continue unemployment benefits, support certain tax breaks, provide a boost to Medicare payments for doctors, and extend Medicaid funding to collapsing state budgets. Conservatives have raised a predictable hue and cry about increasing the deficit. Democrats, desperate to have the legislation pass, have scaled back the bill over the past weeks "from $190 billion, to $80 billion, to $55 billion, to just over $30 billion," Arthur Delaney reports. But it hasn’t been enough to swing key moderate votes, and the legislation looks like it will fail, 42-58, this afternoon.
What’s the price of this political obstructionism? In addition to the millions of Americans who stand to lose unemployment benefits, a huge number of private and public sector employees will lose their jobs due to state budget cuts. Without federal help, states will have to pour in more money to prop up Medicaid, forcing them to make cutbacks in other parts of the budget. As a result, Moody's chief economist estimates that 200,000 jobs could be axed without federal Medicaid support, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number as high as 900,000—jobs belonging to teachers, firemen, police, and social workers, among others.
While federal and state governments both contribute to Medicaid funding, the economic crisis has left the states in a terrible budget crunch. The federal government has tried to step in, devoting over 60 percent of the federal stimulus money to propping up Medicaid so states wouldn’t have to make other cuts. But that money is now set to expire, and the states have yet to recover from the effects of the recession to make up the difference.
On top of unemployment benefit cuts and job losses, the cuts to social services could be brutal. The WonkRoom explains:

Thompson pointed to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report stating that “without the extended Medicaid funding, Pennsylvania plans to cut funding for domestic violence prevention in half, eliminate all state funds for addressing substance abuse and homelessness, cut funding for child welfare by one-quarter, and cut payments to private hospitals, nursing homes, and doctors across the state — among other steps.”…
Arizona would have to cut funding for its state court system, Colorado’s likely cuts “include eliminating state aid for full-day kindergarten for 35,000 children, eliminating preschool aid for 21,000 children, and increasing overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities,” while New Mexico “could eliminate a wide range of Medicaid services, including emergency hospital services, inpatient psychiatric care, personal care assistance for the disabled, prescribed medications, and hospice care.”

Buried in the mess is a larger argument for federalizing Medicaid, which would free up state budgets and prevent these kinds of excruciating budget cuts every time state governments hit a rough economic patch. (Kevin brought up this point just last week.) But this is the system that we’re stuck with for now. The federal government needs to support it, and it’s unfortunate that our deadlocked Senate is about to deliver a painful setback to our economic recovery.
Update: As predicted, the tax extenders bill has failed in the Senate. Sigh.

An environmental ethicist asks:

 Which is worse — global warming or the Gulf gusher?

June 24, 2010

Although the BP oil spill seriously threatens those who live along the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. intransigence on climate change threatens the entire world; a fact that is causing rising anger around the world. Yet the U.S. Congress continues to resist action on climate change on the basis that it will harm some U.S. economic interests, while ignoring our duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to the U.S. fair share of safe global releases.  For this reason, while the BP oil spill can be rightfully be understood as a disaster, U.S. Congressional inaction on climate change must be understood as a huge moral failure leading to an even greater disaster.

Our guest blogger today is Donald A. Brown is Associate Professor for Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law at Penn State. He blogs at ClimateEthics.
Over the last two months the U.S. Congress has been engaged in a great operatic drama over what many have called the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history:  The BP Gulf oil spill.  Last week U.S Congressman angrily grilled BP CEO spokesman Tony Hayward about the causes of the disaster and BPs inability to shut off the oil flow. As this took place, the brown and orange slick continued its daily assault on fisheries, birds, and livelihoods.
Although oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform site may in fact be creating the greatest environmental and economic harm in U.S. history so far, there is new evidence that another looming environmental problem is likely to produce far worse environmental and economic impacts not only for the United States but also for some of the poorest people around the world.  It is also a problem about which the U.S. Congress has done nothing for twenty years: human-induced climate change.
While the US focuses on the Gulf tragedy, climate change causing greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at ever more dangerous rates. This past week the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that  by the end of May atmospheric concentrations of the chief greenhouse gas CO2 had reached an all-time high for at least 2.1 million years, 392.94 parts per million (ppm).
NOAA also announced that May continued a streak that is making this year, 2010, the hottest year on record so far from January through the end of May.  Globally the May temperatures was 0.99°F above the 20th century average of 61.3° making it the hottest May on record.
As the globe has been experiencing record heat during the spring of 2010, floodwaters that have been predicted by climate change science are wreaking havoc in many world-wide locations.  Disastrous flooding was experienced this spring in France where flash floods hit the back hills of the French Riviera and turned streets into rivers of surging, muddy water. The death toll from the flooding has risen to 25. In Myanmar and Bangladesh, floods and landslides triggered by incessant monsoon rains have killed more than 100 people. China has also experienced devastating flooding this year as well as Brazil. In the United States, flooding in Texas, Nebraska and Wyoming has caused massive damage to farms and homes. Although science can’t say that all of these flooding events are directly attributable to human-causation, this type of extreme flooding is predicted by climate change science [and human-caused warming tends to make deluges worse].
Climate change not only threatens more people, animals, and ecological systems around  the world than the Gulf spill; it promises to be a problem that will continually wreck havoc for centuries while harming  the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people with drought, floods, killer storms, rising sea levels, and vector borne disease.
BP may shut down the oil gusher in the Gulf by the end of the summer, yet the harms from human-induced climate change will likely plague the world for centuries. While the threat from the BP gusher to the wild life in the Gulf is huge, the threat to people, animals, and ecological systems from climate change is much larger.
While it is proving difficult to shut down the oil flow from the Deepwater Horizon site, the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to prevent dangerous climate change is truly civilization challenging.  This is so because the world will need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 80% or greater by the middle of  this century to prevent catastrophic climate change as greenhouse gas emissions increase world wide increase at 2% per year under current trends.
Yet, some of the members of the U.S. Congress that are outraged at BP have been resisting meaningful action on climate change. In fact the U.S. Congress has been a barrier to responsible U.S. climate change action since the early 1990s.
There are a few things in common about the Gulf spill and climate change.  One lesson of the Gulf oil spill that is an ominous warning about climate change is that the Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrates that what are often initially believed to be low probability, catastrophic impacts do happen.
Although even more optimistic predictions of climate change impacts are disastrous for some of the world’s most vulnerable people, the upper end of possible human-induced temperature increases in this Century of 9 to 16 F will be catastrophic and perhaps unimaginable for the world.
Also, some of the U.S. Congressmen who have consistently fought stronger government climate change action have also promoted rapid expansion of deep sea oil drilling. It is also no mere coincidence that most of these Congressmen are also from oil states and  are the greatest recipients of  fossil-fuel industry political contributions.
Although the BP oil spill seriously threatens those who live along the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. intransigence on climate change threatens the entire world; a fact that is causing rising anger around the world. Yet the U.S. Congress continues to resist action on climate change on the basis that it will harm some U.S. economic interests, while ignoring our duties, responsibilities, and obligations to others to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to the U.S. fair share of safe global releases.  For this reason, while the BP oil spill can be rightfully be understood as a disaster, U.S. Congressional inaction on climate change must be understood as a huge moral failure leading to an even greater disaster.
– Donald A. Brown

Dems On Energy Package:

 Lots of Enthusiasm, Few Actual Details

— By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Jun. 24, 2010 12:36 PM PDT

Senate Democrats emerged from today's caucus meeting with little in the way of clarity on what their energy package might look like. But they were determined, however, to use the issue as a bludgeon against Republicans.
Senators described a meeting in which caucus members were united in enthusiasm for passing an energy package, but they also said not many specifics were discussed. John Kerry (D-Mass.) described the meeting as "inspirational." Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said it was "an uprising of rank and file members of the caucus." "A number of senators said this was the best caucus they've ever attended," said Majority Leader Harry Reid. But no one could say exactly what a package would look like on energy, climate, or the oil spill.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has been critical of leadership for advancing weak bills on this subject, said that specifics on climate provisions "wasn't what was really talked about today." Kerry indicated, however, that there was agreement that the Senate should act on cutting carbon before the EPA begins regulating it next year. Senators still expect to debate the package following the July 4 recess.
"We’re determined to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that we think is reasonable, makes sense, and that will help Americans be able to grab ahold of the future," Kerry said. As for what that bill will be? "You'll have to see what we come to the floor with," Kerry said.
There was unanimity, though, to "make sure we are united in a message to the public that even if we lose, we carry a message that has meaning," said Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Sanders also echoed the idea that this could be more of a message vote than anything else next month. "If you're strong and you're clear and you win the support of the American people, there are Americans who are Republicans as well, and they are going to put pressure on Republicans as well," said Sanders.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it was "too soon" to know what the package would look like. So in short, not a whole lot of updates on the package yet coming out of today's caucus meeting.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• 
  
  

  Climate Outlook: Still Cloudy

• 
  
  

  Coming Soon: Dems Climate and Energy Plan

• 
  
  

  Will Climate Legislation Get Shoved Aside Again?

Lifestyles of the Rich and Fossil Fueled

Thu Jun. 24, 2010 12:01 PM PDT

While oil continued to pour onto the shores of Louisiana, Tony Hayward spent the weekend at a yacht race around the Isle of Wight. You can't make this stuff up, so maybe it's time we gave Mr. Hayward his own reality TV show: Lifestyles of the Rich and Fossil Fueled.
This cartoon requires Macromedia's Flash Player. If you don't see the cartoon above, download the player here.
Mark Fiore is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist and animator whose work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, and dozens of other publications. He is an active member of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, and has a website featuring his work.

BP Oil Spill: Israel's Revenge?

On April 19th, Obama dissed Israel. The next day, the Deepwater blew. Coincidence? WorldNetDaily thinks not.

By Stephanie Mencimer | Thu Jun. 24, 2010 7:54 AM PDT

---

The ever-entertaining WorldNetDaily has a breaking exclusive [1] this morning suggesting that President Obama may have caused the BP oil spill by dissing Israel. Quoting the Biblical prophecies of Carl Gallups, a talk-radio host and Baptist pastor in Florida, WND reports:

April the 19th, Israel celebrates its independence in 2010," Gallups says in narration on the video. "On April the 19th, Fox News reports that the U.S. will no longer automatically support Israel in the United Nations. The next day, on April the 20th, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explodes. Coincidence? Or the hand and judgment of God?"

WND notes seriously that Gallups isn't the only expert who thinks that America might be "under a curse from God." Referring to the Gulf spill (which Gallups claims could eventually reach all the way to Europe), the 80-year-old "Biblical expert" and Christian Zionist Hal Lindsey [2]tells WND, "I believe this is evidence that when you turn your back on Israel, especially when you've been a supporter, you're gonna see judgments come from God."
Gallups and Lindsey are clearly not the first to suggest that the oil spill was indirectly caused by the Obama administration rather than say, oil company incompetence. The environmental disaster has spawned all sorts of conspiracy theories [3]. Rush Limbaugh famously blamed environmentalists for causing the spill as part of their campaign to end deepwater oil drilling. There are rumblings that BP blew up the well itself [4]. No doubt some religious homophobes have found a way to blame gays for the oil spill. And of course, all of this was predicted in Revelations [5], a section of the Bible Gallups seems to have overlooked in his focus on Genesis and its support for Israel.
But it's always interesting to hear this kind of stuff coming from WND. The conservative news site does tend to run lots of stories like "European Antichrist Looking More and More Unlikely" alongside its attempts to prove that Obama is not an American citizen [6]. But unlike Limbaugh or the other BP conspiracy theorists out there, WND actually claims to be a legitimate news outle [7]t and the largest English-language Internet news site in the world. It even has a White House correspondent [8].
In any event, those interested in seeing the oil spill prediction map that has oil washing up on the beaches of France along with a tutorial on the Jewish calendar can watch the Gallups video here. If nothing else, it's good for a giggle:

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for June 24, 2010

Thu Jun. 24, 2010 2:03 AM PDT

 

Members of the Provincial Reconstruction Team from Forward Operating Base Finley Shield walk through a construction site to ensure building is on schedule near Jalalabad city in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, on June 10. Photo via the US Army photo by Spc. David Jackson.

GOP: generic optimism over poll

Republicans must be giddy over the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Thanks to the BP oil spill in the gulf, the administration’s problems getting a public handle on the disaster and the stubborn economy, President Obama’s job approval rating dropped from 50 percent last month to 45 percent now. His disapproval rating is now 48 percent. To make matters worse, 60 percent of those polled say the nation is on the wrong track.
Republicans surely are smiling over who poll respondents said they wanted ruling Congress after the November midterms. For the second survey in a row the GOP came out on top. They were favored 45 to 43 over Democrats. But that's such a cheap thrill. Of course Democrats are getting a polling beat-down on that generic question. This result says more about what the Democrats ARE doing than it does about what the Republicans WOULD do.
I’ve written plenty about the dearth of ideas from the GOP. And I’ve complained about its reliance on gimmicks. YouCut -- where we the people get to vote on which wasteful programs to eliminate -- is the latest example from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Meanwhile, the one fella in the bunch who’s had the guts to make tough choices, commit them to paper and try to sell them -- Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and the Road Map for America’s Future -- is virtually ignored.
I can understand why the Republican leadership won’t touch it. Many of the ideas are draconian and would be wildly unpopular. But they are real ideas that the American people could compare and contrast with the governing ideas of the Democrats. If that were to happen, it’s guaranteed that the preference for a GOP-controlled Congress would diminish greatly.

By Jonathan Capehart  |  June 24, 2010; 4:03 PM ET

USA World Cup Goal: Amazing Reactions To Landon Donovan Game-Winner (VIDEOS)

First Posted: 06-24-10 08:48 AM   |   Updated: 06-24-10 09:16
AM

The United States advanced to the World Cup knockout stage in the most dramatic fashion possible on Wednesday, scoring an epic goal in extra time for a stunning victory. Viewers nationwide were treated to a sensational scene, and the reactions at some locations were overwhelming. Scroll down for video of fans watching the shocking goal around the country. Which one is best?

Video: John Birch Society president visits Arizona, says all kinds of stuff

 Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:55 PM EDTBy Laura Conaway


Untitled from Craig Burgener on Vimeo.

Oh, you are so good to us! We asked if someone could please go to the John Birch Society president's speech on immigration in Mesa, Arizona, and send video. And you did! @tiggrr1 showed up at the Burke Basic School on Tuesday -- "tickets $7 at the door" -- and brought back two clips of JBS president John McManus.
"I salute the state of Arizona for taking matters into your own hands," McManus told the crowd before citing statistics from the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform. He warned of tax-payer funded professors pushing the idea that border states should leave the union -- not the Texas secession way, either. McManus:

"These movements are very well attended. They have a lot of steam behind them. They mean business. And what they intend is to have part of our country go back to Mexico."

After the jump, McManus talks socialism -- and, I think, calls President George W. Bush a socialist.

---

McManus in Mesa:

Our country is being brought into socialism. The man who's in the White House is a socialist. His predecessors were partly socialist, or quasi-socialist, or more like socialists than they were constitutional Americans.

Who does he mean by President Obama's predecessors? Does he mean President Bush, or Presidents Bush and Clinton, or ..



And my favorite part:

"Legal immigrant growth is also changing America. We have people coming here who don't want to assimilate. They become citizens, they still don't want to assimilate. They want to be taught in their language. There are dozens of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles County. Dozens!"

The outrage! The horror! Que onda, guero?

Gutierrez: 'insufficient number of Democrats' to pass immigration reform

By Molly K. Hooper - 06/24/10 02:21 PM ET

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) admitted Thursday that “there are an insufficient number of Democrats” to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year.

But he said he holds out hope it will happen anyway.

At a press conference to tout that 102 lawmakers have signed onto his reform measure, Gutierrez exclaimed that they don’t have the votes yet but are closer than he would have expected.

“There are an insufficient number of Democratic votes to pass this in the Senate or in the House. I’ve said it. There are an insufficient number. We are 102 strong, we are 102 commitment, but we are insufficient,” Gutierrez said.

He still believes there is time to make it happen, though, but not until September, after the Senate deals with the Supreme Court confirmation of Elena Kagan.

“Things have improved. We are making movement within the Senate. The community groups are advocating and organizing and we see the new energy, precisely because of Arizona and the urgency,” of Arizona’s controversial new immigration laws, Gutierrez explained.

The passionate Chicago-area crusader for immigration reform noted that Speaker Pelosi told his caucus that the House won’t move on the hot-button issue until the Senate acts.

Gutierrez commended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for engaging in an serious effort to move the controversial piece of legislation through the Senate in short order.

“I know that the majority leader has been very, very good. He’s been meeting with other trying to find a vehicle to move this forward in the Senate. He’s made a commitment to do that, and I believe he’s doing everything he can to keep that commitment,” Gutierrez said, adding that “it doesn’t make it easy when people like” GOP Senators Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) ditch the effort.

Both GOP senators have insisted that implementing comprehensive immigration reform remain contingent on securing America’s borders.

Engineers uncap broken oil well in Gulf of Mexico

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Engineers had to completely uncap the broken oil well spewing into the Gulf of Mexico Wednesday after an undersea robot bumped into machinery being used to collect the spilled fuel. Hundreds of thousands of gallons more poured into the water as crews scrambled to replace a critical component.

The mishap left nothing to stem the flow of oil at its source. A camera recording the well showed huge clouds of black fluid coming out of the sea floor. It was not clear how long workers would need to replace the cap, which took weeks to install.

Bob Dudley, the managing director of BP who is taking over the spill response, said engineers expected to replace the cap in less than a day.

"It's a disruption, and the crew again did exactly the right thing because they were concerned about safety," he said. "It's a setback, and now we will go back into operation and show how this technology can work."

Without the cap, the only means of collecting the oil was a ship at the surface that is sucking up oil and burning it.

The problem, yet another in the nine-week effort to stop the gusher, came as thick pools of oil washed up on Pensacola Beach in Florida, and the Obama administration sought to resurrect a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

The current worst-case estimate of what's spewing into the Gulf is about 2.5 million gallons a day. Anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons have spilled since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 workers and blew out the well 5,000 feet underwater. BP PLC was leasing the rig from owner Transocean Ltd.

When the robot bumped into the equipment just before 10 a.m., gas rose through a vent that carries warm water down to prevent ice-like crystals from forming in the machinery, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said.

Crews were checking to see if the crystals called hydrates had formed before attempting to put the cap back on.

Ed Overton, a professor emeritus of environmental science at Louisiana State University, said he suspects crews are pumping air into the line to flush out any water before they try to reattach the cap. He speculated doing so would take less than two days.

"I certainly would be surprised if it took any longer than that," he said. "It sounds pretty easy and straightforward, but nothing is easy and straightforward when you're doing it remotely from a mile away."

Before the problem arose, the containment cap had collected about 700,000 gallons of oil in 24 hours and sucked it up to a ship on the surface. All of that oil - about 29,000 gallons an hour - is now gushing into the Gulf again.

Another 438,000 gallons was burned on the surface by the other system that was not affected by the cap problem. BP is also developing a system to pull oil up to a second ship that should be in place by the end of the month, Nicholas said.

"Today we learned that the containment system was damaged and had to be removed, leaving the well totally uncapped and gushing oil into the Gulf once again," said Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana. "This is obviously a very disappointing development in a long line of setbacks, and Louisianians are frankly tired of excuses from the government and BP."

In May, a similar problem with a cap doomed the effort to put a bigger containment device over the blown-out well. BP had to abandon the four-story box after the crystals clogged it, threatening to make it float away.

The smaller cap, which had worked fine until now, had been in place since June 4. To get it there, though, crews had to slice away a section of the leaking pipe, meaning the flow of oil could be stronger now than before.

In Florida, thick pools of oil washed up along miles of national park and Pensacola Beach shoreline as health advisories against swimming and fishing in the once-pristine waters were extended for 33 miles east from the Alabama/Florida border.

"It's pretty ugly, there's no question about it," Gov. Charlie Crist said.

The oil had a chemical stench as it baked in the afternoon heat. The beach looked as if it had been paved with a 6-foot-wide ribbon of asphalt, much different from the tar balls that washed up two weeks earlier.

"This used to be a place where you could come and forget about all your cares in the world," said Nancy Berry, who fought back tears as she watched her two grandsons play in the sand far from the shore.

Park rangers in the Gulf Islands National Seashore helped to rescue an oily young dolphin found beached in the sand.

Ranger Bobbie Visnovske said a family found the dolphin Wednesday, and wildlife officers carried it into shallow water for immediate resuscitation. They later transported it to a rehabilitation center in Panama City, about 100 miles to the east.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration was plotting its next steps after U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans overturned a moratorium on new drilling, saying the government simply assumed that because one rig exploded, the others pose an imminent danger, too.

Feldman, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, including owning less than $15,000 of Transocean stock, according to financial disclosure reports for 2008, the most recent available. He did not return calls seeking more information about his investments.

The White House promised an immediate appeal of his ruling. The Interior Department imposed the moratorium last month in the wake of the BP disaster, halting approval of any new permits for deepwater projects and suspending drilling on 33 exploratory wells.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement that within the next few days he would issue a new order imposing a moratorium that eliminates any doubt it is needed and appropriate.

"It's important that we don't move forward with new drilling until we know it can be done in a safe way," he told a Senate subcommittee Wednesday.

Several companies, including Shell and Marathon Oil, said they would await the outcome of any appeals before they start drilling again.

Asked about it Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show, BP Managing Director Bob Dudley said his company will "step back" from the issue while it investigates the rig explosion.

BP said Wednesday that Dudley has been appointed to head the new Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, which is in charge of cleaning up the spill. He takes over from BP CEO Tony Hayward, who has been widely criticized for his handling of the crisis.

In Florida, dozens of workers used shovels to scoop up pools of oil that washed up overnight, turning the sand orange.

Tar balls have been reported as far east as Panama City, Fla., and heavier oil is predicted to wash ashore further east along the coast line in the coming days. Oil has also washed up on beaches in Alabama and coated wetlands in Louisiana.

---

Associated Press writers Lisa Leff in New Orleans, Curt Anderson in Miami, Melissa Nelson in Pensacola, Fla., and Harry R. Weber in Atlanta contributed to this report.

'Stars and Stripes' on McChrystal: 'BOOTED'

This is what our troops will see tomorrow morning in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I wonder what they think of the change in command

From NBC's Courtney Kube
Another screaming Stars and Stripes, a U.S. military newspaper, headline will greet troops in Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow morning:
"BOOTED: Obama relieves McChrystal of command; Petraeus to take over."
Stars and Stripes is the primary source of news for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the paper's Senior Managing Editor Howard Witt.
The circulation is about 90,000, about 80 percent of which goes to troops on the frontlines in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Petraeus takes over for ousted McChrystal in Afghanistan

By Jeff Schogol

Stars and Stripes

Published: June 23, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of the U.S. and NATO war effort in Afghanistan on Wednesday, replacing him with Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the turnaround in Iraq.

The dramatic Rose Garden announcement came less than 48 hours after Rolling Stone published a stunning profile of McChrystal in which he and his aides were quoted making disparaging comments about top Obama administration officials.

Obama said his decision to replace McChrystal was difficult and not based on policy differences or a “personal insult.”

“But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private a general or a president, and as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for our national security,” Obama said.

Obama said he was particularly troubled by the disrespect displayed in the article.

“The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general,” he said. “It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic sytem. And it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.”

McChrystal issued a statement on Wednesday announcing his resignation.

“I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people,” McChrystal said. “It was out of respect for this commitment — and a desire to see the mission succeed — that I tendered my resignation.

“It has been my privilege and honor to lead our nation’s finest.”

Obama summoned McChrystal to the White House for a one-on-one meeting earlier Wednesday, and McChrystal was seen leaving shortly before the president convened a meeting of his war council.

Petraeus is currently head of U.S. Central Command. Obama urged the Senate to confirm him in his new position as quickly as possible.

Petraeus helped write the Army’s field manual on counterinsurgency and then became commander of U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq during the surge in 2007 and 2008.

He is credited with changing the U.S. strategy in Iraq from transferring security to Iraqi troops and police as quickly as possible to protecting the Iraqi population. That approach called for troops to leave their heavily fortified bases and live at smaller outposts closer to Iraqi population centers.

The change in direction, combined with efforts to peel off disenchanted Sunnis from the insurgency and incorporate them into neighborhood watch groups under the “Sons of Iraq” umbrella, led to relative stability by the time Petraeus left Iraq.

At Strongpoint Belanday, a small outpost about six miles southwest of Kandahar, troops with 1st Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment called Petraeus’ selection a smart choice.

“I understand that if you win the population, you win the hearts and minds and you stop terrorism,” said Cpl. Brian Baumgardner, 24, as he took a break from working out. “But our influence is limited. We’re not out there in the villages 24/7 ...

“I think McChrystal’s approach was a good approach, but it was too soft,” he added. “We were all under [Petraeus’] command in Iraq, and we got the job completed.”

But Staff Sgt. Sterlin Richardson, 31, of Brooklyn, N.Y., said he believes there will be little change in focus for U.S. forces.

“Personally, I think either way, the mission is going to stay the same,” said Richardson, a 12-year veteran. “Logically, if a plan is in place and working, it makes little sense to change it. A lot of people, although they didn’t like [McChrystal’s approach], understood that it’s working. I think it’s going to be too much to change.”

In the Rolling Stone story, McChrystal said he felt betrayed when a cable was leaked to the press in which the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan urged that no more troops be sent there.

The most disrespectful comments come from several unnamed McChrystal aides, who nicknamed Vice President Joe Biden “Bite Me” and called National Security Advisor James Jones a “clown” who remains “stuck in 1985.”

One aide describes McChrystal’s strained relationship with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The Boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” the unidentified aide said. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”

Before returning to Washingotn, McChrystal issued a prompt apology over the article.

“I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war, and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome,” he said in a statement.

McChrystal has had a rocky relationship with the White House since he took command of U.S. and NATO forces after the Pentagon fired the previous commander, Gen. David McKiernan.

McChrystal was suspected in playing a role in last year’s leak of his assessment of the Afghanistan war, in which he said he needed more troops to avoid defeat.

He was also summoned to Air Force One to be chewed out by Obama last fall after ridiculing Biden’s idea of relying more on special operations forces and unmanned aircraft to kill terrorists, saying it would lead to “Chaos-istan.” Stars and Stripes reporter Drew Brown contributed to this report from Afghanistan.

We're Still at War:

Photo of the Day for October 19, 2009

This is my B-day and I want to see what the picture is this year

Mon Oct. 19, 2009 4:01 AM PDT

The battleship USS Missouri (BB 63) arrives at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on October 14, 2009 to begin a three-month, $18 million effort of extensive maintenance and preservation work. Missouri is the last battleship made by the U.S., and was the site of Japan's unconditional surrender ending World War II. (US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Mark Logico.)

Sacked McChrystal once thought indispensible

By Kevin Baron

Stars and Stripes

Published: June 23, 2010

ARLINGTON, Va. — When President Barack Obama fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday, he relieved the Afghanistan war commander once considered by the Pentagon as uniquely qualified and indispensable in leading the U.S. effort to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida.

“I did so with considerable regret but also with certainty that it’s the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military, and for our country,” Obama said in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.

“His conduct … does not meet the standard set by a commanding general.”

Obama insisted the decision was not about McChrystal’s abilities or the counterinsurgency strategy, and called the ousted general “one of our nation’s finest soldiers.”

“But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president,” Obama said.

McChrystal said in a statement: “I strongly support the President’s strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this commitment -- and a desire to see the mission succeed -- that I tendered my resignation.”

In his place, Gen. David Petraeus, the globally known head of the U.S. Central Command, will take over the war effort. Petraeus stood at Obama’s side during the announcement but did not speak.

In a little more than a year in command, the White House stood by McChrystal through several media gaffes while security across Afghanistan, especially in key Taliban strongholds in the south, has not improved as rapidly as expected.

But McChrystal could not overcome a stunning Rolling Stone article surfacing Monday in which he and his closest advisers disparaged nearly every high-ranking administration official involved in the Pakistan-Afghanistan war effort -– including the commander in chief, the vice president and the national security advisor -– while drinking at a Paris bar.

The episode marks the fourth occasion, and the third in a little more than one year, in which McChrystal has caused media controversy for the White House.

The dismissal also delivers a blow to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who fired then-commander Gen. David McKiernan and handpicked McChrystal in May 2008 to lead the Obama administration’s renewed counterinsurgency focus on Afghanistan.

Billed as the next “Mr. Counterinsurgency” by a slew of pundits and observers, McChrystal was touted by the Pentagon as qualified like none other for the role. A West Point graduate and infantryman, McChrystal rose to be vice director of the Joint Staff in Washington. He then was commanding general of Joint Special Operations Command, at Fort Bragg, N.C., before returning to the inner circle of top Pentagon brass as director of the Joint Staff.

The only blip on his resume was his role as commander of the unit that tried to cover up the cause of death of Pat Tillman, the NFL player-turned-soldier who was gunned down by friendly fire. McChrystal signed the Silver Star citation that said Tillman was killed by enemy fire, only to send a memo up the chain the next day saying he may have died by friendly forces. McChrystal later acknowledged he suspected the truth days before signing the citation.

Last summer, McChrystal then led a 60-day strategy review of the war. But Gates held the report on his desk when it arrived at the Pentagon in September, sparking early speculation the White House was having reservations about McChrystal and his plan.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that any speculation that McChrystal might retire over the hesitation was “absurd.”

“I mean, this guy is a pro,” Morrell said, defending McChrystal as a “no-nonsense warfighter” uninterested in Washington bickering. “You give him a mission, give him a goal, give him the means to do it, he’ll do it. This is not about his feelings. This is about achieving a mission that is essential to the national security of this country.”

Yet, a three-month Cabinet debate over McChrystal’s proposal ensued, pitting the general’s wish for an escalation of troop levels against Vice President Joe Biden’s call for a scaled-down counterterrorism effort.

After a lifetime away from the limelight, the commander struggled in his public role as commanding NATO and U.S. forces. As White House and congressional leaders debated the way forward, McChrystal gave “60 Minutes” an interview in September that some in Washington grumbled was an attempt to usurp the process and embolded his chances.

Later that month, speaking at a London think tank panel, McChrystal was asked about the Biden option, saying, “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a shortsighted strategy.”

That caused Obama to summon McChrystal aboard Air Force One for a private man-to-man talk.

Ultimately, Obama endorsed McChrystal’s middle path for increasing U.S. troop levels by 30,000 –- not as many as the largest option but nonetheless committing to a full-blown counterinsurgency campaign the White House said the previous administration had never attempted.

“I think kudos to the president for salvaging what was on the face an unsalvageable situation,” said Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations fellow for national security studies.

Boot said it was “ridiculously premature” to claim McChrystal’s dismissal was a referendum on his execution of counterinsurgency.

“He shot himself in the foot and took himself off the battlefield,” Boot said. “I don’t think McChrystal is being kicked out because his war effort is failing. He didn’t show the maturity and judgment to operate at the highest level.”

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for June 23, 2010

Wed Jun. 23, 2010 2:00 AM PDT

 

US Army Sgt. John Russell from Amelia, Va., gives a small child medical care, on June 9, in Loger province, Afghanistan. Russell is assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for June 22, 2010

Mon Jun. 21, 2010 11:59 PM PDT

 

US Army soldiers participate in a 2.35-mile run to celebrate the U.S. Army's 235th birthday on Forward Operating Base Farah, Afghanistan, on June 14, 2010. The Soldiers are assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division's Headquarters Troop, 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team. Photo via the US Army by Senior Airman Rylan Albright.

We're Still at War:

 Photo of the Day for June 21, 2010

Sun Jun. 20, 2010 11:43 PM PDT

 

US soldiers walk near a historic castle with members of the Kuchi tribe residing in the Bawka district in Farah province, Afghanistan, on June 12, 2010. Photo via the US Air Force by Senior Airman Rylan Albright.

Barton tweets out 'Joe Barton was right'

By Michael O'Brien - 06/23/10 11:35 AM ET

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) promoted an article on Wednesday on his official Twitter account by a writer who backed his criticism of the government's handling of BP.

Barton's office posted a letter to the editor from the conservative American Spectator magazine suggesting "Joe Barton Was Right" in his criticism of the government's decision to force BP to set up a $20 billion fund to pay out damages to victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Barton tweeted Wednesday:

Joe Barton Was Right http://amplify.com/u/75gf

The tweet would seem to suggest that Barton's office is promoting an article supporting his controversial remark.
Barton's account deleted the tweet shortly afterward.


Barton's communications director, Sean Brown, acknowledged posting the tweet on Wednesday. He said Barton was unaware of the tweet.

"Without thinking about it much, I added a headline from one of the daily news clips to a website that is, in turn, linked to the congressman’s Twitter account," he said. "I won’t be doing that again."
The Texas Republican was spared by fellow GOP lawmakers from having to step down from his position as ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this morning. Some Republicans had called for Barton's ouster from that position after his apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a hearing last week that gave Democrats an opening to attack the GOP over its posture toward the oil spill.

Democrats expressed glee this morning over the GOP's decision to allow Barton to keep his spot.

"Excellent! Expect More of this from us," Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse wrote in an e-mail, referring to the ads the DNC has put out this week hammering away at Barton and the GOP.

Barton's office also sent out a series of articles on him keeping that spot, and attacking Democrats on taxes and budgetary issues.


MOTHER JONES

Did Barton Just Unapologize?

— By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Jun. 23, 2010 9:29 AM PDT

Which is more ridiculous: Republicans pardoning Joe Barton's apology to BP last week and letting him keep his prized seat as Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, or Barton taking to Twitter this morning to validate himself in the third person?
Barton's feed linked to this piece, titled "Joe Barton Was Right," which Barton posted to his page on the social networking site Amplify. That post reprints a portion of an American Spectator piece on the same subject.
The real question though, is what this says about Barton's apology for the apology last week. Which one did he actually mean to offer?
UPDATE: Now it looks like Barton deleted the Tweet. Good thing David Weigel got a screen shot. Does this mean he's apologizing for un-apologizing?

Afghanistan's 15 Minutes of Fame?

— By Suzy Khimm

| Wed Jun. 23, 2010 8:00 AM PDT

Whether or not Obama decides to sack General McChrystal today, the president is unlikely to use the opportunity to change the overall course of his Afghanistan strategy. None of the sniping and lockerroom insults captured in the Rolling Stone piece questioned the tactics or resources that Obama has dedicated to the war. And the counterinsurgency approach that Obama has embraced in the country has basically been what McChrystal has wanted all along. And the administration is unlikely to reconsider its basic plan—an increase of 30,000 new troops until July 2011, when Afghan security forces are supposed to start taking over.
But maybe now really is the time to be asking the tough questions about how Obama’s war is going—and what both civilian and military commanders could be doing better. It certainly hasn’t been smooth sailing over the last few months, as Spencer Ackerman explains:

The past two months in Afghanistan have been brutal. Since returning from a Washington summit with Obama, President Hamid Karzai acrimoniously parted ways with two of his top security officials, men trusted by the U.S. who believe Karzai’s attempts at outreach to the Taliban to bring the war to a close represent capitulation. A United Nations report released this weekend documented a rise in violence in southern Afghanistan ahead of a crucial attempt at pushing the Taliban out of Kandahar, the south’s most populous city.
McChrystal had to slow down his push to provide what he calls a “rising tide” of security for Kandahar in order to secure buy-in from residents, as Karzai pledged his support for the operation at a mostly supportive local shura only last Sunday.What remains unclear from any Kandahar planning is the effect even a successful operation will have on the overall strength of al-Qaeda’s allies in Afghanistan — and al-Qaeda itself, across the border in Pakistan.

Thomas Friedman also has a blistering column today, accusing Obama of failing to answer basic questions about the surge:

If our strategy is to use U.S. forces to clear the Taliban and help the Afghans put in place a decent government so they can hold what is cleared, how can that be done when President Hamid Karzai, our principal ally, openly stole the election and we looked the other way? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the administration told us not to worry: Karzai would have won anyway; he’s the best we’ve got; she knew how to deal with him and he would come around. Well, I hope that happens. But my gut tells me that when you don’t call things by their real name, you get in trouble. Karzai stole the election, and we said: No problem, we’re going to build good governance on the back of the Kabul mafia.

The McChrystal flap has already ignited more news coverage and punditry about the US strategy in Afghanistan than we’ve seen in many, many months. (“This morning everyone in Washington everyone is a war correspondent,” tweeted Slate’s John Dickerson as the Rolling Stone article was first making the rounds.) I suspect that the attention will be fleeting, given the increasing brevity of the news cycle (remember Elena Kagan?) and lawmakers' own interest in keeping the focus on the economy and domestic issues in a tough election year. But the war effort could certainly benefit from the heightened scrutiny and demand for accountability that we've seen in the last 24 hours. Wishful thinking, perhaps?
Update: All the major news networks are reporting that McChrystal has been relieved of his command and will be replaced by General David Petraeus, who is currently heading up US Central Command.

Winners and Losers: South Carolina, North Carolina Utah primaries/runoffs

The primaries and runoff Tuesday night provided few major surprises -- state Rep. Nikki Haley cruised to the Republican gubernatorial nomination, South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis (R) lost and North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall emerged as the Democratic Senate nominee -- but voters still produced their fair share of winners and losers.
As always at the Fix, we like to go beyond the obvious to bring you, dear reader, the inside dope -- the things that the chattering class are talking about in the wake of yesterday's primaries and runoffs.
Without further ado, our winners and losers from the night that was are below. Have some of your own? The comments section awaits.
WINNERS
Club for Growth: Has any outside group had a better election cycle than the Club? On Tuesday, South Carolina state Reps. Tim Scott (in the 1st district) and Jeff Duncan (in the 3rd) -- both of whom the Club bundled tens of thousands for -- won contested Republicans runoffs. Those victories prove, yet again, that the Club's support -- in the form of bundled donations and spending on ads and direct mail -- matters in a real way in contested Republican primaries. "Welcome to Generation Club," said Chris Chocola, the group's president, in a release this morning touting its successes.

Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor smartly waded into the South Carolina governor's race on Haley's behalf several months ago and used his state political action committee to funnel $42,000 to her campaign. Romney's endorsement made logical sense -- Haley had backed him during his 2008 presidential primary race in South Carolina -- and gave him a foothold in a state he needs to win in 2012 in order to be the nominee. Romney didn't get a totally clean 2012 win as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also endorsed Haley during the primary. But, the Haley endorsement is another example of the political savvy of Romney and his team as 2012 approaches.

Michael Steele: The victories of Haley, who is Indian American, and Scott, who is black, represent major building blocks in Republicans' efforts to add diversity to the party and, in so doing, expand the possible voter pool heading into 2012. While there is real debate within the GOP about how much credit Steele, the first African American chairman of the Republican National Committee, deserves for the GOP's newfound diversity -- lots of insiders credit former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman for his aggressive outreach to minority candidates and communities -- it's likely that he will get the lion's share of kudos for the elevation of new faces like Haley and Scott.

Thomas Mills: Marshall's lead consultant in North Carolina, Mills insisted that Washington -- and the Fix! -- was fundamentally misreading the race and that his candidate was going to win the primary and runoff easily. He was right. But, can he make Marshall into a viable general election candidate against Sen. Richard Burr (R)?.

Fritz Hollings: The former South Carolina Democratic Senator ran against Inglis in a very nasty 1998 Senate race in which he referred to the Republican as, among other things, a "goddamn skunk" and a "rascal". Inglis' crushing loss for re-nomination had to bring a smile to Hollings' face.

LOSERS
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: Sensing opportunity against Sen. Richard Burr (R), the DSCC recruited former state Sen. Cal Cunningham into the race and channeled nearly $200,000 in coordinated cash to him during the primary. That Cunningham lost as badly as he did -- 60 percent to 40 percent -- suggests that Marshall was a tougher candidate to beat than national Democrats assumed. Cunningham also was not nearly the candidate(or fundraiser) that many at the national level expected him to be. The problem for Democrats now? They now have to sell a candidate in Marshall that political insiders know they didn't believe was their best choice this fall against Burr. Can it be done? Absolutely. Voters don't pay much attention to the sort of palace intrigue that captivates insiders.

TARP: Voting for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008 seemed like a no-brainer for most Republicans. But, it has rapidly become the equivalent of the use of force resolution against Iraq on the Democratic side -- a vote regarded as a litmus test by the party base. Two more TARP backers -- Inglis and Rep. Gresham Barrett -- fell last night in South Carolina as their opponents hung that TARP vote around their necks. Other TARP-supporters facing Republican primary fights in the coming months: Arizona Sen. John McCain and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Both primaries are Aug. 24.

Tim D'Annunzio: Rarely have we seen such a public implosion by a candidate as we witness in North Carolina's 8th district race by D'Annunzio. He spent more than $1 million of his money on the race and finished first in a crowded May 4 primary for the right to take on freshman Rep. Larry Kissell (D). Then it all went wrong. D'Annunzio got into a public spat with a talk radio host, a clash that ended with the candidate telling the man "there is a special place in hell for people like you." Less than a week before the runoff, D'Annunzio told the Charlotte Observer that it would take a "miracle" for him to win the race. Um, wow.

Political junkies: With the conclusion of the primaries and runoffs last night, the long dark tea time of our collective souls has begun. Between now and Aug. 3, only two states -- Georgia and Oklahoma -- hold primary contests. It's going to be a long few weeks but if we all stick together we can make it through. This too shall pass.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 23, 2010; 11:00 AM ET

Nikki Haley's star rises

1.Nikki Haley's star rises1. South Carolina state Rep. Nikki Haley's easy victory in the state's gubernatorial runoff Tuesday is sure to establish her as the newest rising star in the GOP ranks and a coveted 2012 endorser.

Not only does Haley look different than the stereotypical Republican -- she is an Indian-American woman -- but she is also the favorite to be the next governor of a state that will play a very large role in selecting the 2012 presidential nominee.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a near-certain candidate for that office, was quick to praise Haley, who he had endorsed earlier this year and who has endorsed his 2008 presidential campaign as well. "Against the longest of odds, Nikki Haley took on the political establishment and won," said Romney.

(Romney also announced endorsements of Sen. Jim DeMint as well as state Sen. Mick Mulvaney who is running against Rep. John Spratt in the 5th district and state Rep. Tim Scott who is seeking the open 1st district.)

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, another likely 2012 candidate, told reporters Tuesday that he planned to donate to Haley's campaign from his Freedom First political action committee and has plans to be in South Carolina on June 29 and 30.

And, Haley, for her part, gave credit to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who not only endorsed her candidacy but came to the Haley's defense when allegations of martial infidelity emerged. "She gave us that boost we needed when we needed it," Haley said of Palin at her victory speech last night. ( Palin tweeted her congratulations to Haley.)

As for her own future on the national stage -- vice presidential pick, perhaps? -- Haley consultant Jon Lerner downplayed such talk. "Nikki Haley is a remarkable candidate and a remarkable person," he said. "She knows how to stay focused, and her focus will be on winning her general election and improving the lives of South Carolinians.

"Still, it's easy to see Haley -- whether she likes it or not -- winding up on some vice presidential long lists and maybe even a few short lists.
2. North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall's crushing defeat of former state Sen. Cal Cunningham in the Democratic primary race for Senate showed -- yet again -- that this is not a cycle to run as the establishment candidate.

Cunningham was recruited into the race by national Democrats who did not believe that Marshall represented the party's best chance against freshman Sen. Richard Burr (R) in the fall. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee funneled nearly $200,000 in coordinated funds to Cunningham but it proved to be for naught as Marshall's superior name identification and support from black leaders -- including third-place primary finisher Ken Lewis -- gave her a wide winning margin.

In the immediate aftermath of Cunningham's loss, the DSCC tried to circle the rhetorical wagons with Chairman Bob Menendez (N.J.) releasing a statement touting Marshall as a "proven reformer" and the committee's press shop sending out a PPP poll that showed Marshall trailing Burr by single digits.

Republicans are not likely to let voters forget that Democrats preferred someone other than Marshall as their nominee, however. While that won't likely make much difference to voters in the long run, it is certain to be a part of almost every story about the race in the next few days -- a fact that could slow any momentum Marshall might hope to enjoy from her win.

It's not yet clear whether the DSCC and White House will continue to make the argument that Marshall can beat Burr once the glow of the runoff disappears. Marshall is not a terribly strong fundraiser -- she has raised $846,000 for the race -- and would almost certainly need financial help from national Democrats to stay competitive with Burr in the fall.

Simple math may keep national Democrats interested. Aside from Louisiana and, maybe, Iowa, North Carolina represents one of the only states where a case can be made that a Republican incumbent could fall in the fall.
3. South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis turned in a historically bad performance in Tuesday's primary runoff, becoming the third Member of Congress to lose his bid for re-nomination this cycle.

Inglis lost to Spartanburg County prosecutor Trey Gowdy 71 percent to 29 percent. That was the one of the worst showings in several decades for an incumbent in a primary, according to political analyst and University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato. Sabato noted that one candidate in California took 21 percent in 1972.

Inglis' vote total was on-par with Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton who took 30 percent but still managed to win a five-way primary in May. Former Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) took 33 percent of the vote in his 2008 loss but that was in a five-candidate field. Another primary loser from last cycle, Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.), took 37 percent but that was in a six-candidate field. Inglis, of course, faced only one opponent.

And, Inglis barely improved his percentage in the runoff over his showing in the June 8 primary when he took 28 percent. That's tough to do, especially when roughly one-third of the vote was up for grabs after the primary and the third and fourth place finishers both hailed from Inglis' home base of Greenville.

Why did Inglis lose so badly?

His apostasy on major issues including the surge in Iraq (he opposed it) and, more recently and more importantly, his support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in late 2008, didn't sit well with conservative primary voters.
4. Seeking to blunt the impact of a recent independent poll that showed her trailing Weld County prosecutor Ken Buck badly, former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton's Senate campaign released its own poll Monday showing her ahead in the GOP primary by six points.

Norton's 39 percent to 33 percent margin in the  Public Opinion Strategies poll stands in stark contrast to the 53 percent to 37 percent edge Buck held in a Denver Post survey released this weekend.

Norton's campaign acknowledged, however, that it is banking on high turnout to help push her over the top against Buck in the Aug. 10 primary -- an odd admission given that primary turnout tends to be quite low. "This poll shows very clearly that the good news for Jane Norton is bad news for Ken Buck -- the more Republicans who vote, the bigger the lead Jane claims," Norton campaign manager Josh Penry said.

The Norton poll shows the more reliable primary voters -- those who have voted in previous primaries -- favored Buck 41 percent to 37 percent. Voters with no history of voting in primaries favor Norton 40 percent to 23 percent.

Buck appears to be the latest anti-establishment candidate -- following on the heels of Rand Paul and Sharron Angle -- in position to pull off an Senate primary upset that would have been unthinkable in many other election cycles.

Democrats have a primary of their own on Aug. 10 although the Denver Post poll showed Sen. Michael Bennet with a clear edge over former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
5. Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon (R) is facing a lawsuit from the widow of a wrestler who died in a 1999 incident although it remains unclear whether the development will be a game-changer in her open seat Senate race against Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Martha Hart, the widow of the late wrestler Owen Hart, is suing WWE and McMahon for using her husband's image after his death. Attorneys for McMahon contend that Martha Hart "does not have some exclusive right to the story of her husband.

"The lawsuit comes roughly a month after former Rep. Rob Simmons suspended but didn't end his campaign for the GOP nod. (Simmons' tactic appeared to be aimed at preserving a return to the ballot if McMahon imploded.). Businessman Peter Schiff (R), a huge longshot for the nomination, qualified for the primary ballot yesterday.

It also creates an opening for Blumenthal to steer the conversation in the race away from the controversy surrounding his characterization of his military record. (Although it's worth noting that Blumenthal, who led McMahon by 20 points in a Quinnipiac poll earlier this month, isn't exactly in dire need of help.)

Connecticut Democrats appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach to the lawsuit; both Blumenthal's campaign and the Connecticut Democratic Party have remained quiet on the issue thus far.With 

Aaron Blake and Felicia SonmezBy Chris Cillizza  |  June 23, 2010; 6:00 AM ET