Today in Talking Points

It’s almost like connect the dots. Of course, that’s why they’re called “talking points”:

• Politico covers the latest conservative argument, that wealth and conscience don’t mix.
• Steve Benen explains the obvious about that argument.
• And Tom Tomorrow dusts fourteen years off an old cartoon, for obvious reasons.
• Meanwhile, Rob Goodman hopes to intellectually validate equal criticism against all political players, the feelgood fallacy also known as “both sides do it”.
• And why not get some election coverage from Karl Frisch, a Democratic strategist trying to explain what’s wrong with Republicans.
• If that doesn’t do it for you, try the latest Obama-hates-Christians “war on Christmas” lament. (At least it’s not as mortifying as Rush Limbaugh’s astonishing defense of the Lord’s Resistance Army.)

Or, it’s just another day in the life. Something about decadence. Something about the fall of Rome. Something about what we do with what we are given.

“Let me say this is as clearly and as simply as I can: Republicans did not overreach. What they did is who they are. It is what they stand for. It is what they campaign on.

To claim otherwise would be like saying fish live under water because they suffer from unquenchable thirst.”

—Karl Frisch

The magic of Herman Cain

To what degree is the maxim true, that there is no such thing as bad press? Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain may well be putting it to the test.

Recent days have witnessed what might be the official beginning of the public discourse debate about Herman Cain’s outlook on Islam and Muslims. The Hermanator has already challenged conventional wisdom by arguing that because of his race—i.e., black—we should vote for him because he takes the race card off the table against Obama. And then he went on to prove his point by arguing that President Obama is not a strong black man. When pressed, he acknowledged that he felt President Obama is not really a black man.

So there are plenty who have been watching with interest as Cain has repeatedly challenged conventional wisdom in terms of religious identity politics. Perhaps it comes down to the notion that Herman Cain is simply not going to win the GOP nomination, and it really does seem a safe bet.

Quote of the Week — Harkin on the Supreme Court

Via Politico:

“Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”

—Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Just say ‘No’ … to what?

Perhaps the strangest thing about the recent vote on the Franken Amendment is its political implications. Or, as Jon Stewart so aptly put it, “How is anyone against this?”

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

The basic proposition is that one should not be expected to sign away their right to mundane justice as a prerequisite of employment in the private sector, especially in such an acute question as rape.

Josh Kraushaar at Politico offers the basic analysis:

Franken’s amendment, which passed 68-30, received the support of 10 Republican senators. However, most Republicans opposed the amendment because it went against the wishes of the Defense Department, and argued it gave Congress too much influence in altering defense contracts.

Those concerns, however, are immaterial to Democratic strategists, who believe the vote will be politically costly to the two Republican senators facing competitive races – Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pounced after the vote, putting out a statement attacking Vitter “for choosing special interests over justice and the interests of the American taxpayers.”

And a senior Democratic strategist working on defeating Vitter told POLITICO that the vote will “very likely” come up in a campaign ad next year.

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

Watching the GOP sideline itself in the early rounds of the health care debate, many suggested Republicans were simply posturing themselves for the 2010 midterm election. This vote would seem something of a deviation from such a course. I do not think it so extraordinary that we should not be overestimating voters in these constituencies if we imagine them capable of looking at their wives and daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends, and thinking, “Now, wait a minute ….”

The Senators voting nay:

Alexander (R-TN), Barrasso (R-WY), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

These are not insignificant junior players. To the other, though, there aren’t many insignificant junior players among Senate Republicans; only three can boast of being freshmen, and two of them—Johanns and Risch—are among the nays.

The other, George LeMieux of Florida, is among the Republicans who haven’t yet completely lost their minds:

Bennett (R-UT), Collins (R-ME), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), LeMieux (R-FL), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), Voinovich (R-OH)

If the Democrats handle this one correctly, they should be able to make some Republicans sweat next year. Senate Republicans facing re-election in 2010, with nay votes bold

Shelby (AL), Murkowski (AK), McCain (AZ), LeMieux (FL^†), Isakson (GA), Crapo (ID), Grassley (IA), Brownback (KS^†), Bunning (KY^†), Vitter (LA), Bond (MO^†), Gregg (NH^†), Burr (NC), Voinovich (OH^†), Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), Thune (SD), Bennett (UT)

^† — Retiring

Sotomayor: Early notes

An early barometer, of sorts ….

• Adam Liptak, for the New York Times:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence. If they are not always a pleasure to read, they are usually models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles.

Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama announced Tuesday as his choice for the Supreme Court, has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not.

But they reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language. Judge Sotomayor’s decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes.

• Brian Dickerson, for the Detroit Free Press tells us all about Sonia Sotomayor, Princeton University residential adviser.

• Howard Kurtz, of the Washington Post, on the spin war.

• Daphne Eviatar and the Washington Independent strike back against early GOP rabble-rousing.

• Politico has broad early coverage, including Josh Gerstein and Eamon Javers projecting the political battle, Ben Smith and Josh Kraushaar on the politics of the pick, and Jeanne Cummings on GOP tousling over opposition strategies.

• Emily Bazelon discusses Sotomayor’s mysterious Ricci ruling—sure to be a focus of the confirmation politics—at Slate.

• The Hill offers up what are apparently the first round of RNC talking points.

• And then there’s Gawker with the yearbook photo, quote, and expectations of a requisite uproar.