The Republicans still don't realize that they LOST the election

When George W. Bush was president, the Republicans wanted swift capitulation by Democrats in confirming any nutjob that Bush wanted to put on the Federal bench. Now that a Democrat is in the White House, they're demanding veto power for themselves over all judicial nominees:

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.

The letter is couched in historical language, which notes that "our Democratic colleagues have emphasized [senate involvement in appointments] for several years" and "the principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington." But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship, saying they "look forward to working with" the president and that "the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious." However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." The public perception of the use of filibusters is perhaps reflected in this language of bipartisanship that insists upon senatorial courtesy "regardless of party affiliation." The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering.

The GOP's determination to oppose Obama's judicial appointments became clear a little more than a week after the 44th president was elected. As we reported back in November, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) pledged to get his colleagues onboard an aggressive filibuster campaign against what he termed "radical leftist" nominees he feared would come out of this new White House.

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

In fact, the recent past offers many instances in which conservatives attempted to shame Democrats into abandoning filibuster rights in judicial appointments. The "senatorial consultation" referred to in the letter, also known as the "advice and consent" clause in the Constitution, was argued by supporters of Bush to mean that the Senate's role was to confirm or deny appointees, not offer advice. For a comprehensive run-down on the hypocrisy of GOP lawmakers and activists regarding this argument, see this blog entry at Right Wing Watch

How much of this is the delusional nature of Republicans and how much is a response to Barack Obama's attempts at bipartisanship when Republicans sense any attempts at consensus as weakness is anyone's guess. But the sheer chutzpah that they continue to demonstrate is simply breathtaking.

In case you needed YET ANOTHER reason to avoid Wal-Mart

...especially if you have/use an American Express card. Because if you use your AmEx card at Wal-Mart, or at other businesses that your credit card company doesn't like, it can lower your credit score.

Yes, you heard me.


Shopping at Wal-Mart and other low-end businesses lowers your credit score:

In recent months, American Express has gone far beyond simply checking your credit score and making sure you pay on time. The company has been looking at home prices in your area, the type of mortgage lender you’re using and whether small-business card customers work in an industry under siege. It has also been looking at how you spend your money, searching for patterns or similarities to other customers who have trouble paying their bills.

In some instances, if it didn’t like what it was seeing, the company has cut customer credit lines. It laid out this logic in letters that infuriated many of the cardholders who received them. “Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped,” one of those letters said, “have a poor repayment history with American Express.”

It sure sounded as if American Express had developed a blacklist of merchants patronized by troubled cardholders. But late this week, American Express told me that wasn’t the case. The company said it had also decided to stop using what it has called “spending patterns” as a criteria in its credit line reductions.

“The letters were wrong to imply we were looking at specific merchants,” said Susan Korchak, a company spokeswoman. The company uses hundreds of data points in making its decisions, she said, adding that the main factor in determining credit lines “has always been and still is the overall level of debt, relative to the card member’s financial resources.”

The company will still have plenty of other data to judge your creditworthiness, though. American Express executives have spoken candidly to investors and analysts about its deep dives into your data.

It no longer matters if you pay your bills on time, or if you are careful with your credit cards. If you don't use your cards, your score is lowered. If you use your cards, your score is lowered. If you pay in full, your score is lowered. If you cary a balance, your score is lowered. Oh, and by the way? Don't cancel too many cards that you don't use at once. That's a red flag too.

(h/t)

Shooting the Messenger

Wow. Who knew that the reason for the financial collapse is not mismanagement at the top, but the media telling people too much about what they're doing. This from the Guardian (UK):

Now, as the world's biggest banks struggle to stay afloat, crippled by the most serious financial crisis since the 1930s, business reporters are being attacked for a different reason, accused by some, including a powerful group of MPs, of destabilising the economy by revealing the extent of the problems at Britain's biggest banks. Rather than telling their readers too little, as they were in the wake of Enron, journalists are now charged with telling them too much.

The Treasury select committee, chaired by Labour MP John McFall, announced last week that it would investigate the part journalism has played in the current banking crisis - as part of a wider inquiry into how the saga unfolded - examining 'the role of the media in financial stability and whether journalists should operate under any form of reporting restrictions during banking crises'. It will hear evidence from media organisations, including the BBC and major newspaper groups, in the new year.

Thursday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said -- special RNC edition

Today's honoree: Keith Olbermann, for his expression of disgust and dismay at the Republicans shamelessly exploiting 9/11 yet again as a vehicle with which to score cheap political points:

I swear, sometimes I think Republicans masturbate to images of the 9/11 attacks.

(h/t: Hoffmania. And yeah....what he said too.)

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves -- Saturday edition

No wonder Marc Maron seems depressed and talks about chucking the stand-up thing and opening a bakery that sells Anger Muffins and Scorn Scones. With the news getting more like stand-up fodder every day, journalists are getting all the good lines.

Live from the Department of Irony Department (sic) and the Natural Guard:

Certain health supplements and raisins imported from the United States failed to meet Chinese safety standards and have been returned or destroyed, the country's food safety agency said Friday, turning the tables on the U.S. amid growing worries over dangerous Chinese products.

Inspectors in the ports of Ningbo and Shenzhen found bacteria and sulfur dioxide in products shipped by three American companies, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said.

"The products failed to meet the sanitary standards of China," the agency said in a brief notice posted on its Web site. No details were given on when or how the inspections were conducted.

Telephones at the administration's office were not answered on Friday.

The companies were identified as K-Max Health Products Co., CMO Distribution Center of America, Inc., and Supervalu International Division.

The administration said K-Max and CMO exported health capsules, including bee pollen and bacteria-fighting supplements. Supervalu exported Sun-Maid Golden Raisins, it said.

The shipments from K-Max and Supervalu have been destroyed and CMO's capsules were returned, the notice said.

The notice did not say which contaminants were found in which products, although sulfur dioxide is sometimes used as a preservative in dried fruit. It said they were found in amounts that surpassed acceptable levels, but did not give any details.

"Local quality officials should step up the inspection and quarantine on imported food products from the U.S.," the notice said. "Chinese importers should also clarify food safety demands in contracts when importing U.S. food products, so as to lower the trade risk."

You almost have to admire their chutzpah.