On the heels of the new “Bible” series sporting an Obama look-alike as ole Beezelbub, we have a new PPP survey indicating that “13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, including 22% of Romney voters.” (for more on the demonic Obama meme in ‘The Bible’, see our staff post here) In his Washington Monthly post “666 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Ed Kilgore highlights the lunacy:

This is a national poll, mind you, not a straw poll at some conservative evangelical clambake. Its margin-of-error is 2.8%. Extrapolated to the national electorate, it suggests that over 13 million Americans believe the President of the United States is a demonic supernatural being sent into the world to set up an infernal kingdom until it’s all washed away by the End of Days.
Now I understand all the limitations of this kind of polling. The Anti-Christ question is sprinkled in with all sorts of crazy questions about this or that odd theory (my favorite is: Do you believe that shape-shifting reptilian people control our world and gaining political power to manipulate our societies, or not? 4% of respondents are down with the “V hypothesis,” though the number rises to 11% among those self-identifying as “very conservative.”). Many Romney voters would be inclined to agree with anything negative said about Obama.
Still, the Anti-Christ?

In an update note, Kilgore notes that another 19 percent of Romney voters are unsure about the anti-Christ meme, which should dispel any hopes that the GOP’s right flank is at last ready to pivot towards sanity. As Kilgore concludes, “Any way you slice it, when progressives suggest on occasion that conservatives talk about Obama as though he were the Anti-Christ, it’s not all hyperbole.”

A new Marist poll conducted for ‘Morning Joe’ March 25-27 says that 87 percent of Americans want background checks for private gun sales and gun shows, with 59 percent supporting a ban on the sale of assault weapons.
The U.S. Senate is expected to deliberate gun legislation that will require universal background checks. But a Republican filibuster makes enactment uncertain. Democrats will try to add an assault-weapons amendment to the legislation, but it has little chance to win in the Senate, according to Mark Murray at MSNBC’s First Read.
In addition to the good news about public attitudes on reducing gun violence, the poll also indicated solid support for Democratic economic priorities, as Murray reports:

…The Morning Joe/Marist survey shows that Americans – by nearly a 2-to-1 margin – want President Barack Obama and Congress to make job creation their top priority (64 percent) instead of deficit reduction (33 percent),
Those who prefer Washington’s political leaders to emphasize job creation include 76 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans; a narrow majority of Republican respondents (51 percent) want the focus to be on deficit reduction.
…Obama edges congressional Republicans by four percentage points, 44 percent to 40 percent, on the question of who has a better approach to deal with the federal budget deficit.
…Forty-two percent of respondents prefer a mixture of spending cuts (including to entitlement programs) and revenue increases; 35 percent pick increasing mostly revenue; and just 17 percent choose mostly cutting government spending (including to programs like Medicare and Medicaid).

Democratic policies on the economy and gun control are clearly on solid footing, while Republicans are defending the views of a shrinking minority on shaky ground.

Lee Fang, a reporting fellow with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute, has an article up at The Nation, revealing how the State Policy Network “nurtures conservative think tanks in all fifty states,” supported by other right-wing groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Fang explains:

Grover Norquist proclaimed that with SPN’s support, Republican governors might “turn their states into Texas or Hong Kong”–laboratories of the free market. “It’s a wonderful opportunity,” he added. …Though Democrats largely outperformed electoral expectations at the federal level last year, Republicans made significant gains in several states. The GOP is using this shift to redistribute wealth by cutting taxes on the rich while raising them on working-class citizens, largely through sales tax increases. What makes this year different from past Republican realignments, however, is the massive increase in funds available to conservative think tanks operating on the state level, as well as how these groups have made the goal of consolidating power through attacking unions and similar tactics central to their agenda.
These media-savvy organizations–which frequently employ former journalists to churn out position papers, news articles, investigations and social media content with a hard-right slant–bolster the pro-corporate lobbying efforts of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Like ALEC, State Policy Network groups provide an ideological veil for big businesses seeking to advance radical deregulatory policy goals. Interviewed at the San Francisco event this past January, SPN’s Sharp maintained that her organization is loosely connected and has no coordinated agenda. But if the last four years are any guide, conservative think tanks are on the march, working from a similar script to tear down organized labor and promote extreme right-wing policies in state capitols from Alaska to Florida.
Financial support for SPN-affiliated think tanks has increased by tens of millions of dollars over the last four years, disclosures show. In areas with the most concentrated investments, particularly the Midwestern states referred to in DeMint’s speech, budgets for state-level political groups have doubled, outpacing their counterparts on the left. Without control of the White House, corporations anxious to push back against taxes and regulations, along with a cadre of wealthy right-wing donors, have invested in these state-level think tanks, partisan media outlets, training institutes and online advocacy efforts. Some existing organizations have been expanded, and others founded to fill what conservative planners viewed as a tactical void.

Fang adds that Americans for Prosperity, a Koch brothers affiliate which has supported Tea Party rallies, is in on “this state-focused spending spree,” and has recently “more than tripled the funding for existing chapters in key states.” In addition, The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity has partnered with SPN and Americans for Prosperity “to hire and train conservative reporters in nearly every state capital” and “to take advantage of cutbacks at local papers, generating outright propaganda in some cases, including “multiple stories questioning Obama’s birth certificate.”
Fang explains how these groups and their related affiliates helped protect Wisconsin’s union-bashing Governor Scott Walker from the populist uprising against him in that state. Fang shows how these groups have played similar roles in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and in campaigns to discredit public schools, cut tobacco taxes and undermine net neutrality and environmental protection laws in other states.
It’s all part of a conscious grand strategy, writes Fang, said to have “been inspired in part by a Malcolm Gladwell article in The New Yorker called “How David Beats Goliath.” As Fang explains:

The piece, which details the ways that underdogs can win playing by their own rules, offers anecdotes on how insurgents have defeated well-equipped armies by harassing and weakening their opponents. It also describes how a computer scientist won a naval warfare simulation by spending his fictional trillion-dollar budget almost entirely on PT boats….Referring to the Gladwell article, Sharp said PT boats are “an apt metaphor” for her network of groups because “they’re fast and maneuverable. A team of PT boats working strategically can defeat much larger and less maneuverable vessels–such as huge chunks of unions.”

Fair enough, although it looks like they have their biblical protagonist and antagonist backwards. Let’s hope Democratic organizers understand that it’s a strategy that can work both ways — and also defeat large chunks of Republican money.

Susan Ferrechio’s report, “Lady Gaga turned down $1 million to perform during RNC” at The Examiner is encouraging:

Not even a million dollars could convince Lady Gaga to perform during last summer’s Republican National Convention.
The snub by the pop star is included in a lawsuit filed by a powerful Republican nonprofit fundraising organization, American Action Network, against a vendor whose job was to stage entertainment just outside the doors to the GOP’s convention in August.
Documents filed with the lawsuit show that other entertainers also said “no thanks” to appearing at the GOP convention including Dolly Parton and the rapper Pitbull, who Republicans hoped to feature at an event for the Hispanic Leadership Network.

Ferrechio adds that other performers, including Journey (without Steve Perry) and Lynyrd Skynyrd agreed to perform or appear for the GOP, as have The Nuge and Kid Rock. It’s doubtful that those over-the-hill acts were offered seven figures.
But GaGa apparentlly wasn’t hustled by the “honoring women who run for public office” pitch, not even for a cool mill. She probably figured that they were really trying to neutralize some of her LGBT supporters. No sale. Kudos also to Parton and Pitbull.
Republicans have a long history of using pop music, sometimes without permission, to win the hearts and minds of the younger generation. On several occasions, they have been forced to cease and desist by performers who dislike their policies and candidates.

The following article, by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
There is a new report out this morning once again reminding us of the greatest disappointment progressives have in the Obama administration: the lack of toughness in regards to Wall Street. The report, issued by the Campaign for a Fair Settlement (full disclosure: this is a coalition I have helped in various ways since their founding), is probably the most harshly critical analysis yet by a coalition aligned with traditional progressive Democratic groups. The report opens with this damning list of hard-to-dispute facts, and then just goes on from there:

The Administration has yet to prosecute a single major bank or top level executive for the widespread fraud leading to the system’s collapse.
Civil penalties have similarly failed to be imposed on top executives, and fines levied against the banks have been so small as to amount to a minor cost of doing business.
Settlements have left the banks themselves in control of providing relief and restitution to homeowners, giving them credit for cleaning up their balance sheets more than preventing foreclosures.
Far from showing any signs of having been chastened, the biggest banks are now even bigger, and have successfully slowed down or weakened key elements of the financial reform bills passed in the wake of the collapse.
And signs even early on in the second Obama administration are not encouraging:
With no mention of Wall Street and the banks anywhere in either his second inaugural speech or his 2013 State of the Union address, the President appears to be wishing the crisis behind him more than addressing its still festering wounds.
Statements by new appointees like Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew have suggested that they view the “too big to fail” problem as having been largely solved, even as new studies confirm how much the systematically risky banks still benefit from market assumptions that they retain that status.
Despite having faced withering rebukes for their handling of key cases and settlements, agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the currency have reignited that criticism in their attempts to amend the disastrous Independent Foreclosure Review settlement, yet again constructing terms far more favorable to the banks than to homeowners and borrowers.

The report barely mentions the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the one agency where progressives have generally given the administration better marks, it is mostly dismissive of the good things that passed in Dodd-Frank given how slow regulatory agencies have been in writing rules, and it seems to have little faith in the Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Task Force co-chaired by NY AG Eric Schneiderman — which is notable given that the coalition has historically been relatively close to Schneiderman politically.
So there are two questions that Obama loyalists might ask about this report. The first is whether all this negativity is truly deserved. The second is why Wall Street accountability activists are so obsessed with this issue.
On the first question, I am sad to say the answer is mostly yes. If I had been writing the report, I would have been more positive about the accomplishments of CFPB, would have given the administration more credit on a few things in terms of Dodd-Frank and a few of the appointments they have made, would have pointed out that Republicans are doing everything they can to starve regulatory agencies of resources, and being the loyal Democrat I am I would have written the report more diplomatically. But when you add up all the results of the Obama administration’s dealings with Wall Street, it is hard to avoid the fact that life hasn’t changed much at all for the big banks, and that they continue to make money hand over fist while the rest of the economy is stuck in the mood. It is hard to think of any one of the report’s bullets listed above that aren’t accurate. Most damning of all are these absolutely true words in the report’s conclusion:

The irony in all this is that the areas in which the Obama Administration has been found most wanting by critics for its handling of Wall Street Accountability are not the result of intractable differences with a Congress hamstrung in inaction. Instead, they are areas almost wholly under the sole control of the Administration through its executive powers, and carried out largely through cabinet agencies.

On the second question, the reason Wall Street activists are so obsessed with the lack of toughness toward Wall Street is that Wall Street is ground zero for the rest of the problems in our economy. These monstrously huge mega-banks completely dominate our economy, siphoning off money that might otherwise go into productive uses in the mainstreet economy so that the big bankers can keep speculating away. And when they screw up in ways that hurt the rest of us, even when they blatantly violate the law, the fact that they are never seriously punished means they have no incentive to stop. Until the Obama administration fixes this problem, the rest of the economy is going to keep suffering, and the risk of future financial meltdowns will keep growing.

Regarding that Gallup Poll J.P. Green cited just below, The Fix’s Chris Cillizza adds some perspective on it worth noting:

That more than one in four Republicans think their own side is too inflexible speaks not only to the divide between the conservative and establishment wings of the party — nothing shocking there — but also, and this is somewhat new, to the size of the group who thinks the GOP is simply too hard line.
The second, and more important data point, is that the second most-mentioned critique of the party — 14 percent named it — by self-identified GOPers is that they “don’t stand up for their positions” and “give in too easily.” And, when asked the things they like about their party, the three most-mentioned traits are “better fiscal management/budget cuts/less debt”, “conservative views” and “favor smaller government.”
Rock, meet hard place.

Cillizza adds that “giving way on the budget and size of government strikes at the party’s raison d’etre. Compromising on those sorts of things — like the party did in the fiscal cliff deal with President Obama in late 2012 — is likely to lose the party more of its adherents than it gains it in converts.”
He speculates that the GOP will make a big deal about their compromising on immigration, “to change the perception that they are allergic to deal-making,” since only 2 percent of Republican respondents in the poll cited it as a problem. Expect much bloviating from the Republicans in the year ahead about such “nothingburger” compromises.

Lydia Saad reports at Gallup Politics on the leading criticism of Republicans: “…Rank-and-file Republicans, independents, and Democrats voice the same primary criticism of the GOP: it is “too inflexible” or “unwilling to compromise.” When asked to say what they most dislike about the Republican Party, 26% of Republicans, 17% of independents, and 22% of Democrats offer this critique — leading all other mentions.” Only 8 percent said the same about Democrats. The second-ranking concern of respondents (12 percent) was that the GOP is “for the rich/protecting the wealthy, not the middle class.”
The Center for American Progress has a revealing forum on “What the Public Really Thinks About Guns,” featuring contributions by Margie Omero, Michael Bocian, Bob Carpenter, Linda DiVall, Diane T. Feldman, Celinda Lake, Douglas E. Schoen, Al Quinlan, Joshua Ulibarri, and Arkadi Gerney.
The National Journal’s Michael Catalini’s “To Hold Senate Majority, Democrats Target the Most Conservative States in the Country” reveals an innovative strategy: “…the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s plans to compete in the most inhospitable territory for Democrats — for open seats in Georgia, South Dakota, West Virginia, and possibly, even in Kentucky against the powerful and well-funded Senate minority leader. Facing a challenging political landscape in 2014, the party is close to landing credible candidates in all of those states….Already the committee is boasting that Georgia is their best pickup opportunity; the field of Republican candidates there for the seat of retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss currently looks underwhelming.”
Jamelle Bouie posts at The Plum Line on “The next big target for liberals: State legislatures,” observing “It’s hard to overstate how smart a way this is for liberal groups to invest their time and money…Winning control of governorships and state legislatures is key if Democrats want to build political strength, advance key goals and priorities, and secure their policy gains over the long term. Howard Dean’s new plan is a small — but important — step in the right direction.”
At The Nation, Ari Berman explains why “New Voter Suppression Efforts Prove the Voting Rights Act Is Still Needed.” Notes Berman: “According to a report by Project Vote, fifty-five new voting restrictions have been introduced in thirty states so far this year….By my count, 235 new voting restrictions have been introduced in forty-four states over the past three years.”
Meanwhile President Obama has issued an executive order setting up “the Presidential Commission of Election Administration.,” charged with “…making recommendations that will “promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay…and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”
GOP efforts to raise the cap on high-skilled worker visas is shaping up as an important issue for Democrats, as Jennifer Martinez reports at The Hill. Labor is calling on Dems to provide leadership to oppose “off-shoring jobs abroad or businesses that seek to bypass hiring American workers.”
Socialism in North Dakota? So says Alternet’s Les Leopold in “Why Is Socialism Doing So Well in Deep-Red North Dakota?,” in which he reports (via TruthDig)on “one of America’s best-kept secrets,” the “state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.” Leopold observes “Since the crash, the financial community has largely managed to wriggle off the hook…After all, the big banks seem to own Washington, as too-big-to-fail banks are permitted to grow even larger and more invulnerable to prosecution and control…But this new public banking movement could have legs, especially if it teams up with those fighting for a financial transaction tax…The state-owned and operated Bank of North Dakota proves that it doesn’t have to be that way. This is the time to fight for public state banking in a big way.”
One still hears the occasional “mistakes were made” lame apology, but there are better ways. Politico explores the art of the political apology in this video.
At The Daily Beast ‘Politics Beast,’ Lloyd Green writes that “the once-Republican Solid South is starting to look like a blue-and-red checkerboard, with Democrats now owning some of the biggest squares.”