Hullabaloo

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

 
Will the Real Mitt Romney please stand up?

by digby

In case you are one of the few people who haven't seen it yet:

Nobody seems to be quite sure why there's footage out there of Mitt talking about masturbating but he did endorse Christine O'Donnell, so maybe that's it.

I think this might be Mitt's viral "Yes We Can" video. But when his supporters see it they cry for an entirely different reason.

.
digby 3/21/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Today's report from the laboratories of democracy

by digby

From Jacobin Magazine:

The Left should be paying attention to Florida. If you’ve ever desired a nightmarish vision of the legislature-driven austerity measures sure to proliferate around the country in the coming years, look no further than the Sunshine State’s 2012 budget. With little protest, Florida lawmakers are eviscerating public welfare and rapidly turning the state into a haven for the exploitation of workers. Despite the laughable “moderation narratives” now propagating in local newspaper coverage–which depict it as part of a trend away from rightist absolutism–the 2012 budget is nothing less than an unqualified victory for free market zealots everywhere: its legislatively-imposed austerity measures and multi-billion dollar tax cuts will no doubt serve as a useful model for other “business friendly” Southern states and the country as a whole.

Read the whole thing to see just how bad things can get under one-party conservative rule. It's not just that they have passed laws effectively legalizing murder. They're in the process of turning Florida into a third world country for the 99%.

The 2012 Florida budget is a perfect example of this overarching strategy. On its own terms, it is a document of frightening severity, inflicted on a state with little risk of popular backlash. Scott and the Republican leadership may be widely despised, but the Sunshine State lacks the formations capable of challenging the imposition of austerity, such as what we’ve seen in Madison and Zucotti Park. I don’t want to downplay the noble efforts of the Floridian Occupiers (yes, they exist) but the state’s overwhelmingly suburban geography, its lack of density and dearth of prominent public space, prevents the sort of spectacular urban reclamation that made Occupy so compelling. And unionized public workers, the warp and woof of the Madison eruption, are a tiny minority of Florida’s total employed. Fittingly, the 2012 budget disproportionately harms university students and state workers, the two groups actively resisting the descent into austerity.

One might also wonder about the Florida Democratic Party, but they are not present either. It's the same everywhere. The Party looked at its massive losses in the 2010 elections and decided its only hope was to support austerity and elect more conservatives. After all, they lost to Republicans who ran on that platform, right? It must be what the people want. That's just where their logic naturally takes them when they lose.

It's a truly harrowing tale of a descent into fiscal and social madness, with no end in sight. It turns out that America hasn't been spared the European style austerity after all. It's just happening in the states.

.
digby 3/21/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Fracking's got a friend in Pennsylvania

by digby

Check out Pennsylvania Blue Dog congressman Tim Holden, endorsing fracking in national forests:

As Howie says:

Holden is one of Boehner's and Cantor's best friends inside the Democratic caucus. Although he's sort of a Democrat, he agrees with the GOP leaders on ideological grounds most of the time-- and routinely votes against women's Choice and women's health issues and on a boatload of issues from AgriBusiness and Big Oil to voting rights, LGBT rights and freedom of speech. He's one of the only Democrats who voted with the GOP, not just on Choice, but on every single bill regarding contaceptives. This guy is PART of the Republican War Against Women-- a conservative foot-soldier embedded inside the Democratic congressional caucus. Since President Obama was elected, Holden has voted with the GOP on crucial roll calls 64.23% of the time-- and that's not on naming post offices. That 64.23% represents substantive legislation were his vote was needed by Democrats. He didn't deliver.

But it isn't all ideological with Holden; it never is. It's also who's paying him-- basically which sleazy lobbyists and which big corporate donors are pulling his strings.

Apparently, he's thrilled to take money from the people who what to make your water flammable.(Not to mention polluted.)

Howie:

Big Energy PACs run by Dick Cheney's Halliburton donated $511,638 to help finance Tim Holden's slimy career. Why would they help finance a Democrat? Holden is barely a Democrat and, after all, he supported them when it really mattered most-- in creating the Halliburton Loophole, exempting Holden's big campaign donors from EPA regulations so they could poison the water table with impunity. In conjunction with Holden's congressional manipulations. the U.S. Forest Service announced it didn't plan to issue a universal ban on horizontal drilling on federal land, allowing many national forests to remain available for natural gas production, the agency's deputy chief said Friday. Continuing to push both GOP and Big Oil and Gas talking points, "extolled the importance of domestic energy production. Public land generated more than $112 billion in 2010, he said, noting the contribution of mineral resource management to that figure."

This is one awful Democrat. Among the worst. (He was even one of those Blue Dogs who refused to vote for Nancy Pelosi for minority leader.)Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for his constituents (and the planet) he's been redistricted and has a very viable opponent in the primary, a well known lawyer by the name of Matt Cartwright. And Cartwright has a good chance to win --- only half the district knows Holden from Adam at this point, and they aren't like what they're seeing. And that same half knows and likes Matt --- he's their local "TV lawyer." So this is a winnable battle for the good guys.

Holden is a one man wrecking crew for the energy industry, with a record of support for fracking, the single most important environmental issue in that area. And that's not a winning position in Pennsylvania Democratic primaries.

So Blue America is going to raise some billboards in the district to help educate his constituents about Tim Holden's record:

We could use your help.

.

digby 3/21/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
The moral emptiness of conservative "freedom"

by David Atkins

Watching Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum speak last night, a student of American politics would be forgiven for thinking that Republicans are truly obsessed with the idea of freedom. Laced throughout the two candidates' rhetoric were paeans to private enterprise, to individual liberty, and to entrepreneurial spirit. Also redolent in the post-Illinois glow was palpable anger against the meddling intrusiveness of federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C. into successful industries and private American lives.

All of which would make sense, if these Republican paragons of virtue actually cared about any of these things. Civil libertarians protective of private American liberties certainly have a lot to complain about. The Obama Administration has been guilty of a great deal of meddling that the Bush Administration would not have countenanced.

If Republicans wanted to legitimately complained about actions of the federal government in the private sector, they could point to the Obama Administration's disruptive steps against the burgeoning world of online poker (though it appears the Administration took action against the bad guys before loosening the rules to clear the way for legitimate operators). They could decry the record number of deportations of undocumented immigrants, preventing businesses from exploiting cheap labor. Republicans could lament the intrusion by federal government into California's medical marijuana business (though it appears the Administration didn't have a direct hand in that). The tri-corner hat crowd could wave their "Don't Tread on Me" signs to rail against the fairly clearly unconstitutional killing of an American citizen on foreign soil without judicial or due process. They could protest the continued use of the Patriot Act and other forms massive illegal information gathering without a warrant against American citizens.

Conversations about the intrusion of federal government into private rights are certainly happening. But they're all happening on the left, as various factions debate the proper role of state and federal government in dealing with gambling, drugs, immigration, and prevention of international terrorism.

But on all these issues the American Right is either conspicuously silent, or angry that the Obama Administration has not been restrictive enough against American freedoms. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney would redouble the Obama Administration's curtailment of personal freedoms and rights in these areas, and then some.

No, when Republicans speak about "freedom" as their leaders did last night, they mean only two things: 1) the "freedom" of the super-rich to tilt the deck even farther in their favor while contributing nothing to the social supports that made them rich; and 2) the "freedom" of religious bigots to enforce their version on morality on everyone else. When they argue that President Obama is removing their freedoms, they refer not to his actual infringements on American freedoms, but rather his innocuous efforts at universal health insurance and 1990s era tax rates on the wealthy.

American conservatives don't care about individual liberty. They arguably never have. The care only about preserving the right of private wealth and religious authority to abuse and oppress the rest of us without interference or intervention. The federal government is the ultimate restraint, elected by the people of this country, placed on their otherwise absolute authority, and they want it gone. They want the freedom to employ anyone they choose at any wage and at any age that they wish, and then cast them aside once they're no longer useful. They want the "freedom" to stuff women back into the kitchen, minorities back into shantytowns, and gays back into the closet. That's "freedom" to the conservative mind.

"Freedom" for them isn't about everyone in this country having the opportunity to live life as they see fit. It's about making sure that the most powerful private individuals, be they CEOs or church leaders, get to make the rest of us live the lives they see fit.

There's nothing moral or respectable about it. It's a contemptible ideology, made all the more odious by its appropriation of the language of liberty, and its silence on the issues that truly define whether Americans live free.


.
thereisnospoon 3/21/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

 
Bispecies cooperation

by digby

Ok, here's an adorable dog playing with a river otter:

.
digby 3/20/2012 07:00:00 PM |

 
The Republican Base Exposed

by David Atkins

Charles Johnson at LGF once again dives into the comments at FoxNews.com so the rest of us don't have to. This time it's about the murder of Trayvon Martin, and we get to see the real driving animus behind the politics of Fox News viewers:

What a shame—a tragedy, really— because the dead lil’ gangsta could’ve used “‘A-FIRM-TIV AK-SHUN” to go to kollige an play footballz and make lotsa cash munny!”

[…]

Fast and Furious didn’t work to pass new gun control so now Eric Holder will try the race card.

[…]

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 45 years a large segment of bIack America has waged a war of v i o l e n t retribution against white America.

[…]

Zimmerman was attacked by the man and defended himself with a gun. Zimmerman’s wounds were verified by police.

[…]

17 = child. LOL!!!!!!

Let the LIB word games begin.

[…]

Yet the “justice department” refuses to prosecute any voter intimidation that involves a blac k as the intimidator.

[…]

Why should anyone care about this kid? Because he is of color? People don’t value kids period. They are property. BTW, I am a conservative that cares a great deal about kids. We follow hundreds of cases each year, many white babies and children, none of them get attention. But he does??

[…]

Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin’s gang’s actions…this could have possibly lead to these terrible circumstances. Gang violence MUST BE STOPPED OBAMA!

[…]

Blacks can do no wrong, period! That is the DOJ’s excuse for becoming involved. 50+ years of being told they are special and entitled and the gov’t’s only focus is to make it so!!

[…]

In any event, it appears to be a case of one sc u m bag Cuban-type (Zimmerman) offing some scummy b l a ck kid (Trayyy-Vonnnn)…in some trash neighborhood….

but now, because the dead kid’s a kneegrow, we have:

the BIG BAD FBI on this “important” case…and

the usual BLACK-RADICAL-PROTESTERS who can’t mind their own business!

[…]

Gated communities exist because people are afraid….& negros thrive on crime…Look at our prisons.

[…]

Need that too….But Negr0s only have their welfare checks….and in any event can’t follow rules

[…]

What time do the riots start? Gotta get my popcorn and munchies ready for the “hood” burning!

[…]

Funny you never see them rally against the drug dealing murderers that control their neighborhoods. LOL!!!

[…]

How does anyone know what this 17 yr old said, Most likely he threw the race card out ” you stop me because I*M B L ACK” and then became threatning. The media alway plants the seed of doubt when when a B l ac k is sh ot by a caucasian

[…]

maybe his gang brothers incited violence too?

[…]

How’d the kid get into the “gated” community in the first place?

[…]

Them monkeys can jump!

[…]

This is going to be a tough case. gang violence is hard to prosecute. martin’s gang may even want to retaliate. this is scary

[…]

Let’s find out why the “po’ baby” was REALLY there!

[…]

The little thug ghetto monkey should have been home doing his homework, not out gang bangin.

[…]

I’m just glad Zimmerman didnt miss and hit an innocent bystander.

[…]

THIS IS PURE RACIST!! When do you ever see the DOJ investigate the death of a white child??

[…]

This is pure B.S I want to see the kids police record even if something is expounged also why was he removed from facebook it says account terminated.Why because his parents are trying to cover his tracks just like if you hit a bus they see Dollar signs.People have dragged data about Zimmerman out where is the kids past.Don’t say he was a good boy prove it.Ask yourself what is more likely to happen any 17 year old kid when you ask a question.A smartass reply I have never and I mean never seen a teenager run unless he did something wrong.I guess no crinimal has ever cased a place when they went to a store.It takes me aback the way all these facts are quoted by people who read one story on a issue.

[…]

Who says his gang wasn’t hiding near by?

[…]

he could be a good kid, but being in a gang doesn’t help his case

[…]

An unfortunate death, but when will DOJ investigate the death of a Caucsasian?

[…]

Here we go again— a LOCAL law enforcement matter (no federal issues) is being hijacked by the FEDS because the alleged “victim” is bl a c k! We all KNOW this kid was up to no good and now he’s feedin’ worms. Too bad-ha ha ha!

[…]

Last night on CNN Anderson Cooper kept referring to zimmerman as white when he knew he was Hispanic I wonder why

[…]

maybe then the kid was not bIack maybe Hawaiian like tiger woods then we can say s p i c s h o o t s Hawaiian

[…]

This has Bl ack racist Holder and his all bl ack racist “DOJ Civil Rights Div” written all over it.

[…]

Crack Skittles the new disguise

[…]

Skittles actually has a couple slang meanings. Could be referring to recreational usage of Coricidin. Also refers to a male getting lipstick marks from young ladies on the member. Taste the rainbow..

[…]

You think the DOJ or main stream will report zimmerman was Hispanic not White

[…]

That is all it was — just another n i qq er. No loss

[…]

He was slinging crack.

[…]

Is tea and skittles slang for guns and crack.

[…]

Skittles is actually slang for recreational usage of Coricidin.

[…]

This is what happens when you join a gang. kids need to learn from Martin’s mistakes

[…]

They should have a hunting season in Florida for these drug crazed gang members.

[…]

This could have had a tragic outcome. His gun could have jammed. Whew!

[…]

At least he didn’t chain him to the back of his truck?!?!?

[…]

How long will it take to get all of those little blk curly nappys out of the White House bedding so that the next POTUS can sleep without that Creepy Crawly feeling .

[…]

The picture is of an innocent choir boy designed to evoke sympathy for the “victum” and justify the skewed actions of a corrupt department of justice.

[…]

the b!ack community has created a sense of fear with the excessive amounts of cr!me and v!olence and the glamorizing and glorification of cr!mes and v!olence through c rap music (term used lightly) and most are rude, crude, nasty and give others the tough guy BS attitude.You people (term also used lightly) made your beds and now have to lie in them………don’t be angry with us or blame us you did this all on your own.

[…]

Hunting, maybe thinning the herd…

[…]

It is obvious the un-civilized B!ACKS who dwell in the greatist nation on earth have never wanted to be part of the TEAM, they CRY and P!SS and MOAN at every given oportunity about fairness and equality, While lining up for the free ride at welfare.
The United States is cursed with these baboons, Who will never gain the ability to stand up and make it on their own without our help.
They are the eternal retarded stepchild , needfull and helpless until the end of time.

[…]

Now the family of the kid has lost there way out of the ghetto.

[…]

ANOTHER TOOKY WILLIAMS, ABORTED.
GOOD SHOT ZIMMY. lol

It's important to be reminded of this when we see Paul Ryan and his crew push budgets that would leave 48 million uninsured. Sure, the plutocrats just want more money. But the Republican base will go along with it, because they're happy to lose their own healthcare if it means also denying it to the "young bucks." This is part of why Barack Obama is the most socialist president evah, despite even his own supporters' acknowledgement of his attempts to undermine liberalism itself.

There is no point in trying to compromise or bargain with these people. Bipartisan fetishists like to pretend that the policies on which Americans agree are much greater than the policies on which we disagree. That's just not true. There is an enormous disconnect between huge swaths of Americans over just what society we should have; just what sort of social views of women and minorities should direct our public policy; and what our basic economic, cultural, and social values should be. Those differences are growing. They are important. They are extremely relevant. They profoundly affect debates on seemingly non-partisan granular policy issues.

And they deserve as much sunlight as humanly possible.

.
thereisnospoon 3/20/2012 04:16:00 PM |

 
Abortion would be fine if women weren't making the decision

by digby

Robin Marty at Rh Reality check has the latest hideous dispatch from Gilead:

Alaska is, apparently, itching to be among the growing number of states in which the GOP is proposing or already requires that women undergo invasive, expensive, medically-unnecessary forced ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion. But one state GOP representative, apparently itching for a grand entry into the ol' boys misogyny club in the lower 49, suggests women should have to get permission from whomever impregnated them if they wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Via The Mudflats:

[I]f you’re not fully convinced yet that Alaska is the next front in the GOP’s war on women, you just have to listen to State Rep. Alan Dick. He said that he doesn’t believe that when a woman is pregnant, it’s really “her pregnancy.” As a matter of fact, he would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her. He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…”

Apparently Ohio tried to pass this back in 2009 and it didn't make it because they felt it was too extreme. But as Robin Marty points out:

Then again, once upon a time not allowing exceptions for rape and incest victims was considered "too extreme" too, and now it's becoming the norm.

.
digby 3/20/2012 03:30:00 PM |

 
Destroying liberalism from within

by digby

Jonathan Chait is not known to be a harsh and unreasonable critic of the Obama administration. Indeed, he's usually considered to be very supportive. So this piece about the Washington Post's inside story of the Grand Bargain negotiations called "How Obama tried to sell out liberalism" comes as a bit of a surprise:

Last summer, President Obama desperately attempted to forge a long-term deficit reduction deal with Congressional Republicans. The notion that he could get the House GOP to accept any remotely balanced agreement was preposterous and doomed from the start, but Obama responded to the increasingly obvious reality by reducing his demands of the Republicans to virtually nothing.

The Washington Post has a long narrative report about the negotiations between Obama and the House Republicans. The narrative frame of the Post’s account is that Obama blew the potential deal at the last minute. That’s a story that people close to Obama’s fired chief of staff, Bill Daley, have been peddling for a long time. But that conclusion is utterly belied by the facts in the Post’s own account. But let’s put that aside for now, because the facts in the Post’s account support a different and far more disturbing conclusion: Obama was even more desperate to cut a deal than previously believed — dangerously desperate, in fact.
[...]
The obvious reality is that there never has been any way to get House Republicans to agree to a balanced deficit deal. Even the capitulation Obama offered — $800 billion in semi-imaginary revenue, all raised from the non-rich — was too much for them to agree to. Locking in that low level of revenue would have required huge cuts in spending, making a decent liberal vision of government impossible. The Post is making the case that there was a potential deal, and Obama blew it by failing to properly handle the easily-spooked Republican caucus. What the story actually shows is that Obama’s disastrous weakness in the summer of 2011 went further toward undermining liberalism than anybody previously knew.

I urge you to read the whole thing, but not because it isn't something you didn't already know long ago. Certainly, if you read this blog, you knew it. But it's still interesting to see that it's become crystal clear even to some supporters of the President that we had a very, very close call and it was only the irrational stubbornness of the Tea Party that kept the the Democratic Party from having to run on a record of dismantling the New Deal and ushering in a new era of destructive austerity. (I thank the Tea Partiers every day ...)

The sad truth is that the only real bit of news in the WaPo story is this:

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

Is that the starting point for the next round? There's no reason to think otherwise. If so, we still have a problem --- a big one. As Dday points out in this piece called Grand Bargain History Due to Repeat With Fiscal Cliff at End of the Year:

The deal could have easily become a reality were it not for the troublesome appearance of the Gang of Six. And it could still become a reality. It says right there in black and white at the end of the article: “White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.” What’s more, despite the change in attitude from the President, who’s in election mode, from a conciliator to a fighter, there’s a signifying event coming at the end of the year that will force a number of these same choices to be negotiated again.

By January 1, 2013, the Bush tax cuts will expire, the payroll tax cut will expire, unemployment benefits will expire, the “doc fix” on Medicare reimbursement rates will expire, and the “trigger” of $1.2 trillion in across the board defense and discretionary spending cuts will be triggered. Taken together, this mass of deficit-reducing changes would wipe out the primary budget deficit, leaving mostly a deficit made up of financing for the national debt. Debt-to-GDP ratio will fall, the key number often cited for sustainability. Oh, and the debt limit will run out around this time as well, making it more of a forcing event.
[...]
[T]hat’s where the groundwork of the grand bargain talks comes in. Democrats and Republicans in Washington are going to look for a substitute deficit package in the lame duck session, the point of the lowest ebb of political accountability, with members of Congress who will never face voters again participating, after America has elected a new Congress and possibly a new President. We know that deficit hawks of both parties are already making their plans on this substitute. It could include slashes to entitlement programs when they actually need to be increased to be adequate. It could include a raft of tax cuts even though they have done the brunt of the work on exploding the deficit, without the value of helping the economy. And what it will most surely not include, unless the work gets done today, is the perspective of those ordinary Americans who would rather not see their futures sacrificed for the betterment of the well-off in society.

The "undermining of liberalism" that Chait describes will not be undone unless the president repudiates that deal and the Democrats refuse to negotiate with these economic terrorists from that starting point. After all, the White House has already shown how far it's willing to go. Why would the Republicans ever take anything less again?

Update: The White House says that the Boehner deal is not the one that's still on the table.

.

digby 3/20/2012 01:45:00 PM |

 
The Village 1 percenters

by digby

Look who's joining the country club:

David Gregory, host of NBC’s Meet The Press, and Bret Baier, host of Fox News’s Special Report, are among the latest applicants to the Chevy Chase Club, the historic social club that has catered to Washington’s wealthiest for over a century.

The Club’s recent "Membership Report" shows that both Gregory and Baier are up for consideration as “newly-proposed candidates for membership.” Gregory is being sponsored by Joseph Stettinius and William M. Walker. Baier is being sponsored Burke F. Hayes and by Brit Hume, the former anchor of Fox News’s Special Report.

The Chevy Chase Club would not disclose the cost of admission, but a member told me that the initiation fee is $80,000 and that members pay $6,000 in annual dues. The member also said that Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’s Face The Nation, was a member of the club.

Through an NBC spokesperson, Gregory declined to comment. Spokespeople at Fox News did not return a request for comment.

The Chevy Chase Club was founded in 1892. As recently as 1976, it did not accept Jewish or African-American members, according to a report in the New York Times. And despite reforms, some who have visited the club believe it has maintained an atmosphere reminiscent of earlier days.

“Order a cocktail at the Chevy Chase country-club and you'll step back into ante-bellum Savannah,” one British reporter for The Telegraph observed last year. “The blacks wait on Wasps, showing all the deference expected of them. You won't find many Cohens either, lounging on the well-kept lawn.”

I can hardly wait for the next time Gregory places himself in the role of the average American as, like all Villagers, he is wont to do:

So this morning David Gregory, in the great tradition of his forebear Tim Russert, was just a regular workin' dude interviewin' the big wigs about the troubles of average Murikins jess like him:

MR. GREGORY: My mother out in California, I presume, is watching this morning. She's like a lot of Americans, worried about her job and wondering why not just bank lending, but something called nonbank lending, securitization--what is that, and why does that matter to her?

Just like Joe and Jane American everywhere, Dave's mom is fearing for her financial future and would like an explanation for why she finds herself feeling so insecure.

I have an idea. Maybe Dave could get his wife, the former General Counsel for Fannie Mae, to explain all this high flying financial mumbo jumbo to her mother-in-law. And if worse comes to worse and Ma Gregory loses her job, maybe Dave could hire her to clean his multi-million dollar Nantucket vacation home.

This is the problem with the political press. There is no earthly reason for David Gregory to join this club. He has all the access he needs to any powerful person on earth. The only reason for him to join it is because he wants to be among other people like himself (and away from the polloi.) Do you think old Dave will be covering his friends down at the club with the vigor that's necessary in these times? Yeah, I didn't think so.


.
digby 3/20/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Blue America Chat: Patsy Keever NC-10 11 AM/PDT

by digby

Here's an excerpt of Howie's post at Down With Tyranny:

"Women all across North Carolina," Patsy told us, "are disgusted with the Republican treatment of women. My campaign launched a petition drive protesting the GOP's assault on women and collected over 850 petitions in a few days. I’m not just talking about Democratic women. Whether it’s the radical right-wing conservatives in Raleigh or in Washington, the women I’ve spoken to are ready to take action to confront this extremism. I faced this issue at the state level as well. GOP members in the State House proposed legislation curtailing women's choice. Well I fought against this bill and worked to uphold Governor Perdue's veto. I am angry, and needless to say, women across the state are angry too."

And Patrick McHenry has been no champion on women's issues-- not on any of them. He votes against women on social issues and on economic issues. Patrick McHenry, as everyone who has followed his career knows, has a serious problem with women. And after Patsy wins her primary against a conservative Democrat on May 8, she'll be up against McHenry-- and in a district newly redrawn to be somewhat friendlier to Democrats and Independents and less friendly to right-wing extremists. Obama's performance is 6% better under the new lines and, by party registration, there are now actually more Democrats in the district (39.3%) than Republicans (35.6%). But Patsy didn't jump into this race because of Limbaugh or the GOP War Against Women. Her issues have more to do with education-- she taught in the public schools for more than 25 years-- and with an economic equality agenda.

As a mother, grandmother, public school teacher, community leader and elected official, I have spent more than 30 years working to make our community a great place for families and children to live. I have fought to create opportunities for meaningful employment, ensure that our children get a quality education, protect the quality of our air and water and achieve equality for all of our citizens. When I am elected to Congress, I will continue to do so.

Now I want to take these principles to Washington D.C., where a good dose of common sense and cooperation are direly needed. While understanding the need to tighten our belts, I will protect Social Security and Medicare, defend the natural beauty of our region and stand against extremism that hurts families. Every time I take a vote, I will ask myself, “Will this make our community a better place... for us, for our children and for our grandchildren?”

Patsy is a terrific progressive, beloved by her constituents and very experienced in North Carolina politics. She has a chance --- with your help.

She'll be joining us at CrooksandLiars at 2pm (ET), 11am on the West Coast for a live chat about her campaign and her issues. If you'd like to help this fiery grandmother, with a proven track record, replace Patrick McHenry-- who also has a record-- please consider a contribution at the Blue America ActBlue page.


.
digby 3/20/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
NRA dreams come true

by digby

So it turns out that Treyvan Martin was talking to a friend while being followed by the neighborhood watch guy:

The pair's phone logs, obtained by ABC News, show they spoke just five minutes before police responded to reports of a shooting at the gated community in Sanford, Fla.

Recounting her conversation with Martin, the teen girl said, "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man."

"I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run," she said.

After a few minutes, the girl said, Martin thought he was safe. But eventually the man appeared again.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for?'" the girl said. "And the man said, 'What are you doing here?' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the [phone’s\] headset just fell."

The line went dead, the girl said.

"I called him again and he didn't answer the phone," she said.

So it would seem that the teen-ager was the one who was afraid. And rightly so as it turns out.

He didn't run, and for good reason. If he had, he would have been considered a "fleeing suspect" and could have gotten shot. Of course, under Florida's lunatic gun laws, if he stood his ground, he could still get shot. Indeed, under these laws, the only person who has any rights is the one with the gun. And that person is evidently entitled to stalk, chase and shoot unarmed strangers and call it self defense.

I was talking about this this morning and someone said that "they" were going to have to change these laws. And I realized once again how sick our society has become --- those are NRA laws and thus inviolable. I honestly cannot picture how it's even possible for them to be changed short of a massive uprising by tens of millions of middle class working Americans. The NRA is holding the government hostage and its now completely ineffectual at dealing with gun violence.

Update: this timeline explainer from Mother Jones is indispensable if you want to understand the case and the context for these laws. This is one example of how the law works:

Many readers have asked whether, given the 911 recordings, a case against Zimmerman would be easier than most homicides in which "self-defense" is cited by a defendant. In Florida, the answer probably is no: The courts' interpretation of the stand-your-ground law has been extremely broad—so broad that, to win an acquittal, a defendant doesn't even have to prove self-defense, only argue for it, while to win a conviction the prosecution has to prove that self-defense was impossible.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the law "does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

This has led to some stunning verdicts in the state. In Tallahassee in 2008, two rival gangs engaged in a neighborhood shootout, and a 15-year-old African American male was killed in the crossfire. The three defendants all either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed, because the defense successfully argued they were defending themselves under the "stand your ground" law. The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.

According to the NRA the constitution only protects people who have guns, not those who don't. It's really that simple.

.
digby 3/20/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Mr. Consistent

David Atkins

The Times pens yet another tribute to Rick Santorum's consistency:

He objected to Mitt Romney’s insistence that the tenets of Mormonism are not in conflict with traditional Christianity. He said there was good reason to doubt the theory of evolution and argued that intelligent design should be taught in schools. And when critics questioned Rick Santorum on even the most innocuous matters, like his support for stronger federal oversight of pet stores, he fired back.

Over the last decade, Mr. Santorum has been a prolific writer of op-ed articles, letters to the editor and guest columns in some of the country’s largest and most influential newspapers. All the while he displayed many of the traits that define him as a presidential candidate today: a deep and unwavering Catholic faith, a suspicion of secularism and a conviction that the country was on a path toward cultural ruin.

A review of his columns and letters going back 10 years reveals a striking consistency in his conservative political views and spiritual guiding principles. He could be harsh, as when he mocked President Obama’s mantra of hope and change as “pathetically counterfeit.” He could throw out scientific terms whenever topics like genetics were involved. “Scientists who are pushing for embryonic stem-cell research are seeking pluripotent stem cells.” And there was even a brief turn as a film critic. “Any movie titled ‘Knocked Up’ isn’t going to win any awards for decorum, and this one doesn’t disappoint.”

He wrote in national newspapers like USA Today, Washington-centric publications like The Hill and Roll Call, religious ones like Catholic Online, and metropolitan dailies in Pennsylvania like The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Philadelphia Inquirer, which paid him as a columnist for more than two years after he was voted out of office in 2006. The column had the cheeky title “The Elephant in the Room.”

His writings were often sprinkled with Biblical and religious references. On global warming, he said, “Climate change’s Pharisees reassure us that the global-warming science is still settled.” On the reaction in Congress to his amendment on teaching evolution in schools, he wrote, “The High Priests of Darwinism went berserk.”

As Digby noted a few days ago, it's hard to see why Rick Santorum should get credit for this. I could run for office for twenty years running on a platform of eliminating NASA's budget in favor of studying flat-earth topography, penning op-eds decrying the Pharisees of heliocentrism and the High Priests of Copernicus. It wouldn't be an admirable character trait. It would make me stubbornly wrong, and crazy to boot.


.
thereisnospoon 3/20/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Monday, March 19, 2012

 
The endless learning curve

by digby

Krugman:

Greg Sargent has more bang-your-head-against-the-wall material about the Obama administration’s “pivot” to deficits. Quoting a new book by David Corn:

Plouffe was concerned that voter unease about the deficit could become unease about the president. The budget issue was easy to understand; you shouldn’t spend more money than you have. Yes, there was the argument that the government should borrow money responsibly when necessary (especially when interest rates were low) for the appropriate activities, just like a family borrowing sensibly to purchase a home, to pay for college, or to handle an emergency. But voters needed to know — or feel — that the president could manage the nation’s finances.

The depth of political malpractice here is just mind-blowing.

The goes on to show that the public always thinks the budget should be balanced, no matter what --- even in the Great Depression. And I would guess that one of the reasons is that politicians --- including the President -- are constantly telling them that the federal budget is just like the family budget and we all have to tighten our belts!

"Now, finally, we should all be able to agree that we've got to do something about our long-term deficits. Now, these deficits won’t just burden our kids and our grandkids decades from now -- they could damage our markets now, they could drive up our interest rates now, they could jeopardize our recovery right now.

Responsible families don’t do their budgets the way the federal government does. Right? When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It’s time your government did the same. "

That was February of 2010. It was still going on in July of 2011, 18 months later:

"Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

Long learning curve, there.

Can we all agree, at least in hindsight, that this was the wrong approach? It's not as if some very prominent people weren't saying it at the time. And 18 months later, too. not to mention those of us in the peanut gallery.

I'm reading Showdown right now. And like all the books about the first term, it's intensely frustrating. It's not as if we didn't know all this. But finding out just how thoroughly they bought into the nonsense is still chilling.

.
digby 3/19/2012 06:30:00 PM |

 
Liberals, resist this taunt

by digby

I mean it. It's a huge part of the reason that Democrats run scared and it's got to stop. It's been going on as long as I can remember --- maybe as long as human history. And it's been extremely destructive to civilization:

On March 16, Limbaugh explained to a caller what he meant by "new castrati":

LIMBAUGH: That's basically men with no guts who have just been bullied by women and the power structure and liberalism in general. And so, in -- when I do the imitation of those guys -- this is the new castrati -- basically, these are people that just have been bullied into total acquiescence with the liberal agenda. They don't stand up for themselves. They never stand up for what's right for themselves. They're just total appeasers. They just totally go along to avoid any resistance or confrontation whatsoever.

CALLER: So is castrati a play on words for castrate?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, yeah. De-balled if you will.

Sadly, I've known many people in my life who've been intimidated by that taunt. And frankly, I see its effects fairly frequently even today with all the chest beating and high fiving over bin Laden's death. I hate to break the news but you will never be able to kill enough people to make up for the fact that liberalism is perceived as "woman's work" and the Democrats as "the mommy party." If that's what you seek then you might as well join the rest of the bullies and become a Republican.

.

digby 3/19/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
Lawful firing

by David Atkins

This is crazy.

They weren't wearing sagging pants or revealing clothing. But dressing in an orange shirt is apparently enough to get fired at one Florida law firm, where 14 workers were unceremoniously let go last Friday.

In an interview with the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, several of the fired workers say they wore the matching colors so they would be identified as a group when heading out for a happy hour event after work. They say the executive who fired them initially accused them of wearing the matching color as a form of protest against management.

Orange is widely considered to be one of the most visible colors to the human eye. Orange vests are worn by most hunters as a safety precaution and by school crossing guards. Most prisoners are required to wear orange jump suits.

The color orange is arguably Florida's defining color. The self-described "Sunshine State" is widely known for its orange juice exports.

The law offices of Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A. offered "no comment" to Sun-Sentinel reporter Doreen Hemlock, but four ex-employees tell the paper they were simply wearing their orange shirts to celebrate "pay day" and the upcoming Friday group happy hour.

"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," Lou Erik Ambert told the paper. "I feel so violated."

Ironically, had the employees been wearing orange as a form of protest, it would have been illegal to fire them, ABC News reports.

And yet, conservatives argue that the playing field in this country is too tilted toward labor, and not beneficial enough to job "creators"/destroyers. Nuts.


.
thereisnospoon 3/19/2012 03:14:00 PM |

 
Of course it's not racist. Why would you think so?

by digby

From Roger Friedman at Forbes:

Paula Smith of Hinesville, Georgia has a company called Stickatude.com. And they’re selling their own version of an anti-Obama bumper sticker that reads “Don’t Re-Nig 2012.” Ms. Smith told me in a telephone conversation on Saturday afternoon that the bumper sticker has been in their inventory since June 2010, but just in the last few days it’s started selling. The price is $3. Ms. Smith insisted that the bumper sticker is not racist. I asked her about the “N” word, for which “nig” is the shortened version. “According to the dictionary [the N word] does not mean black. It means a low down, lazy, sorry, low down person. That’s what the N word means.”
[...]
The Smiths own a well known paint ball field in Hinesville — a town near Savannah. Mrs. Smith said customers come from all over the world. Ms. Smith said she is not racist, she just wants Obama out of office. She tells me she doesn’t have a preferred replacement candidate. “And besides Obama is not even black. He’s got a mixture of race. It’s his choice of what his nationality is. I’m a mixed breed. I call myself a Heinz 57,” she says, referring to an ancestry that’s part of French, Scottish, and German.

“I just want someone that’s going to help the United States and not give it other countries all the time. And stop giving the immigrants the benefits that most Americans inside their own states can’t even get because they’re giving it others who don’t even live here as an American.

“I do find it amazing and entertaining that one of our stickers has become a racist thing,” Ms. Smith told me. I asked her if she thought the “N” Word was a bad word? “No,” she said, ” because I don’t use it. I have kids here around me that are black kids. I call them my own kids. I’ve helped black families…to guide them in the right direction. Paintball is one of these things. We like to laugh and have a good time. That’s our way of life.”

There you have it. She helps black families to guide them in the right direction. I hesitate to even imagine what those paintball games are like.

I think this person is a pretty fringe character. Modern American racism is rarely even this overt. Usually they just go with the Muslim thing or talk about food stamps. But under the surface this is what a rather large minority of Americans still think, unfortunately. The good news is that it used to be a majority.


.
digby 3/19/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
America's Reasonable Demagogue

by digby

He does have one point.The Bush administration and his Randian pal Alan Greenspan knowingly pumped the housing crisis and Wall Street gambling, resulting in the Great Recession.

And now he wants to destroy any chances of a sustained recovery by pushing a ruthless and brutal austerity regime on the country even as unemployment is high and the housing crisis persists.

So yeah. Governments can look the other way or even consciously precipitate an economic catastrophe. And they will do it again if Paul Ryan has his way.

Which once again raises the question: why isn't the DCCC trying to do every last thing in its power to defeat him? Can there be any rational excuse for it?

Blue America's challenge still stands. And if you'd like to try to defeat this most dangerous of all Republicans, you can do so here.

.
digby 3/19/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 
Tasered in cuffs

by digby

The latest taser death (that I know of). In Florida, of course:

The episode began Saturday on the north end of the Dunedin state park. Barnes had received news about the health of a boyfriend, the sheriff's said, and told his aunt that he wanted to "cleanse himself" at the beach.

The aunt, Paula Yount, joined Barnes in the water. But Barnes "went berserk for no reason" and began cursing and pushing her, Gualtieri said.

Yount declined to comment Sunday.

An officer with the state Department of Environmental Protection, Joseph Tactuk, was on patrol at the park and saw the altercation.

Tactuk tried to stop it, the sheriff said, but Barnes got into a fist fight with the officer, bloodying his nose.

During the struggle, Barnes was placed haphazardly in handcuffs, with one hand tangled behind his head.

Marine sheriff's Deputy Kenneth Kubler and other Pinellas County patrol units arrived.

Barnes was pulled to the shelly part of the shore, where he continued to throw elbows, flail about and head-butt the officers, Gualtieri said.

As Barnes continued to struggle, Kubler fired a Taser at him, limiting the bursts to less than what the weapon allows. The sheriff said Kubler fired it twice more — for three-second bursts — as the struggle continued.

Barnes stopped struggling. After officers adjusted his handcuffs, they discovered he was not breathing. Emergency crews were called to the beach, and Barnes was then taken to Bayfront Medical Center.

Gualtieri said there's no specific policy about using Tasers on handcuffed suspects. But, he said, it is usually proper to use them when someone, like in this case, is using physical resistance against a deputy.

And why would there be policy? When you have an obviously distraught person everyone knows that the only logical thing to do is shoot them full of electricity while they are bound. It's just common sense. Indeed, I would imagine that deputy's would appreciate having the leeway to shoot handcuffed suspects full of electricity whenever they need to. Why not? (Well, except for the whole state brutality and possible death thing, but that's hardly a concern in America, is it?)

I do appreciate how the story is so precise and detailed about the "limited bursts" until the citizen "stopped struggling." It makes it so nice and clinical.


.
digby 3/19/2012 11:00:00 AM |

 
"The offer is still on the table"

by digby

This behind the scenes look at the Grand Bargain doesn't change my original impression of the negotiations, but it does lend some details that actually make it worse than I thought:

A lot of red ink, the Republicans thought. But the major elements of a bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.

In Boehner’s offer Friday night, the taxes came with strings attached. The Republicans wanted Obama to give up plans to raise the tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans, now set at 35 percent. Instead, they wanted that rate to go down. They also wanted to preserve low rates for investment income — one of the biggest perks for the wealthy in the tax code — and establish a blanket exemption from U.S. taxes for corporate profits earned overseas.

Another key caveat: Much of the $800 billion would have to come from overhauling the tax code — not from higher tax rates. The Republicans believed lower rates and a simpler code would generate new revenue by discouraging cheating and spurring economic growth. If the White House would agree to count that money, the Republican leaders said, then they might have a deal.

That last condition was a problem. For years, Democrats have mocked the Republican argument that tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy, an assertion for which evidence is scant. Many independent budget experts say the effect, if it exists, would be almost impossible to measure and useless in crafting a budget. Fiscal “snake oil,” some Democrats say.

So there were issues to work out that Sunday but also reason for optimism. In its counterproposal, the White House appeared to accept the $800 billion tax offer and a lower top rate. The administration rejected the exemption for overseas profits, but Geithner told the Republicans, they said, that he could get most of the way there.

And when Boehner brought up economic growth, arguing that his caucus would not accept tax increases under any other terms, the Republicans saw Geithner as receptive, Jackson said. “It was literally one of the last things discussed when they came in on that Sunday. And Geithner said, ‘Yes, we accept that,’ ” Jackson recalled. “We viewed it as a breakthrough.”

On this point, the two sides are in dispute. Geithner and other administration officials say it never happened. They strenuously deny agreeing to count revenue from economic growth, a process known as “dynamic scoring.”

Treasury spokeswoman Jenni LeCompte said the Republicans “were kidding themselves” if they thought the White House would concede that point. “That’s always been a total non-starter for Secretary Geithner and this administration and always will be,” she said.

So selling out Medicare and Social Security, lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting the hell out of everything else was just fine, but dynamic scoring was the hang up? Well, I guess we at least know what the limits are now. One thing is clear from this article: the administration simply had no respect or concern for the Democratic base's reaction to what they were doing. They had convinced themselves that raising taxes in some fashion --- no matter how abstract --- would be enough to assuage them.

The Gang of Six came along at a bad moment in the negotiations and one-upped the Grand Bargainers on the revenue side, which Obama foolishly embraced publicly, greatly annoying the Republicans. After all, they had already gotten him to agree to vague "tax reform" that they knew would amount to nothing. (The right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing doesn't even begin to describe it...) In the only moment of concern for Democratic support, the administration worried that their people would defect unless they upped the ante on the the revenue side as well so they came back with an addition 400 billion in bullshit fantasy --- and that was enough to make the Republicans bolt.

This whole thing was ridiculous on both sides. The Republicans fecklessly rejected the best opportunity to destroy the American welfare state they would ever be offered and do it at the hands of a Democratic president. It was only the terrible negotiating by the Democratic administration, weak-willed Democratic leaders (who "gulped" but agreed because austerity is "the right thing for the country") and a bunch of lunatic Teabaggers that saved us.

I've read a lot of scary things this past week, but that's the scariest article of all. If it hadn't been for the happy accident of total ineptitude, we would be on the path to austerity right now and our safety net would have huge, probably unmendable, hole right in the middle.

And they're still willing:

“There was an agreement with the White House for $800 billion in revenue,” Boehner told reporters. “It was the president who walked away from this agreement.”

Two day later, July 24, one week after the Sunday morning meeting that sparked such optimism, the president found himself trying to turn back the clock.

Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. His message: I’ll take your last offer.

“Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”

White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.

.
digby 3/19/2012 09:30:00 AM |

 
"We Need More Dead Thugs"

by David Atkins

My brother Dante reminded me last night of this fascist ugliness on Neal Boortz' synidicated radio show from June of last year:

BOORTZ: You know what? I, for one, am tired of putting up with this crap. And you want to know why I moved out of Atlanta and only spend a couple of weeks a year in this town? That's one of the reasons. Carjackings, violence, people getting shot. It's ridiculous. This city harbors an urban culture of violence. And I want you to look around. You drive into the city. The railroad overpass is on the downtown connector covered with graffiti. And that-- That is just an advertisement for everybody coming into this town that we really don't give a damn about those who would screw up our quality of life around here. We really just don't care. We don't care enough to paint over graffiti on the overpasses that come into our city, advertising welcome to Atlanta, here's some of our finest graffiti, from some of our finest urban thugs and their little gang signs. And pick up the paper tomorrow morning. Read about all the carjackings. Read about the innocent people shot for the pure de-hell of it.

This town is starting to look like a garbage heap. And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. And let their -- let their mommas -- let their mommas say, "He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd." And then lock her ass up.

It looks like Boortz and friends are getting exactly what they wanted. All they need to do now is find some trumped up charge on which to lock away Trayvon Martin's mother, and the neighborhood will be fully cleansed.


.
thereisnospoon 3/19/2012 07:30:00 AM |

Sunday, March 18, 2012

 
Blue America challenges the DCCC

by digby

So the DCCC is is sending out more scare emails about the threat to America from Paul Ryan and his Medicare killing plans. And it is a very real threat to be sure. But once again, for reasons one can only speculate about, they are failing to support the Democrat who's trying to take his seat from him.

Remember, Ryan's in a purple district that Obama won --- and he's got a serious challenger in Rob Zerban. Howie writes:

Last cycle they did absolutely nothing to go after Ryan, Boehner or Cantor-- NOTHING. Zilch! Zippo! Instead they put millions of dollars of contributions into ineffective, lame ads like the one below to protect Blue Dogs who vote half the time with the GOP anyway. Not a single nickel or even a courtesy call to the Democrats running against Boehner or Ryan, but tens of millions on garbage like this:

And this year... here they go again. Ryan and his plan want to take away your Medicare-- apparently everywhere but Racine, Kenosha, Janesville and the southern Milwaukee suburbs. For the last two weeks, the DCCC has urged candidates to found Ryan's anti-Medicare budget. That's fine. But do they do anything for Rob Zerban? Not that I've seen. And when I speak to DCCC-connected major donors, they tell me Steve Israel discourages them from donating to Zerban's campaign.

Last week dozens of Democratic candidates all over the country sent out DCCC-written e-mails like this:

Medicare, along with Social Security and Medicaid, are the foundation of the middle class. I was outraged when I heard that Republicans like Paul Ryan were suggesting ending Medicare as we know it, and I'm sure you were too. Now Republicans are starting to revive those plans, but our Republican opponents haven't let the public know whether they support this vital program... [yadda, yadda, yadda.]

Very nice!

I challenge the DCCC to help Rob Zerban actually beat Paul Ryan and put an end to the gravest threat facing the American middle class. If the DCCC writes a check to Zerban's campaign this week for $5,000, Blue America will match it, dollar for dollar. Come on, big shots. What about you, Israel? Crowley? Wasserman Schultz? Let's see a DCCC check for Rob Zerban's campaign to actually put an end to Ryan's career instead of all the bullshit sending petitions to Republicans so they have something to laugh about.

And what can you do? You can contribute directly to Rob Zerban here at the Stop Paul Ryan ActBlue page. No phony baloney petitions there, just a place for concerned Americans to actually try to do something to stop Ryan before his financiers on Wall Street make him president and doom us all.

This is a serious challenge. If the DCCC wants to stop Paul Ryan, they have a perfect vehicle: it's called an election. It's true that Ryan has more corrupt Wall Street money than God at his disposal --- but then, so does Mitt Romney. I think his rivals have proven that even in GOP politics you don't need as much money as Randian plutocrats to make a run at it --- you just need enough.

.
digby 3/18/2012 06:00:00 PM |

 
This week-end in primary madness

by digby

Ok, first we have this little protest at a Rick Santorum event:

Not that the protest was weird.It was actually pretty awesome. It's the reaction. A couple of guys kiss in the stands and the audience starts shouting USA! USA!? Huh? I guess it's all they could think of.

Santorum was 15 minutes into his speech when the two men shouted and got the attention of the crowd. They exchanged a kiss, prompting guards to eject them and the crowd to chant “U-S-A” while they were leaving the gym.

When asked whether the kiss was a public display of affection or merely a symbolic act, Timothy Tross of Lombard and Ben Clifford of Algonquin, declined to comment.

“I don’t think the message should be about what my sexuality is,” Tross said. “It’s the message that he’s saying about sexuality that matters.”

About 50 protesters lined the street before the rally with signs that read “LGBT No H8,” “Catholics Against Santorum” and “If I incorporate myself, would you treat me like a person?” LGBT activist Matt Muchowski, who created the Facebook group “Carmel Catholic Alumni Against Rick Santorum,” planned the protest.

Santorum spent his senior year at Carmel Catholic High School in Mundelein and graduated in 1976.

“We feel it is important to counter Santorum’s anti-gay hate, to set an example to students,” Muchowski said. “Rick sends a message of bullying, but we want high school students to know that other alumni send a message of equality.”

Funny, Rick doesn't seem to have mentioned that he graduated from High School in Illinois as he's campaigning all over the state. Joan Walsh looked into it and discovered that like a lot of Catholics, they just don't like him much.

Meanwhile, down in Missouri, those passionate, youthful Ron Paul supporters caused a stir and the police were called in:

In St. Charles, an exurb of St. Louis and one of the state’s largest GOP counties, Paul supporters sought to elect their own chairman and adopt their own rules when proceedings opened — both of which are part of standard caucus rules and procedure. But as they argued with the caucus chair, Paul supporters held video cameras — against caucus rules, according to a GOP official who was there — and things became contentious...

An off-duty police officer, hired as security, eventually filed a trespassing complaint against the Paul supporters and notified on-duty police in the area municipality of St. Peters, who, along with police from other jurisdictions, arrested two Paul supporters and ended the caucuses early. A joint-jurisdictional police helicopter arrived on the scene. Kipers said about 10 officers arrived in total.

“Two people were arrested for trespassing after receiving numerous warnings to leave the school property,” the St. Peters police said in a press release. “Both subjects were transported to St. Peters Justice Center where they were booked for Trespassing and released on a summons.”

The St. Peters police identified the Paul supporters as Brent Safford, 45, of O’Fallon, Mo., and Kenneth Suitter, 55, of St. Charles.

Crazy kids.

In Romneybot news:

In the lead-up to Puerto Rico's primary election, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney encouraged the island's residents to speak English and criticized U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The justice, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009, is beloved by local Democrats and Republicans as the high court's first member of Puerto Rican descent.

I also heard he went on to say that he loathes spicy food and believes Rum is the devil's brew. He later clarified that he has always loved Fritos since he was a kid especially with Miracle Whip and ketchup. And that J-lo's got back.

I have no idea what Newt did. Frankly.

.
digby 3/18/2012 04:30:00 PM |

 
The vampire squid has been doing this for a long time

by David Atkins

William Cohan at the Washington Post has a great reminder today for those who were shocked, shocked at reading Greg Smith's bridge burning expose. Fact is, Goldman has been doing this stuff for a long, long time. Cohan tells one particular story from the late 1960s:

There are numerous examples of Goldman putting its own interests first. But one will suffice: the June 1970 bankruptcy of Penn Central Transportation Company, the nation’s largest railroad.

At the time, Penn Central operated 20,530 miles of track in 16 states and two Canadian provinces and provided 35 percent of all railroad passenger service in the United States. The company also had substantial real estate holdings, including Grand Central Terminal in New York, along with much of the land on Park Avenue between Grand Central and the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. Nevertheless, Penn Central ended up defaulting on $87 million of its short-term unsecured debt — known in the industry as “commercial paper” — and Goldman was at the epicenter of its financial difficulties.

In 1968, after years of being shut out of doing business with many of the nation’s railroads — in large part because it was a Jewish-owned firm — Goldman won the opportunity to underwrite Penn Central’s commercial paper, widely seen as among the safest short-term investments. For large fees, Goldman sold the paper to its clients, including big companies such as American Express and Disney, and smaller ones such as Welch’s Foods, the grape-juice maker, and Younkers, a Des Moines-based retailer. Welch’s and Younkers, particularly, counted on the fact that Goldman told them that the Penn Central paper was safe and could be easily redeemed. Welch’s invested $1 million — some of it payroll cash — and Younkers invested $500,000, both at Goldman’s recommendation.

After Penn Central filed for bankruptcy, an SEC investigation discovered that Goldman had continued to sell the railroad’s debt to its clients at 100 cents on the dollar — even though, by the end of 1969, the firm knew that Penn Central’s finances were deteriorating rapidly. Not only was Goldman privy to Penn Central’s internal numbers, it also heard repeatedly from the railroad’s executives that it was rapidly running out of cash.

Par for the course. Not that anyone will actually do anything about it. That would be "partisan" and "not in the spirit of getting things done for the American people."


.
thereisnospoon 3/18/2012 03:00:00 PM |

 
QOTD:"I’m sure Trayvon would, too"

by digby

Lessons learned:

Police Chief Bill Lee said that although police do not encourage watch program volunteers to carry weapons, he recognizes a citizen’s constitutional right to do so. No arrest was made, Lee said, because there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s account...

“We are taking a beating over this,” said Lee, who defends the investigation. “This is all very unsettling. I’m sure if George Zimmerman had the opportunity to relive Sunday, Feb. 26, he’d probably do things differently. I’m sure Trayvon would, too.”

Yes, the teen-age Trayvon would know better than to ever leave the house because he'd know that some vigilante packing heat might gun him down for no reason.

.
digby 3/18/2012 01:30:00 PM |

 
Spocko Lives

by digby

A largely unsung blogospheric buddy gets some credit where credit is due:

The campaign to pressure advertisers to leave conservative Rush Limbaugh's radio show after his misogynistic comments about a college student looks familiar - it was presaged six years ago in a similar effort directed at a San Francisco talk-radio station by an anonymous blogger called Spocko.

Since then, contacting advertisers about the content their ads pay for has become routine, fueled by the Internet. This time, organizations such as Ultra Violet, an online activism site focused on women's issues, are leading the backlash.

Contacting the Federal Communications Commission is as archaic as using a typewriter.

Limbaugh - who draws 15 million listeners a week, the largest audience in radio, according to Talkers magazine - has stared down protests before. But industry analysts say this campaign, 3 weeks old, could have staying power.

While Spocko was largely a one-man band, activists are now using social-media networks to corral consumers incensed that Limbaugh called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" after she testified before a congressional panel about the value of contraception...

Starting in 2006, Spocko - whose day job is advising large companies about their media image - became disturbed by commentary he heard on KSFO, a prominent Bay Area conservative talk station.

Instead of threatening a boycott, he would suggest to a corporation that a host's commentary was not reflecting its corporate values. He would send online clips, like one of former KSFO host Lee Rodgers suggesting that a protester be "stomped to death right there. Just stomp their bleeping guts out."

Eventually, companies including Bank of America and MasterCard asked that their advertising be withdrawn.

The Limbaugh campaign is "so reminiscent of what happened to us at KSFO," morning show co-host Melanie Morgan said this week...

Stifling free speech is not the intent, said Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of Ultra Violet. Like ColorOfChange.org, it sprung from the East Bay's nonprofit Citizen Engagement Laboratory, which uses digital media to spotlight underrepresented constituencies.

Chaudhary, a former national organizer for liberal online hub MoveOn.org, said the Limbaugh matter is about holding powerful media figures responsible for what they say.

Her organization and others, including the liberal Media Matters for America, are monitoring every minute of Limbaugh's show. When they hear a new advertiser's commercial, they contact the company directly, much like Spocko did years ago.

Chaudhary said her organization soon will contact local stations that carry Limbaugh that "may be feeling the pinch" of the loss of advertisers.

Go Spocko.


.
digby 3/18/2012 12:00:00 PM |

 

Macho Dollies

by digby

I assume most of you remember this:




I wrote quite a bit about it during the Bush years, usually tying it to Republicans' anxious masculinity.

I have been reading a fascinating book called "The Wimp Factor" by Stephen J Doucat that thoroughly examines the strange phenomenon of anxious Republican masculinity and the way it's informing our politics. I will be writing more about it over time, but I just wanted to make note of one little thing that I didn't know and I doubt that you all knew either:

By far the most compelling confirmation of the phallic meaning of the president's aircraft-carrier cakewalk was found on the hot-selling "George W. Bush Top Gun action figure" manufactured by Talking Presidents. I originally ordered one to use as part of the cover design for this book. The studly twelve-inch flyboy not only comes with a helmet and visor, goggles and oxygen mask, but underneath his flight suit is a full "basket" --- a genuine fake penis, apparently constructed with lifelike silicone.

I'll just let that percolate in your mind for a bit.

Well, never let it be said that the Democrats don't measure up:

At this writing, only one of the limited edition has been sold, so it doesn't look to be the big seller that the Bush dolls were. At least not yet. Unfortunately, the "message," such as it is, is all too popular.

I'm reevaluating my thesis that this is about anxious masculinity. It's about infantalism.

.

digby 3/18/2012 10:30:00 AM |

 
Do as we say, not as we do

by digby

... over there:

Americans have, however, wielded influence on many occasions, and President Karzai is still smarting from many of them. When an aide to Mr. Karzai was arrested by an American-backed corruption task force, the president intervened to secure his release, and then eviscerated the anticorruption body, the Major Crimes Task Force. But from Mr. Karzai’s point of view, the Americans never gave him the courtesy of warning that they planned to arrest a top official.

Bette Dam, a Dutch author who interviewed Mr. Karzai extensively for her book, “Expedition Uruzgan: Hamid Karzai’s Journey Into the Palace,” says that what the Americans saw as corruption, Mr. Karzai and his family saw as simply patronage. Because the government was weak, with the Americans providing all the muscle, patronage was the only thing Mr. Karzai had to maintain his power base.

“Then you have President Obama, who says we have to do it differently. But the only thing that changed was Obama criticizing Karzai, making his government transparent, setting up task forces openly attacking his corruption,” she said. “It was not likely something would change; Karzai’s patronage system that was built up was too strong, and he himself too proud.”

The inquiry over the apparent embezzlement of nearly a billion dollars from Kabul Bank, which implicated Mr. Karzai’s brother and the brother of his first vice president, was deeply embarrassing, and he blamed American officials for leaking it to the press — and then using the threat of aid cuts to force him to dismember the bank.

From the point of view of the United States and its Western allies, they have only been trying to push Mr. Karzai to do the right thing.

Karzai should have had a chat with Tim Geithner the last time he was in Washington. I'm sure he could have shown him to handle this little bit of business.

.
digby 3/18/2012 09:00:00 AM |

 
Linda Parks: A New Breed of High Broderist Politician

by David Atkins

It's hard to say which has been more harmful to the body politic in this country: the extremist tilt of conservative Republicans, or the crowd of aloof both-sides-do-it anti-partisans who give them cover. Normally the latter are confined to the traditional media, who follow closely in the footsteps of their patron bipartisan saint David Broder. Conservative extremists in elected office and partisan think tanks move on apace with their agendas; Democrats and even some progressives bend over backwards to give them most of what they ask for, in spite of the awful nature of the policies being espoused; conservative extremists smell weakness and demand even more; negotiations break down; and the traditional press tut-tuts over the horrible "partisanship" of it all. The stories written by these press flacks heave exasperated sighs at both parties for the futility of the debates, while covering the actual details of the policy arguments, the popularity of the proposals involved, and the depth of the actual concessions from each side with all the rigor of a children's pop-up storybook. Jackie Calmes' now legendarily terrible piece in the New York Times about the deficit reduction debate last year has become something of an archetype for this sort of vapid reporting.

Unfortunately, the passage of the top-two primary in California has created a new hybrid breed of anti-partisan politician. This relatively new species seeks higher office by attempting to marginalize both parties with the sort of detail-free bipartisan platitudes which the establish press has made its hallmark.

Case in point: Linda Parks, candidate for California's new 26th Congressional District. Parks is currently the 2nd District County Supervisor encompassing much of Thousand Oaks and the surrounding areas. In 1996 she switched her registration from Democrat to Republican in order to win elected office in the mostly Republican district. She has a decent environmental track record, and is a moderate Republican swing vote on the Board of Supervisors. The local Republicans have attempted several fierce primary challenges against her, all of which failed due to Democratic crossover support (the district's registration makes it very difficult for an actual Democrat to win there.) However, there was little chance for her to advance higher than the Board of Supervisors due to a lack of support for her in either Party.

But now Ms. Parks has seized on the top-two primary system to run for Congress, courting the Decline-to-State vote while marginalizing both parties and maintaining a conveniently substance-free platform. Because Jerry Brown signed a law recently dictating that the ballot must reflect the Party in which one is registered, Linda Parks re-registered with no party preference a few weeks ago. The June ballot for this majority Democratic district will now have four Democrats (at least two of them conservative), a conservative Republican state senator named Tony Strickland, and the "non-partisan" former Republican Linda Parks. If the Democrats split their vote, it's entirely possible if not probable that the November run-off in this Democratic district will lack a Democrat entirely, and be a face-off between Parks and Strickland. Fortunately, fantastic progressive Assemblymember Julia Brownley is running for the district, but it's no guarantee she'll make it past June without a lot of help.

Ms. Parks' issues page is frustratingly but predictably vague, with neoliberal austerity-friendly platitudes like:

Congress needs to stop the brinkmanship politics and work together to balance our nation’s budget and restore our bond rating. This will give businesses the certainty they need to invest in capital projects and expand their workforce. This in turn will create demand for goods and services which will buoy our economy.

So yesterday I issued a challenge on Facebook to Ms. Parks saying the following:

It would be nice if Linda Parks would inform voters what she thinks Democrats have been too "extreme" and "partisan" on. Women's health? The environment? The lowest tax rates in modern American history? I'm really curious. No more platitudes, please. Specifics are needed.

A number of respected people in the county "liked" the post, and Ms. Parks responded:

I know that to some, party is very important. I've heard some representatives say Republicans and Democrats won't even look at each other when passing in the halls of Congress. I think I embrace many of the principles that you do. For example, I am pro-choice and pro-environment, and have a record of balancing the County's budget, which had a structural deficit, growing a 10% reserve fund that increased the county's bond rating. This makes borrowing cheaper so that we can build bridges, among other things. I do have a focus on making government operate more efficiently while providing services, like public safety, public health, and protecting the welfare of seniors, the mentally ill, and veterans. I'll bring this non-partisan way of looking at problems to Congress, focusing on the issues that are important to Americans - like improving the economy and helping grow jobs -and I won't be alone because there are others who are committed to setting aside partisanship to get us working again.

When it was pointed out to her that this was yet another platitude, she again came back with a response that would have made David Broder proud:

I think steadfast refusal to compromise and work towards common ground is polarizing. Hyper-partisanship (putting party before country) is the problem. For example one may agree with my positions but oppose me based on my party or in this case my non-party.

Somewhat exasperated, my response:

Please give me an example of Democrats at a local, state or national level "refusing to compromise" in a way that would have improved the policy outcome. Again, specifics please. Until then, these are simply platitudes that reinforce the false idea that 1) both parties are equally to blame; and 2) the "compromise" position would result in the most popular outcome. Neither claim is true.

Pressed on the subject, she resorted to yet more fact-free platitudes:

David asks for specifics on how Democrats have been too extreme or partisan or have refused to compromise. The failure of the parties to compromise is well documented. For example, S&P; lowered our nation's bond rating stating how they are "Pessimistic about the capacity of Congress" because "in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he's learned that it takes bipartisan support to succeed in national security and foreign affairs and finds the current hyper-partisanship leads to polarization and eventually paralysis, jeopardizing our nation's defense. Ben Bernanke discusses in the NY Times "Politics Hurt Markets and Nation." So much can happen, in terms of give and take and collaboration if the parties worked together. I'd like to see a bipartisan committee that can bring the sides together.

Trying not to lose patience with the myriad ways in which her response demonstrated studied ignorance of the details of the negotiations, I shot back with:

1) Whose fault was the failure to reach a budget deal? On what speicifc items should Dems have compromised even further? 2) Did the S&P; downgrade really hurt the nation's economy or lower Treasury yields? How much should we have cut from Social Security and Medicare to please S&P; and the Republicans? 3) On what pieces of foreign policy have Dems been too partisan, or undercut Secretary Gates. Specifics please. Also, bipartisan compromise gave us the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and the AUMF for Iraq. Were those good ideas because they were passed with bipartisan votes? Specifics please.

She has ignored my queries. And why not? It advantages her nothing to actually face the issues honestly, any more than it does pundits like Broder or Thomas Friedman. Their arguments break down instantly when subjected to the remotest scrutiny.

Digby and I spent much of the late summer of 2011 pointing out time and again the number of ways in which the President and other national Democrats were going far, far out of their way to give Republicans 90% of what they wanted toward reaching a "Grand Bargain" on deficit reduction. I went to Washington, D.C. that summer and met many Democratic representatives who privately expressed to me their furious rage with hard-right tilt of the negotiations, driven in large part by the President and his advisers.

On the S&P; downgrade, this blog was also at pains to point out that S&P; was never an honest broker in making the downgrade in the first place. More importantly, I also noted that the downgrade had the opposite effect from what others predicted:

A downgrade in U.S. debt means functionally that U.S. treasury bills are, in S&P;’s oh-so-wise opinion, less trustworthy and a greater credit risk to investors. This comes only a day after investors fled the DOW and S&P500; into the safe and waiting hands of…you guessed it: U.S. treasuries. The same treasuries that S&P; suddenly finds a more dangerous buy. So what does that say about the stock market, and the S&P500;? Perhaps S&P; might wish to re-evaluate the credibility of its own market index.

And yet politicians like Linda Parks and their High Broderist friends in the traditional press will continue to make these sorts of vapid statements because they can, and because nobody "serious" pays attention to Paul Krugman or to dirty hippies who just happen to have a blog--no matter how knowledgeable we are, or how right we're proven time and time again.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that while Linda Parks and the arch-conservative Strickland gang on the Republican side of the CA26 race despise one another, Parks' fact-free platitudes help give extremist Republicans like him all the cover they need to do what they do. I don't necessarily blame politicians like Linda Parks for having no awareness of macroeconomics, or for thinking that a nation like the United States has to balance its budget as neatly as a County Board of Supervisors does. That's a piece of parochialism for which she may be forgiven, as opposed to members of the press who should know better.

But I do blame them for being so unaware of their surroundings that they help along the very extremism they pretend to oppose.


.
thereisnospoon 3/18/2012 07:30:00 AM |