Don't believe the hype about mass defections from the no-new-taxes pledge. “I am officially not worried.”

WASHINGTON — Liberals, and some members of the Republican leadership if truth be told, may hope that conservative agitator Grover Norquist’s days as a political kingmaker are over — but that doesn’t mean his influence is actually waning.

In recent days a handful of Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, as well as Rep. Peter King, have rejected in whole or in part Norquist’s no-tax-increase pledge, to great media fanfare.

Those statements have, predictably, led to much speculation that the influential chief of Americans for Tax Reform has lost his iron grip on the Republican Party’s tax and spending policies.

In an interview with BuzzFeed, Norquist dismissed those criticisms, noting that “we went through all of 2011” hearing how the debt ceiling would mean “the pledge was going to be broken.”

“This is like turning in last year’s homework again,” he added, arguing that until Republicans actually begin voting for tax increases, “it’s a way to get on TV … [but] at the end of the day, no harm, no foul.”

That said, Norquist has indeed seen his influence shrink in the last year. Republicans have been increasingly willing to cross swords with him, and veterans of Capitol Hill suggest that his fight with Sen. Tom Coburn earlier this year damaged his standing within the party.

Additionally, Republican leadership in the House and Senate has long chafed at his influence, while lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, where every member sees themselves as a future president, naturally dislike the appearance of being in the thrall of an outside power.

But to count out Norquist and his anti-tax pledge would be a mistake. Here’s why:

Much of Norquist’s power comes from the simple fact that he’s cornered the market on cornering Republicans on an issue they already support — opposition to new taxes on anyone, regardless of income.

In this very real sense, Norquist is less Kingmaker and more Gatekeeper of the Obvious, enforcing the one principle that social conservatives, defense hawks, fiscal conservatives, genteel Northeast Republicans, and Southern firebrands alike agree on: Ronald Reagan’s no new tax pledge.

And Republicans who haven’t signed the pledge generally agree with the notion that tax increases are a nonstarter, at least in terms of hiking tax rates.

Even those who have publicly broken with him have numerous preconditions for voting for an increase that, at least as far as Norquist sees it, make them unlikely Obama allies.

For instance, Norquist told BuzzFeed that following Graham’s statements, he talked with the South Carolina Republican about the issue. After hearing the number of qualifiers Graham had in mind, he quipped, “You’ve described a unicorn that you’d vote for. Unicorns don’t exist in the real world. I am officially not worried.”

The power behind ATR’s pledge is not Norquist's personal clout. It’s the threat of a 30-second campaign commercial in a Republican primary.

“The pledge has made it easy for people to communicate with voters in a credible way that they won’t raise taxes. Politicians since the pharaohs have been promising to not raise taxes and lied about it,” Norquist notes.

With Republican primaries becoming more blood sport than coronation of a party favorite, incumbents are increasingly unwilling to stake out controversial positions with base voters. And nothing is more universally unpopular with Republican base voters than tax increases.

Although Norquist insists his pledge is “not a cattle prod” he uses to maintain loyalty, the threat of a conservative challenger using the pledge in campaign commercials and debate one-liners is real.

And the grass roots isn’t likely to forget members who break the pledge: Norquist has set up some 60 regular meetings of like-minded conservatives in 48 states over the years, giving him and ATR a powerful grassroots base of their own.

View Entire List ›

Ari Melber noted a flip-flop from his 2008 commitment on “Now With Alex Wagner.”

Even as Republicans and Democrats trade shots over polls, White House remains hopeful a deal can get done.

Image by Alex Wong / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the Obama administration remains "confident" that a deal can be reached to avert the "fiscal cliff" by years end.

"I think we remain confident that we can achieve an agreement," Carney said about the trillions in tax and spending decisions that need to be decided in the next five weeks, adding, "Work has to be done."

President Barack Obama spoke with Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to Carney, but there are still no meetings between the president and congressional leaders on the books.

Carney said this month's election established the frame for discussion, with an extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year off the table.

“We know what the solutions are," Carney said. “We know what the parameters of a balanced solutions to these problems looks like.”

Meanwhile, Carney indicated the White House may break with some congressional Democrats, who don't want to bring entitlement programs into the discussion. "We need to look at Medicare and Medicaid," Carney said, echoing previous statements by Obama.

But Carney said Social Security should not be roped in because it does not contribute to the deficit at the moment. He added that Obama would be open to looking at solutions to strengthen Social Security going forward, but not as part of these ongoing talks.

Carney did not indicate whether Obama would be open to raising the eligibility age for Medicare — an option many Democrats are vowing to oppose.

The self-styled king of partying will not be a cultural ambassador to Bahrain after all. “I'm too party.”

New York nightlife fixture and musician Andrew W.K. wrote on his Facebook page on Monday that he is "blown away" by the State Department's cancellation of his trip as a "cultural ambassador" to the Middle Eastern Kingdom of Bahrain.

"I'm just blown away," W.K. wrote. "After a year of planning, the US State Dept. just canceled my Middle East trip because I'm too party."

DCist reported earlier that W.K., who has released some rock music and briefly had a television show, had been tapped to travel to Bahrain in a diplomatic capacity for the State Department. The State Department then canceled the plans; a spokesperson told Salon that W.K.'s selection had been "a mistake and not appropriate."

Before his trip to Bahrain was nixed, W.K. had written on his website that he was "very privileged and humbled by the chance to represent the United States of America and show the good people of Bahrain the power of positive partying."

While the White House has “concerns” with activities, Obama doesn't feel “betrayed,” spokesman said.

Image by Egyptian Presidency / AP

WASHINGTON — The White House Monday downplayed questions about whether Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's power grab last week was timed to give him cover from Western criticism.

Morsi made his move to consolidate power in the days following the cease-fire in Gaza that he helped broker. At the time the Morsi government was basking in the glow of praise from the United States and other Western powers, and many have speculated he used it as cover for his power grab.

But the White House dismissed those concerns.

“We have some concerns about the decisions and declarations that were announced on November 22," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, repeating the State Department line that was careful not to pressure the Egyptian president.

But Carney said Obama praised Morsi for his help in Gaza because he deserved it, saying Obama didn't feel "betrayed," as one reporter suggested, by the timing. “We see those as separate issues," he said.

Senior White House advisor David Plouffe warns Republicans and Democrats alike must take political hits in order for deal to be had.

Source: youtube.com

WASHINGTON — Obama senior adviser David Plouffe predicted that the fiscal cliff negotiations are "going to get hairy" in the coming weeks, saying President Barack Obama is committed to achieving the elusive "big deal" on taxes and spending he and Speaker of the House John Boehner have tried to strike for more than 18 months.

In post-election remarks at the University of Delaware, Plouffe warned of "paralysis" if both parties remain beholden to their base, saying Obama is looking for a deal that sets the country on the right fiscal path for a 10- to 20-year period.

"The only way that gets done is for Republicans again to step back and get mercilessly criticized by Grover Norquist and the Right, and it means that Democrats are going to have to do some tough things on spending and entitlements that means that they'll criticized on by their left," Plouffe said at his alma mater in conversation with former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt.

The senior White House adviser repeated Obama's opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts on those earning more than $250,000 a year, but expressed openness to a tax reform deal that could potentially lower what the wealthy pay.

“What we also want to do is engage in a process of tax reform that would ultimately produce lower rates, even potentially for the wealthiest," he said, referring to benefits from corporate tax reform.

Plouffe added that while the White House wants to engage in comprehensive tax reform, they know they must also "carefully" address the "chief drivers of our deficit": Medicare and Medicaid.

The online futures site, popular during the presidential campaign, shuts its doors in response to a federal lawsuit.

The Commodities Futures Trading Commission filed suit against Intrade today for allegedly allowing illegal trading in gold and other commodities it regulates; in response, the exchange, based in Ireland, cut off its American customers.

Intrade's press release:

ATTENTION U.S. CUSTOMERS
Monday, Nov 26, 2012
We are sorry to announce that due to legal and regulatory pressures, Intrade can no longer allow US residents to participate in our real-money prediction markets.

Unfortunately this means that all US residents must begin the process of closing down their Intrade accounts. We strongly urge you to begin this process immediately:

Step 1: Close out open predictions

You must close out all open predictions before 8:00am GMT (3:00am ET) on December 23, 2012. Instructions on how to close out an open prediction can be found HERE.

If this is not done then by the deadline noted above, Intrade will close out your predictions for you at what we consider to be fair market value as of the daily session close of December 23, 2012.

Fair market value will be determined using current and historical price information, including daily close prices and recent trades. Values will be set at the absolute discretion of Intrade and will not be open for review, discussion or argument – our determination of fair market value is final.

Step 2: Withdraw funds

Please note, no customers will be charged the $4.99 monthly fee due on December 1, 2012.

Members have until December 31, 2012, to withdraw all funds from their account. Instructions on how to request a withdrawal can be found HERE.

To help you receive your funds as quickly and easily as possible, the $20 fee normally charged by Intrade for processing a bank wire withdrawal will be waived. Please be aware however that any fees charged by the sending and receiving bank, plus any intermediary bank the transfer is routed through will NOT be refunded by Intrade.

We understand this announcement may come as a surprise and a disappointment, and we apologize for the short notice and haste required to deal with this. We would like to sincerely thank all US customers for their custom, support and loyalty over the years.

LINK: Inside Intrade's Political Market

The creepiest painting you'll see today.

Artist Michael D'Antuono has painted anti-taxi activist Grover Norquist as a Wizard of Oz-like disembodied head with Republican politicians bowing before him as an elephant burns, to symbolize Norquist's powerful position in the Republican party.

"He is the lobbyist whose Svengali-like control over the GOP has forbidden them to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, creating unpresedented gridlock and putting them in a very 'uncompromising position' negotiating the fiscal cliff," reads the description of the painting on D'Antuono's website. D'Antuono previously stirred some light controversy in 2009 with a painting of President Obama wearing a crown of thorns.

Still looking for a “balanced approach — without tax increases.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — When House Republican leaders sit down with a group of seven CEOs on Wednesday, they will continue to brainstorm how to avert the fiscal cliff with a "balanced approach" — but without new taxes.

“People in both parties agree we need a ‘balanced approach’ to deal with our deficit and debt and help our economy create jobs," Speaker John Boehner said Monday in a statement. "As we’ve seen in recent days, the American people support an approach that involves both major spending cuts and additional revenue via tax reform with lower tax rates."

Maya MacGuineas, the president of the nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and Erskine Bowles, co-chair of the president's deficit commission, will join the group of lawmakers and business leaders.

"We look forward to talking to Mr. Bowles and other members of the coalition about their ideas to avert the ‘fiscal cliff’ without tax hikes that target small businesses and cost jobs,” Boehner added.

The CEOs slated to attend the meeting include:

· Doug Oberhelman, CEO, Caterpillar Inc.

· Lloyd Blankfein, CEO & Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group

· Thomas Wilson, President & CEO, Allstate

· Nicholas Calio, President & CEO, Airlines for America

· David Cote, Chairman & CEO, Honeywell International Inc.

· Mark Bertolini, Chairman, CEO & President, Aetna, Inc.

· Greg Sherrill, Chairman & CEO, Tenneco, Inc.

The possible next Secretary of State was a three-sport athlete in high school at Washington's elite National Cathedral School. In high school her nickname was Spo, which was short for “Sportin.” Rice played basketball and was the school's star point guard. She was also her class president and valedictorian.

View Entire List ›

The mayor of Toronto was just kicked out of office by a judge for breaking conflict-of-interest laws. He's been the biggest character in Canadian politics for years.

He was once busted with weed in his car in Florida.

Mayor Rob Ford arrives at his office in Toronto November 26, 2012.

Image by Mark Blinch / Reuters

Ford freely admitted to the Toronto Sun that he did have marijuana in his car when a Florida police officer pulled him over in 1999 on a vacation with his wife, despite the fact that the charges were dropped against him.

"It was nothing," Ford said in 2010, the year he was elected mayor of Toronto. "It wasn't a major issue. There's more serious things in life."

He ran a reporter out of Toronto's City Hall for calling him a "fat fuck."

Ford was a city councilor at the time. "That is a verbal assault!" Ford yelled. "This is a public space! Why did you say that? Why are you running?"

View Entire List ›

“Uganda’s own human rights council has made clear that if this were to pass, it would put the country out of compliance with its own international human rights obligations,” a State Department spokeswoman says. A senior State Department official was in Uganda over the weekend.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, left, spent this past weekend in Uganda, where an internationally criticized Anti-Homosexuality Bill is being considered.

Image by Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

WASHINGTON—The United States is pressing Uganda not to pass an "Anti-Homosexuality Bill," a spokeswoman for the State Department said Monday.

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson was in Uganda this weekend, reiterating the administration's "vocal" concerns about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under consideration there, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Regarding questions about the death penalty, which has been a penalty for "aggravated homosexuality" in earlier versions of the bill, Nuland said she didn't know whether the State Department has seen a version of the bill as passed by a legislative committee in Uganda's parliament.

"They’ve been a little bit close hold about this, partly because there’s been so much controversy in the international community. So our concern is about any criminalization of homosexuality, obviously," she said.

Monday's comments came after the State Department and White House had provided no new comments this past Friday.

The extended exchange, from a State Department press briefing Monday, follows:

QUESTION: Yeah, I have a question on Uganda, actually. There’s an anti-homosexuality bill that’s making its way through the legislature right there. What is the State Department’s current assessment of where that bill is and if that’s going to be headed toward a vote anytime soon?

MS. NULAND: Again, Assistant Secretary Carson was also in Uganda over the weekend. He had a chance to raise again our concerns about this issue, which we’ve been very vocal about. Our understanding is that a version of the bill has now passed a committee in Uganda. As we have regularly said, we call on the parliament in Uganda to look very carefully at this, because Uganda’s own human rights council has made clear that if this were to pass, it would put the country out of compliance with its own international human rights obligations. And so Assistant Secretary Carson had a chance to make that point again and our strong opposition to this, to the president, to the parliament, and to key decision makers in Uganda.

QUESTION: And there was – and once the bill had a provision that would institute the death penalty for homosexual acts. As far as the State Department knows, has that provision been removed or is it still in the bill?

MS. NULAND: Again, I don’t know that we have actually seen the version that passed committee. They’ve been a little bit close hold about this, partly because there’s been so much controversy in the international community. So our concern is about any criminalization of homosexuality, obviously.

QUESTION: And one last question. Some countries, Britain and Sweden, have threatened to cut foreign aid to Uganda if this bill becomes law. Is there any consideration in the U.S. Administration to cut foreign aid to Uganda if that bill becomes law?

MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to get into any hypothetical situations. Our focus now is on raising awareness of the concerns within Uganda about this bill so that we don’t get to that stage.

* * *

Q: On this, Toria. Did Secretary Carson meet with the speaker of the parliament?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is he did see the speaker of the parliament, whether it was in a larger group or whether it was a distinct meeting that he did, yes.

Q: But he – so he made that point directly to her?

MS. NULAND: Yes, he did.

The potential secretary of state nominee aims to win hearts and minds on Capitol Hill. Rice and McCain will sit down Tuesday, joined by Ayotte and Graham.

Image by J. Scott Applewhite / AP

WASHINGTON — Hoping to salvage her potential bid to become the next Secretary of State, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice will meet Tuesday with a trio of Republican opponents, led by Sen. John McCain.

According to McCain, the meeting comes at the request of Rice, whom McCain has roundly criticized over response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya in September.

The meeting, which Sens. Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham will also attend, will mark an important opportunity for Rice to mollify her most vocal Republican detractors, who could cause a stir should she be nominated to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Foremost among those political foils is McCain, who on Monday would not say what questions he plans to ask Rice, nor what she could possibly say to allay his reservations regarding her potential nomination.

"I don't want to go into the whole tick tock," McCain said. "I've stated what my concerns are."

McCain has publicly denounced Rice as a potential nominee for the post due largely to a statement she made on "Meet the Press" a few days after four Americans were killed by terrorists in Libya, wherein she blamed the attacks on protests stemming from an inflammatory video. At the time, information about the attackers was still sketchy.

When asked whether he thought that distinction was important, McCain replied affirmatively.

But, he said, "Most of this goes back to the president and his failure to tell the American people the truth in the second debate with Mitt Romney."

He added, "So, the president's the one who's responsible."

On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will be hearing cases about the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8. Constitutional rights of same-sex couples hang in the balance.

Image by John Gara/Buzzfeed

The Supreme Court’s decisions on which marriage cases to hear, expected as soon as Friday, likely will set the course of the national debate about gay and lesbian couples' marriage rights for the coming months and years.

The same-sex couples who filed the cases, some of which date to early 2009, are asking courts to rule that laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 are unconstitutional. The decision of which cases to hear — involving all three branches of government — will set up several months of action on the issue at the Supreme Court.

The portion of DOMA being challenged, known as Section 3, requires that the words “marriage” and “spouse” in all federal laws and regulations only apply to marriages between one man and one woman. In 2008, voters in California adopted Proposition 8 to amend the state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Because two different appeals courts have struck down DOMA, at least one of the several DOMA challenges is almost certain to be accepted by the court. It is less certain whether the court will hear the challenge to Proposition 8.

The court, after several false alarms, now appears to have settled on deciding this Friday which of the cases it will hear. Along with the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases, the court also will be considering a request brought by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is asking the court to overturn a court order halting enforcement of a state law that ended same-sex couples’ domestic partner health insurance benefits while making no changes to opposite-sex couples’ health insurance benefits.

In Friday’s conference, four of the justices need to vote in favor of hearing a case for the court to accept it, a process called a writ of certiorari.

Although there are numerous possible outcomes of the justices’ Friday conference, four results look most likely:

• The court takes multiple DOMA cases and the Proposition 8 case. This outcome would be the “all in” option, and it would make clear that at least four justices want the court to resolve the legal questions surrounding these issues, from what level of scrutiny that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should be given (see more about this here) to whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. (The DOMA cases also feature the unusual circumstances, in place since February 2011, of the Obama administration opposing the law's constitutionality and the House Republican leadership defending the law.)

• The court takes one DOMA case, while holding the other DOMA cases pending that decision, and takes the Proposition 8 case as well. This is not very different from the first possibility, although the choice of one DOMA case over another could be seen as narrowing the type of argument about the law that the court would like to hear. More likely though, it would simply be a sign of the justices having picked a case in which Justice Elena Kagan, who served as the top appellate lawyer in the Obama administration before joining the court and may choose to recuse herself from one or more of the DOMA cases because of that, can participate.

• The court takes one DOMA case and holds the rest of the cases, including Proposition 8, pending the outcome of the DOMA case. This prospect, advanced as a possibility by Georgetown law professor Nan Hunter, could be taken by a cautious court, wanting first to resolve some general questions — including the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications — before acting on the other, more direct, question about whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is raised in the Proposition 8 challenge. This, as with taking the Proposition 8 case, would delay when same-sex couples in California might be able to marry.

• The court takes a DOMA case, but denies certiorari in the Proposition 8 case. This option, once considered by advocates to be the most likely possibility, would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in California within days. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case did not broadly resolve the marriage question, instead holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took back rights formerly held by Californians. As there are other cases in the legal pipeline about same-sex couples marriage rights that could make their way to the Supreme Court, the court could decide to let the narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

The court also will do something with the Arizona case, but — even though it is not a case about marriage rights — that outcome is likely to be linked, in one way or another, to the way the other cases are handled. If the court takes both DOMA and Proposition 8 challenges, they might hold the Arizona case or deny certiorari. If they deny certiorari in the Proposition 8 case, the justices would almost definitely deny certiorari in the Arizona case. If they accept certiorari in the Arizona case, that would be a surprise and could signal an ambitious agenda by the more conservative justices on the court to reverse the recent trend of court decisions favoring same-sex couples.

Following the conference, the court could announce which new cases it has taken as early as Friday afternoon. The latest an announcement would be expected is 9:30 a.m. Monday, when the court is expected to issue an order list, reporting its actions from the conference. If the justices deny certiorari in the Proposition 8 or Arizona cases, that decision most likely will not be announced until the order list is issued Monday morning — regardless of whether the accepted cases are announced Friday or not.

Once the court accepts a case, the petitioner — generally, the party seeking reversal of the lower court’s opinion — has 45 days to file its opening brief. (This could be slightly adjusted due to the unusual procedural circumstances of the parties in the DOMA cases.) The opposing party or parties have 30 days to respond, and the petitioner then has 30 days to reply to that. During that time, other groups and individuals will submit filings — called amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs — expressing their views on the case.

Then, the court will hold an oral argument on the case — in spring 2013 — and, in the following days, a conference to vote on the case. Although the justices can change their votes, the initial vote sets up the opinion-drafting process, in which one justice in the majority begins crafting the court’s tentative opinion and other justices begin crafting dissenting opinions or, later, opinions concurring in the court’s decision but using somewhat different reasoning. Drafts are circulated and, once the justices are done writing, the opinions are issued — likely in late June 2013.

Israeli accounts challenged the Times columnist's criticism of Israel for strikes that killed two men he described as journalists.

Palestinian school children walk in the rubble left days after an Israeli strike destroyed the Hamas interior ministry in Gaza City.

Image by Adel Hana / AP

New York Times media reporter David Carr defended his Monday column accusing Israel of killing journalists in Gaza on Monday, after Israeli officials and their allies accused him of conflating Hamas operatives and reporters.

"The three men who died in missile strikes in cars on Nov. 20 were identified by Reuters, AP, AFP, and Washington Post and many other news outlets as journalists," Carr told BuzzFeed in an email. "The Committee to Protect Journalists, which I treat as a reliable, primary source in these matters, identified them as journalists. (as did Reporters without Borders.)"

"I ran my column by reporters and editors at our shop familiar with current events in the region before I printed it," Carr said. "And I don't believe that an ID made by the IDF is dispostive or obviates what the others said. Doesn't mean that I could not have gotten it wrong, only that the evidence so far suggests that they were journalists, however partisan."

Carr's story on Monday, "Using War as Cover to Target Journalists," zeroed in on three men recently killed during the conflict in Gaza: Mohamed Abu Aisha, Hussam Salama, and Mahmoud al-Kumi. Two of the men were cameramen for Al-Aqsa TV, which Carr writes is "run by Hamas and whose reporting frequently reflects that affiliation." The third, Aisha, was the director of Al-Quds Educational Radio.

Tablet ran a story on Monday contesting the idea that the men were really journalists, citing an Israeli Defense Forces Blog claim that one of the deceased, Muhammad Shamalah, was "commander of Hamas forces in the southern Strip and head of the Hamas militant training programs" riding in a truck marked "TV." The Tablet story also cites another pro-Israel blog, Elder of Ziyon, which calls Aisha a "uniform-wearing member of Islamic Jihad" and includes a picture of him in uniform.

China's Communist Party newspaper, People's Daily, congratulates the North Korean leader on being named the sexiest man alive by the the satirical American publication . Seriously.

Source: english.people.com.cn  /  via: @keithrichburg

Source: english.people.com.cn

2011: Bashar al-Assad
2010: Bernie Madoff
2009: Charles and David Koch (co-winners)
2008: Ted Kaczynski
2007: T. Herman Zweibel

Source: theonion.com

A party pushing to present a more diverse face doles out key jobs to the old guard. The House also passes a border security bill.

Image by Win McNamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — For a political party that said it learned the demographic lessons of 2012, House Republicans were acting an awful lot like it was 2011 Tuesday, passing a border security bill and sweeping in a slate of largely white men as committee chairmen.

To be sure, neither the border bill nor the committee chairmanships are major issues in and of themselves. The bill is a largely routine matter that passed on a massive bipartisan basis, and House Republicans have four women in their leadership ranks.

Still, Republican operatives Tuesday night acknowledged for a party still stinging from an election day loss driven in large part by Latino and women voters, the optics of Tuesday’s activities left something lacking.

The decision to pick a full slate of men to lead committees in the 113th Congress — 19 of 19 committees, to be precise — was particularly striking, particularly since at least one woman, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller, was a prime contender for the House Homeland Security Committee chair. But from incoming Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas down the alphabetical list to Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, the powerful jobs went entirely to men.

The gender gap has long been an issue for Republicans, and coming out of this year’s election, leaders have acknowledged that it needs to be addressed. While women were shut out of Tuesday’s chairmanship decisions, House Republicans have included a number of women in their leadership: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers will serve as Conference Chair, Rep Lyn Jenkins will serve as Conference Vice Chair, Rep. Virginia Foxx will be the Conference Secretary and Rep.-elect Ann Wagner will serve as the Freshmen representative on the Elected Leadership Council.

Meanwhile, the House Tuesday also passed a border security bill which, while bipartisan in nature, is unlikely to go very far towards healing the rift between Republicans and the Latino community.

The Republican-led House voted on, and passed by 397-4, its first immigration-related bill since the election: A measure to create a task force that would aid the Department of Homeland security and other agencies in better securing the border with Mexico, mostly through information-sharing and coordination.

The bill is named in honor of Jaime Zapata, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who was killed by drug cartel gunmen while on duty in Mexico last year.

But the problem for Republicans is one of optics: immigration activists have long bristled at the party’s focus on border issues to the exclusion of other immigration issues. And the GOP’s insistence on fixing the problems associated with the border before addressing immigration reform have angered many Latino voters.

On Friday, however, House Republicans will bring a bill to the floor that falls more into line with their post-election commitment to immigration reform: The STEM Jobs Act, a measure that would enable immigrants with certain advanced degrees to more easily obtain green cards.

Of the 19 Republican Representatives recommended Tuesday for 2013 committee chairmanships, most are white and zero are women. The likely ranking Democrats tell a slightly more colorful story.

View Entire List ›

If the Supreme Court denies an appeal of the Proposition 8 challenge, same-sex couples soon will be able to marry in California. Although the city wants 24-hour notice to prepare, court rules suggest that might not happen.

Bob Sodervick waves a gay pride flag outside of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 5, 2012 in San Francisco, California.

Image by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

WASHINGTON—Should the Supreme Court decide on Friday that it is not going to consider an appeal of the challenge to California's Proposition 8, the City of San Francisco is asking for "24 hours advance notice" before an appeals court takes the final step to allow same-sex couples there to marry.

Under the appeals court's rules, though, it's not clear such advance notice is possible.

The city asked for the notice in a letter from Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese M. Stewart to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. Concerned about being "deluged by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses" and "large gatherings, including protesters" after a ruling that would allow same-sex couples to once again marry in California, Stewart asked for the 24-hour notice so the city could coordinate the "substantial" logistical efforts involved.

The request went to the Ninth Circuit, and not the Supreme Court, because of the specific procedures involved in ending an appeal.

If the Supreme Court announces that it is denying the request of the backers of Proposition 8 to hear an appeal of the case, then the Ninth Circuit's ruling striking down the law will stand. The Ninth Circuit mandate has been stayed, or put on hold, while the request to the Supreme Court, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, is pending. If the petition is denied, the appeals court then will issue a mandate to return the case to the district court, which will enable its final judgment in the case to take effect.

San Francisco is asking that it be given advance notice before the mandate is issued. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, however, "The court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately when a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition for writ of certiorari is filed." As such, even if the Ninth Circuit wished to do so, it's not clear that it could give San Francisco the "advance notice" it is seeking.

San Francisco's Mandate Notice Request Letter

Shoq, lies and audiotape.

In October 2011, Politico profiled "Obamabots," online Obama partisans who were beginning to confront more ideological progressives, like Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher. The story focused on Imani Gandy (@angryblacklady) and the then-anonymous @shoq. United in their defense of the president, the two had "formed a transcontinental friendship," spending the occasional scotch-infused late night trading political rants over Skype.

Today, the bloom is off the rose between Gandy and Shoq. Once transcontinental friends, they now tweet imprecations against each other across the Great Divide. Moreover, their friends in the progressive sphere have chosen sides. A river of anti-Shoq tweets has poured forth from the keyboard of John Cole — Gandy's most prominent proponent and the proprietor of the popular Balloon-Juice blog. Cole, in turn has taken extensive return fire from Shoq himself and from his friends and acolytes.

So what happened?

This past summer, Shoq was elaborately outed by a conservative tweeter @brooksbayne and a fellow conservative writing under the name Randy Hahn. Bayne and Hahn revealed that shoq's name is Matt Edelstein, and also made some salacious allegations about Edelstein's interactions with women — including some prominent progressive women. Shoq has since acknowledged that his name is Matt Edelstein and posted a picture of himself to his website; he is clearly aggrieved by and doesn't accept the other allegations, but it can be difficult to parse which parts of them he flatly denies. (Randy Hahn's own identity is a bit mysterious. Many of those involved in this story have concluded that his real name is Jason Wade Taylor; Hahn offers a hilariously unpersuasive denial of this identification in this chaotic, creepy, three-hour podcast.)

Also this summer, a Breitbart writer named Lee Stranahan (@Stranahan) began to pursue Shoq's personal story as well.

At the heart of the confrontation between Edelstein and Gandy are some private emails among members of Edelstein's "StopRush" project that Randy Hahn obtained without Edelstein's consent. (One of those leaked emails can be seen in Brooks Bayne's first post naming Shoq as Edelstein.) Edelstein and his friend Matt Osborne (@OsborneInk) have alleged that the source of these leaks is Heather Chase, a friend of Gandy's whom Edelstein and Osborne claim is a right-wing plant, and that Chase and Gandy conspired to sell the emails to Hahn. On Sunday, Edelstein and Osborne were drawing attention to audio recordings, purportedly of Chase, which they believe prove their allegations.

Gandy and Cole have risen to Chase's defense, claiming that harassment from Shoq and his cohorts has driven Chase into hiding, but they categorically deny any conspiracy to sell StopRush's emails.

Gandy, in a long post explaining her view of the matter, writes:

"This is insanity. It is harassment. It’s misogyny. And it has to stop.
[...]
Look -- this is not a partisan issue. This is not about politics. This is about unstable people using the internet to harass, stalk, and intimidate women and those who dare speak up on behalf of them. This is about men on both the right and left who are playing a dangerous game and endangering the lives of people in the process."

Cole, for his part, claims to simply be defending his friends, without any insider knowledge of the merits of the dispute.

Chase has deleted and reinstated her twitter account, @HeatherEChase, at least once this week, and is now using it to tell her side of the story. She has also been in touch with Lee Stranahan, and related to him that she feels threatened by Randy Hahn (i.e. Jason Wade Taylor or "JWT").

View Entire List ›