I've been meaning to point out this post over at The Moderate Voice for several months but lost track of it as election season heated up. The first paragraph grabbed me right away for obvious reasons.
There are myths proclaimed by some right-wing partisans and Ayn Rand acolytes that “rugged individualists” working alone have been responsible for America’s great accomplishments and that government is the enemy of progress. In their quest to reduce taxes, particularly for the wealthy, and cut the size of government, this myth has been promulgated by ideologues to gain support from the middle-class, needed to elect legislators who share their vision.
Yeah, and the American people recognized those myths for what they were 12 days ago.
Businesses could not function without the nation’s infrastructure (though it currently needs work). Building the interstate highway system, bridges and tunnels and maintaining them, was and is a federal concern. The integrity of America’s ports and airports, and air traffic control, all comes under the aegis of federal agencies. Products and people could not move if it were not for the government. Apportioning the broadcast spectrum for TV, radio, cell phone companies and so forth, insuring the safety of transmission lines, pipelines, and so forth, are all functions of the federal government.
In short, they didn't build that. Not that the government isn't completely wonderful, though.
The federal government is inefficient in many of its operations, but its expansion has occurred during both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those who rail against the government should focus on fixing it and not just making it smaller so they can pay less in taxes. And the money saved should go to paying down the deficit. For different reasons, both the weak and strong among us need a robust federal government in today’s world.
In today's world...indeed.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
The Way Forward on Gun Violence
Police have arrested a man for plotting another movie murder spree:
This incident shows us a new way to reduce gun violence. Forget FBI background checks and waiting periods: anyone who buys a gun should be required to have a note from their mom.
It's win all the way around: it would promote traditional family values and respect for parents. It would put a big dent in the illegal gun market; straw buyers would have to explain to their mothers why they need to buy a fifth Glock semiautomatic pistol in a month. And all those gangstas in the hood would never get their mommas to sign off on gun purchases, because those women know exactly what happens to young men with guns.
Of course, this is tongue-in-cheek. But it's clear this problem is only growing worse.
In the last 15 years hundreds of people have died at the hands of mentally unstable people who should never have been able to get firearms. From Columbine, to Tucson, to Aurora, to Oak Creek, to Minneapolis, where this September a guy who was just fired shot eight people and leaving five dead, including himself a UPS man who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every other week another five or ten people are killed by some nut with a gun, who then kills himself or is shot by a cop.
I agree that we don't need a nanny state watching over our every move. Maybe we just need a nanny.
A southwest Missouri man accused of plotting to shoot up a movie theater during the new "Twilight" film was charged Friday after his mother contacted police, telling them she worried her son had purchased weapons similar to those used during the fatal Colorado theater shooting.I realize that the Twilight films are bad, but are they that terrible?
This incident shows us a new way to reduce gun violence. Forget FBI background checks and waiting periods: anyone who buys a gun should be required to have a note from their mom.
It's win all the way around: it would promote traditional family values and respect for parents. It would put a big dent in the illegal gun market; straw buyers would have to explain to their mothers why they need to buy a fifth Glock semiautomatic pistol in a month. And all those gangstas in the hood would never get their mommas to sign off on gun purchases, because those women know exactly what happens to young men with guns.
Of course, this is tongue-in-cheek. But it's clear this problem is only growing worse.
In the last 15 years hundreds of people have died at the hands of mentally unstable people who should never have been able to get firearms. From Columbine, to Tucson, to Aurora, to Oak Creek, to Minneapolis, where this September a guy who was just fired shot eight people and leaving five dead, including himself a UPS man who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every other week another five or ten people are killed by some nut with a gun, who then kills himself or is shot by a cop.
I agree that we don't need a nanny state watching over our every move. Maybe we just need a nanny.
What David Said
Most of the media agree that the behind closed door testimony of former CIA Director, David Patraeus, still leaves much in doubt about what happened in Benghazi last September 11th. I disagree. In fact, I'd say it confirms what I have been saying all along: the administration withheld information they had on the attacks for reasons of national security.
But he said the administration initially withheld the suspicion that extremists with links to Al Qaeda were involved to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this so the Right's mental meltdowns over Benghazi strike me as odd. They're saying that the administration purposefully misled the public on whether or not the attack was Al Qaeda linked and, instead, kept talking about the movie trailer. This seems odd to me for two reasons. First, since when did the Right embrace Julian Assange and call for more openness when it comes to military intelligence? It seems to me that they are now acting just the way he does which, in my view, is dangerous on a number of levels. The reason why we win and lose wars is due to intelligence and some government secrets, in particular with the military.
Second, throw a dart somewhere and you're likely to hit a conservative pundit bitching about how we announce things to our enemies (pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan etc) and how that's bad. So why should we announce, mere days after the attack when an investigation is still under way, that we know it's Al Qaeda and we're coming to get them? This would be a terribly stupid thing to do.
I also don't get why there is all this bile being heaped upon Susan Rice. The Patraeus testimony confirms that when she made her remarks, she was going on what the intelligence said at the time...the intelligence that was not classified, mind you. Besides, she's the US ambassador to the UN, not a member of the CIA or the State Department. The attacks on her are tremendously unjustified.
Petraeus also said some early classified reports appeared to support Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when she said five days after the deadly raid in Libya that it had grown out of a protest that was hijacked by extremists — comments that some Republicans contend were meant to downplay the significance of the attack before the presidential election. Even now, the intelligence community has evidence that some attackers were motivated by protests earlier that day in Cairo over an anti-Islamic video, sources familiar with the intelligence said.
I realize that there are still a lot of sour grapes after the complete incompetence pre and post the 9-11 attacks regarding the Bush Administration. But Benghazi isn't even in the same ballpark, folks. And we aren't even done with the investigation yet on what exactly went wrong and why. Obviously, the Right's not going to be patient about this and have even more sour grapes about the election.
Perhaps they might want to learn a thing or two about what happened on November 6th and withhold further comment until we hear more testimony from the people who were more actively involved.
But he said the administration initially withheld the suspicion that extremists with links to Al Qaeda were involved to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this so the Right's mental meltdowns over Benghazi strike me as odd. They're saying that the administration purposefully misled the public on whether or not the attack was Al Qaeda linked and, instead, kept talking about the movie trailer. This seems odd to me for two reasons. First, since when did the Right embrace Julian Assange and call for more openness when it comes to military intelligence? It seems to me that they are now acting just the way he does which, in my view, is dangerous on a number of levels. The reason why we win and lose wars is due to intelligence and some government secrets, in particular with the military.
Second, throw a dart somewhere and you're likely to hit a conservative pundit bitching about how we announce things to our enemies (pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan etc) and how that's bad. So why should we announce, mere days after the attack when an investigation is still under way, that we know it's Al Qaeda and we're coming to get them? This would be a terribly stupid thing to do.
I also don't get why there is all this bile being heaped upon Susan Rice. The Patraeus testimony confirms that when she made her remarks, she was going on what the intelligence said at the time...the intelligence that was not classified, mind you. Besides, she's the US ambassador to the UN, not a member of the CIA or the State Department. The attacks on her are tremendously unjustified.
Petraeus also said some early classified reports appeared to support Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when she said five days after the deadly raid in Libya that it had grown out of a protest that was hijacked by extremists — comments that some Republicans contend were meant to downplay the significance of the attack before the presidential election. Even now, the intelligence community has evidence that some attackers were motivated by protests earlier that day in Cairo over an anti-Islamic video, sources familiar with the intelligence said.
I realize that there are still a lot of sour grapes after the complete incompetence pre and post the 9-11 attacks regarding the Bush Administration. But Benghazi isn't even in the same ballpark, folks. And we aren't even done with the investigation yet on what exactly went wrong and why. Obviously, the Right's not going to be patient about this and have even more sour grapes about the election.
Perhaps they might want to learn a thing or two about what happened on November 6th and withhold further comment until we hear more testimony from the people who were more actively involved.
Friday, November 16, 2012
We Have a Winner!
In the last 20 years we have seen a dozen Mitt Romneys parade across the landscape. There was the greedy young man with money coming out of his ears. There was the pro-choice Mitt Romney who ran against Ted Kennedy. There was Mitt Romney the gubernatorial candidate who supported gay rights. There was the severely conservative Mitt Romney who would instantly sign any and all anti-abortion bills that came across his desk. There was the self-sacrificing Olympics-saving Mitt Romney. There was the one-percent Mitt Romney talking sneeringly to wealthy donors behind closed doors about the lazy 47%, quickly followed by the candidate-of-the-100%-in-the-last-few-weeks-of-the-campaign Mitt Romney.
Now that the election is over and the Etch a Sketch has been shaken for the final time, we have a winner! Ding ding ding! The envelope please...
The sneering 1% Mitt Romney!
In a conference call with 400 wealthy donors Romney said that Obama won by promising gifts to the 47%: blacks, Hispanics, young women and college students. Some of his comments include:
How can such a person ever get ahead in Romneyworld? Every waking hour of every day is spent working, sleeping, taking care of kids or driving them to grandma's for daycare.
The time when just anyone with gumption could open a pizzeria or corner store to get a start in business is gone, destroyed by the ilks of Sam Walton and "Papa" John Schnatter and their nation-wide chains that wiped out millions of mom-and-pop operations across the country.
John Schnatter gained notoriety this past summer when he said that his pizzas would cost more because of Obamacare. Exactly how much? Less than a nickel a pizza.
Hundreds of thousands of independent small businesses have been destroyed by giant corporations like Walmart and Papa John's. Yes, big companies are more efficient and sell stuff cheaper. That's because they employ fewer people than the competitors they destroy and don't pay their workers a living wage.
Romney thinks America is still the way it was in Forties, Fifties and Sixties when S. Truett Cathy (Chick-Fil-A), Ray Kroc (McDonald's) and Sam Walton founded their empires. But more and more money and power are concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer businesses, and those businesses have monopolies on vast sectors of the economy. Companies like Chick-Fil-A, McDonald's and Walmart have locked out the majority of small entrepreneurs.
Go to any mall in the suburbs in any part of the country and you'll see the same set of 30 chain stores selling products made in Asia. Sixty years ago you would have seen dozens of independent small businesses selling American-manufactured goods in the downtown of every small city. These days most suburbs don't even have downtowns.
I hope the 1% Mitt Romney isn't the last one we'll see. Maybe one day he'll realize the reason he lost the election was because wealthy supporters like John Schnatter and the Walton heirs created all those people who need the things Obama is fighting for.
Now that the election is over and the Etch a Sketch has been shaken for the final time, we have a winner! Ding ding ding! The envelope please...
The sneering 1% Mitt Romney!
In a conference call with 400 wealthy donors Romney said that Obama won by promising gifts to the 47%: blacks, Hispanics, young women and college students. Some of his comments include:
With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.
You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge.These comments demonstrate Romney's utter lack of empathy and total inability to imagine the lives of somebody making that $30,000 a year. Such people often have to work multiple jobs because employers intentionally limit their hours to avoid having to pay full-time benefits such as health care. A single mom with two kids who works two jobs for 56 total hours a week at Walmart and Papa Johns Pizza at $10 an hour will still only make $29K and get no benefits. $29K is not enough to pay for a car, gas, rent, food and clothing, much less any kind of preventive health care for the kids.
How can such a person ever get ahead in Romneyworld? Every waking hour of every day is spent working, sleeping, taking care of kids or driving them to grandma's for daycare.
The time when just anyone with gumption could open a pizzeria or corner store to get a start in business is gone, destroyed by the ilks of Sam Walton and "Papa" John Schnatter and their nation-wide chains that wiped out millions of mom-and-pop operations across the country.
John Schnatter gained notoriety this past summer when he said that his pizzas would cost more because of Obamacare. Exactly how much? Less than a nickel a pizza.
Hundreds of thousands of independent small businesses have been destroyed by giant corporations like Walmart and Papa John's. Yes, big companies are more efficient and sell stuff cheaper. That's because they employ fewer people than the competitors they destroy and don't pay their workers a living wage.
Romney thinks America is still the way it was in Forties, Fifties and Sixties when S. Truett Cathy (Chick-Fil-A), Ray Kroc (McDonald's) and Sam Walton founded their empires. But more and more money and power are concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer businesses, and those businesses have monopolies on vast sectors of the economy. Companies like Chick-Fil-A, McDonald's and Walmart have locked out the majority of small entrepreneurs.
Go to any mall in the suburbs in any part of the country and you'll see the same set of 30 chain stores selling products made in Asia. Sixty years ago you would have seen dozens of independent small businesses selling American-manufactured goods in the downtown of every small city. These days most suburbs don't even have downtowns.
I hope the 1% Mitt Romney isn't the last one we'll see. Maybe one day he'll realize the reason he lost the election was because wealthy supporters like John Schnatter and the Walton heirs created all those people who need the things Obama is fighting for.
A Hypocritical Pile of Poo
If you skip a meeting on classified intelligence on Benghazi to bitch about how the administration missed key intelligence points, you are a weenis. Furthermore, I've had it with the Right bitching about Benghazi. Where do they get the stones to bitch about intelligence failures after 9-11 and Iraq? Condeleeza Rice was handed a report that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack in US" in August of 2001. President Bush was briefed on this report. A month later 3,000 innocent civilians died and the sound from the Right?
Crickets.
Yet when three members of our armed forces and a highly trained ambassador who knew the risks being in what was essentially a war zone were killed, the Right acts as if all of our nation's women and children were raped and slaughtered. What a hypocritical pile of poo...
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Great Economic News
The United States has exported 187 billion dollars worth of goods-an all time high and up 3.1 percent-for the month of September. This narrows the trade deficit to its lowest point in two years, at 41.5 billion.
Driving this uptick was the sale of the iPhone 5 as well as oil exports. A recent article in the New York Times (highlighting an IEA report) show the US is set to become the world's top oil producer in five years. In fact,
The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, the International Energy Agency said Monday.
Wow. Imagine how different a world that is going to be. It's going to give me an enormous amount of satisfaction to have the power shift in the way it is going to do so. So how has this happened?
That increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become “all but self-sufficient” in meeting its energy needs in about two decades.
Hmm...
Driving this uptick was the sale of the iPhone 5 as well as oil exports. A recent article in the New York Times (highlighting an IEA report) show the US is set to become the world's top oil producer in five years. In fact,
The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030, the International Energy Agency said Monday.
Wow. Imagine how different a world that is going to be. It's going to give me an enormous amount of satisfaction to have the power shift in the way it is going to do so. So how has this happened?
That increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become “all but self-sufficient” in meeting its energy needs in about two decades.
Hmm...
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Avoiding Innocent Victims: 10 Rules for Affairs
The Petraeus affair may have claimed an innocent victim in the person of Gen. John Allen, the man who was expected to be the next head of NATO. He claims he was never alone with Jill Kelley, and I'm inclined to believe him.
This highlights a serious problem ushered in by the Internet. Because anyone can send you email, a crazy person can become infatuated with you and inundate you with gushing and suggestive emails. If that person happens to be important in your social circles, as Jill Kelley was in Gen. Allen's, you may feel obligated to respond cordially to their incessant barrage of spam. According to reports, they exchanged 20-30,000 emails, though that number is almost certainly inflated.
If you're completely innocent, even an apparently benign cyberstalker like Kelley can cause you major grief. A malicious and competent one can destroy your life by setting up dummy email accounts that look like they belong to you and filling them with all sorts of false evidence.
This problem isn't really new. In the past a delusional admirer could flood your mailbox at home and at work with love letters suggesting all manner of liaisons. But at least you could burn the evidence; in the age of the Internet nothing ever goes away--except that spreadsheet you were working on when your computer crashed.
If Allen's career has in fact been trashed, the blame can be squarely placed on Paula Broadwell's insanely jealous crusade against the flirtatious Jill Kelley, and Petraeus' foolish decision to engage in an affair with a loose cannon.
This has prompted me to draw up 10 rules for high-ranking officials looking to have an affair.
This highlights a serious problem ushered in by the Internet. Because anyone can send you email, a crazy person can become infatuated with you and inundate you with gushing and suggestive emails. If that person happens to be important in your social circles, as Jill Kelley was in Gen. Allen's, you may feel obligated to respond cordially to their incessant barrage of spam. According to reports, they exchanged 20-30,000 emails, though that number is almost certainly inflated.
If you're completely innocent, even an apparently benign cyberstalker like Kelley can cause you major grief. A malicious and competent one can destroy your life by setting up dummy email accounts that look like they belong to you and filling them with all sorts of false evidence.
This problem isn't really new. In the past a delusional admirer could flood your mailbox at home and at work with love letters suggesting all manner of liaisons. But at least you could burn the evidence; in the age of the Internet nothing ever goes away--except that spreadsheet you were working on when your computer crashed.
If Allen's career has in fact been trashed, the blame can be squarely placed on Paula Broadwell's insanely jealous crusade against the flirtatious Jill Kelley, and Petraeus' foolish decision to engage in an affair with a loose cannon.
This has prompted me to draw up 10 rules for high-ranking officials looking to have an affair.
10: Don't communicate via email, Twitter, Facebook, or Dropbox (though MySpace is probably safe by now). In fact, don't use the Internet at all.
9: Don't use your normal cell phone or landline to contact your paramour. Get a burner cell phone and don't use your credit card to buy it.
8: Don't have suggestive conversations at work or at home.
7: Do choose paramours of equal rank and social standing: that is, people who have as much to lose as you do if the affair becomes public.
6: Don't wear cologne, perfume, lipstick or makeup, or anything that will leave a strange scent on your paramour, and shower after trysts (but don't go out with wet hair!).
5: Don't do the deed in public, in your home, at your office, or in your car.
4: Don't change your daily routine, don't go anywhere out of the ordinary, and don't be seen in public with your paramour, especially kissing or touching in any way.
3: Don't have an affair with a jealous clingy person, or someone who would cheat on you. Which is sort of an oxymoron, isn't it?
2: Don't leave bodily fluids on blue dresses.And the top rule:
1: Don't have an affair with someone who's already written one book about you, and will stand to make millions selling a second book about an affair with you.Looking over this set of rules, it reads more like a set of contact protocols for a CIA agent than a prescription for romantic liaisons. You'd think our master spy would be more adept at this sort of thing...
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Site Update
Hey folks, quick site update. We've started getting comments that are making it through the spam filter so I had to change the settings so you have to register to comment. I'm truly sorry about this but I can't stand seeing anymore comments selling xanax and cleaning them out every hour on the hour. So, no more anonymous posters.
Petraeus Falls off the Pedestal
The most amazing thing about the whole Petraeus affair, now spilling over to Gen. John Allen, is how utterly unamazing it is.
These men, at the pinnacle of power in the military and the intelligence community, turn out to be regular schmoes just like the rest of us. The story is sounding more and more like a bunch of teenage kids having a war on Facebook.
It goes like this: Petraeus starts an affair with Paula Broadwell, using Dropbox to get around the email trail. Allan starts an affair with Jill Kelley, exchanging thousands of emails. Broadwell sees that Kelley is also emailing Petraeus daily and sends Kelley threatening emails. Kelley complains to an FBI friend about the emails. Mr. FBI becomes obsessed the case and with Kelley, and sends her shirtless photos of himself.
What is it about using the Internet that makes everyone's IQ drop 100 points? How can people using government computers and who are constantly surrounded by aides and guards and secret service protection details possibly think they can keep these affairs secret?
You'd think we'd learn to expect this sort of thing after Tiger Woods, Anthony Weiner, Chris Lee, John Edwards, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich (two or three times), Bill Clinton, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley and half the Republican House leadership during the Clinton impeachment debacle, and on and on and on and on.
And that's just in the last several years. The history books are full of sordid stories of presidents, prime ministers, princes, priests, popes and prophets undone by their inability to keep their penises in their pants.
Looking on the bright side, at least Petraeus and Allen weren't having affairs with subordinates.
The takeaway, for the nth time, is that it is a colossal mistake to put men like Petraeus on a pedestal. Yeah, he's a smart guy. But he's just a guy, like anyone else.
Nobody—nobody—is worthy of the adulation that we're so eager to heap upon them. Not Petraeus, not the pope, not the president, not Mohammed. Their work can and should be praised on its merits, but their persons deserve no worship. They're all just human beings, every bit as flawed as the rest of us.
Regular schmoes have affairs too, but no one is watching them. They have little to lose and will only disappoint their families and friends if they get caught.
So the question is, why do these important men keep doing this? Does our elevating them to godhood make them lose perspective, buy into the hype and think they can do no wrong? Or do they consider themselves regular schmoes just doing a job, unworthy of the attention lavished upon them and therefore under no particular compulsion to lead an exemplary life?
I don't know. Maybe it's having their brains pickled in testosterone for fifty years...
These men, at the pinnacle of power in the military and the intelligence community, turn out to be regular schmoes just like the rest of us. The story is sounding more and more like a bunch of teenage kids having a war on Facebook.
It goes like this: Petraeus starts an affair with Paula Broadwell, using Dropbox to get around the email trail. Allan starts an affair with Jill Kelley, exchanging thousands of emails. Broadwell sees that Kelley is also emailing Petraeus daily and sends Kelley threatening emails. Kelley complains to an FBI friend about the emails. Mr. FBI becomes obsessed the case and with Kelley, and sends her shirtless photos of himself.
What is it about using the Internet that makes everyone's IQ drop 100 points? How can people using government computers and who are constantly surrounded by aides and guards and secret service protection details possibly think they can keep these affairs secret?
You'd think we'd learn to expect this sort of thing after Tiger Woods, Anthony Weiner, Chris Lee, John Edwards, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich (two or three times), Bill Clinton, Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, David Vitter, Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley and half the Republican House leadership during the Clinton impeachment debacle, and on and on and on and on.
And that's just in the last several years. The history books are full of sordid stories of presidents, prime ministers, princes, priests, popes and prophets undone by their inability to keep their penises in their pants.
Looking on the bright side, at least Petraeus and Allen weren't having affairs with subordinates.
The takeaway, for the nth time, is that it is a colossal mistake to put men like Petraeus on a pedestal. Yeah, he's a smart guy. But he's just a guy, like anyone else.
Nobody—nobody—is worthy of the adulation that we're so eager to heap upon them. Not Petraeus, not the pope, not the president, not Mohammed. Their work can and should be praised on its merits, but their persons deserve no worship. They're all just human beings, every bit as flawed as the rest of us.
Regular schmoes have affairs too, but no one is watching them. They have little to lose and will only disappoint their families and friends if they get caught.
So the question is, why do these important men keep doing this? Does our elevating them to godhood make them lose perspective, buy into the hype and think they can do no wrong? Or do they consider themselves regular schmoes just doing a job, unworthy of the attention lavished upon them and therefore under no particular compulsion to lead an exemplary life?
I don't know. Maybe it's having their brains pickled in testosterone for fifty years...
Crickets
I'm quite curious these days as to why many on the Right are so quiet on the whole Patraeus affair, especially since it has now spilled over into other areas of the Defense Department. Even more puzzling is how they continue to focus the blame on the president when we are now finding out that there was obviously something really off between the CIA, the DOD and the State Department in terms of Benghazi and David Patraeus.
Is the Defense Department such a sacred cow that any improprieties can be conveniently ignored? Patraeus?
I never thought I'd link a Brietbart article on this site but when the source of much of their Benghazi meltdown is the woman who brought down the Director of the CIA, I guess I don't really have a choice.
This article reveals a very key point that throws a giant wet blanket on the cover up wank fest going on with the Right. If the attackers were trying to get into some sort of CIA secret holding facility, wouldn't it make sense to keep this issue quiet because of national security? After all, the Right continually reminds us how people like Julian Assange and his commie buddies are traitors. So, why is it now OK and absolutely necessary to find everything out about Benghazi?
Oh, yeah...so they can win the argument and prove the president wrong.
Is the Defense Department such a sacred cow that any improprieties can be conveniently ignored? Patraeus?
I never thought I'd link a Brietbart article on this site but when the source of much of their Benghazi meltdown is the woman who brought down the Director of the CIA, I guess I don't really have a choice.
This article reveals a very key point that throws a giant wet blanket on the cover up wank fest going on with the Right. If the attackers were trying to get into some sort of CIA secret holding facility, wouldn't it make sense to keep this issue quiet because of national security? After all, the Right continually reminds us how people like Julian Assange and his commie buddies are traitors. So, why is it now OK and absolutely necessary to find everything out about Benghazi?
Oh, yeah...so they can win the argument and prove the president wrong.
Monday, November 12, 2012
The Real-Life John Galt
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is the story of John Galt, a titan of industry who refuses to be exploited by the tyranny of a government that taxes him too much. President Obama's reelection has purportedly prompted a real-life John Galt to action, in the person of Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy.
The day after the election Murray read a prayer in front of staff members and fired 150 workers from two of his coal mines because, he says, Obama will destroy the coal industry. (The fictional John Galt is an atheist, by the way.) But the fact is, Murray's coal mines are losing money not because of taxation and environmental regulation, but because his filthy and inefficient nineteenth-century product is losing market share to a much cleaner and more efficient twentieth-century product.
Many companies have force-fed employees pro-Romney propaganda in this election cycle, a tactic Romney promoted. Other CEOs besides Murray threatened to fire workers if Obama won, though it's not clear how many have carried through. One nameless Las Vegas businessman claims to have done so, but David Siegel, the Florida timeshare billionaire who threatened mass firings, has instead given employees a raise.
Murray, however, delivered on his threat. He has long used the threat of firings to blackmail employees to donate to Republicans. He set up a PAC and "encouraged" employees to contribute to it with payroll deductions, which have totaled $1.4 million since 2007. The tactic is a nifty way to get around campaign finance laws, which limit how much money Murray can personally give to candidates. Murray is also the CEO who shut down a mine in Ohio and forced employees to attend a Mitt Romney speech without pay. Not all employees donate voluntarily:
As I've written before, the price of gas has been so low recently that energy companies are losing their shirts, according to none other than the head of Exxon, Rex Tillerson.
Because of that, more and more utilities are turning to natural gas turbines instead of coal-fired power plants. Natural gas is cheaper and safer to produce, easier to use, more flexible, and cleaner. It can generate electricity, heat homes and cook food. It doesn't cause mercury pollution or acid rain. It emits less CO2 per kilowatt hour produced. It's more easily transported through pipelines or in liquid form. It doesn't produce filthy coal slurry that poisons rivers and streams, as has happened at least seven times with Murray's coal operations. It doesn't leave toxic clinkers after burning. Coal mining requires miners to work in filthy conditions a mile underground, or decapitate entire mountaintops to expose coal seams. Natural gas turbines can be turned off and on almost at will, and don't have long startup times like coal-fired plants. And gas turbines use much less water than coal to produce the same amount of electricity, which is important as the nation is still in the grip of a drought with no end in sight.
By switching electricity generation from coal to natural gas the United States has reduced CO2 emissions to what they were 20 years ago.
I'll be the first to admit that natural gas fracking has its problems. In their rush to exploit the new technology many operators have taken shortcuts that have spilled toxic fracking fluids, polluted groundwater and even caused earthquakes. But by slowing down, developing better regulations and licensing only conscientious operators, the problems with fracking can be minimized, all while making natural gas profitable again. And of course, we should be working hard on developing twenty-first century technologies that eliminate the problems of fracking.
But instead of acknowledging the reality of technological and competitive forces that have undermined his antiquated business model, Murray blames his losses on the president and the laws that keep Americans safe and healthy.
It's a blatantly dishonest bait-and-switch argument by a greedy coward. And that's all these John Galt wannabes really are.
The day after the election Murray read a prayer in front of staff members and fired 150 workers from two of his coal mines because, he says, Obama will destroy the coal industry. (The fictional John Galt is an atheist, by the way.) But the fact is, Murray's coal mines are losing money not because of taxation and environmental regulation, but because his filthy and inefficient nineteenth-century product is losing market share to a much cleaner and more efficient twentieth-century product.
Many companies have force-fed employees pro-Romney propaganda in this election cycle, a tactic Romney promoted. Other CEOs besides Murray threatened to fire workers if Obama won, though it's not clear how many have carried through. One nameless Las Vegas businessman claims to have done so, but David Siegel, the Florida timeshare billionaire who threatened mass firings, has instead given employees a raise.
Murray, however, delivered on his threat. He has long used the threat of firings to blackmail employees to donate to Republicans. He set up a PAC and "encouraged" employees to contribute to it with payroll deductions, which have totaled $1.4 million since 2007. The tactic is a nifty way to get around campaign finance laws, which limit how much money Murray can personally give to candidates. Murray is also the CEO who shut down a mine in Ohio and forced employees to attend a Mitt Romney speech without pay. Not all employees donate voluntarily:
The Murray sources, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, came forward separately. But they painted similar pictures of the fund-raising operation. “There’s a lot of coercion,” says one of them. “I just wanted to work, but you feel this constant pressure that, if you don’t contribute, your job’s at stake. You’re compelled to do this whether you want to or not.” Says the second: “They will give you a call if you’re not giving. . . . It’s expected you give Mr. Murray what he asks for.”Murray Energy is in financial trouble, to be sure, but it's not because of excessive regulation or any "war on coal." It's due to competition from cheap, clean-burning natural gas obtained from fracking.
As I've written before, the price of gas has been so low recently that energy companies are losing their shirts, according to none other than the head of Exxon, Rex Tillerson.
Because of that, more and more utilities are turning to natural gas turbines instead of coal-fired power plants. Natural gas is cheaper and safer to produce, easier to use, more flexible, and cleaner. It can generate electricity, heat homes and cook food. It doesn't cause mercury pollution or acid rain. It emits less CO2 per kilowatt hour produced. It's more easily transported through pipelines or in liquid form. It doesn't produce filthy coal slurry that poisons rivers and streams, as has happened at least seven times with Murray's coal operations. It doesn't leave toxic clinkers after burning. Coal mining requires miners to work in filthy conditions a mile underground, or decapitate entire mountaintops to expose coal seams. Natural gas turbines can be turned off and on almost at will, and don't have long startup times like coal-fired plants. And gas turbines use much less water than coal to produce the same amount of electricity, which is important as the nation is still in the grip of a drought with no end in sight.
By switching electricity generation from coal to natural gas the United States has reduced CO2 emissions to what they were 20 years ago.
I'll be the first to admit that natural gas fracking has its problems. In their rush to exploit the new technology many operators have taken shortcuts that have spilled toxic fracking fluids, polluted groundwater and even caused earthquakes. But by slowing down, developing better regulations and licensing only conscientious operators, the problems with fracking can be minimized, all while making natural gas profitable again. And of course, we should be working hard on developing twenty-first century technologies that eliminate the problems of fracking.
But instead of acknowledging the reality of technological and competitive forces that have undermined his antiquated business model, Murray blames his losses on the president and the laws that keep Americans safe and healthy.
It's a blatantly dishonest bait-and-switch argument by a greedy coward. And that's all these John Galt wannabes really are.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
A Sunday Dedication
Today I am thinking about Army Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt who died on Feb. 27, 2011, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, when an improvised explosive device blew his 31-year-old body apart. Andrew was gay and DADT hadn't quite been repealed when he slipping the surly bonds of earth on that day. But it was soon after.
Andrew was from Minnesota and the election last Tuesday also saw a defeat the marriage amendment. I can't think of a better way to honor his memory than to have hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans stand up and say no to something that would have limited individual rights.
Rights that he died defending.
Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again bring me up. You will increase my honor and comfort me once again. (Psalm 71:20-21)
Andrew was from Minnesota and the election last Tuesday also saw a defeat the marriage amendment. I can't think of a better way to honor his memory than to have hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans stand up and say no to something that would have limited individual rights.
Rights that he died defending.
Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again bring me up. You will increase my honor and comfort me once again. (Psalm 71:20-21)
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Still Missing the Point
Tuesday's election results have conservative Christians wondering what went wrong, with Romney losing and so many states embracing gay marriage:
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.These guys are still missing the point. The problem is not that everyone who voted against them rejects their moral positions. We just believe it's wrong for religious groups to use the power of state and federal government to force their moral beliefs on the whole of society. That "we" includes atheists, agnostics, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Democrats and even libertarian Republicans.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Personally, I think it's best for kids to have a father and a mother who are married. Alcohol and marijuana are a stupid waste of money, time and brain cells. Anal sex can spread venereal disease, hepatitis and E. coli infections. Oral sex is unsanitary and disgusting. Cheating on your spouse is wrong. I would never encourage my wife or sister to have an abortion. But these things, done properly, are not automatically detrimental to society or the people who do them
Though the folks bemoaning their losses on Tuesday refuse to acknowledge it, their campaign to legislate their beliefs on abortion, gay marriage, contraception and other sexual practices is no different than the Taliban enforcing strict Sharia law in Afghanistan.
Once we go back down the road of legislating religious morality, eventually that power will be used to undermine other religions, even those that currently consider themselves to be allies in the fight against gay marriage. After all, just 50 years ago many believed John Kennedy's Catholicism disqualified him to be president.
People came to this country to escape the endless bloodshed that swept Europe in the pogroms of Christians against Jews, Catholic inquisitions against heretics, and wars between Protestants and Catholics.
And it's why the First Amendment was added first.
They Have Been Failing You
One of the main "story behind the story" bits of this election was how the conservative media completely failed. Dick Morris predicting a landslide? Karl Rove whining to the other Fox anchors about how we shouldn't rush to judgment on Ohio, even though their guys in the backroom just called it? It was really a sad thing to watch.
Conor Fridersdorf pretty much nailed it.
Before rank-and-file conservatives ask, "What went wrong?", they should ask themselves a question every bit as important: "Why were we the last to realize that things were going wrong for us?"
Because they live in a bubble.
It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear.
But guess what? You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.
So why do you keep putting up with them?
My only hope now is that readers of Kevin Baker's site (and other right wing blogs) will realize that all the talk of impending Armageddon is failing them as well.
Conor Fridersdorf pretty much nailed it.
Before rank-and-file conservatives ask, "What went wrong?", they should ask themselves a question every bit as important: "Why were we the last to realize that things were going wrong for us?"
Because they live in a bubble.
It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear.
But guess what? You haven't just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven't tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they've done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.
So why do you keep putting up with them?
My only hope now is that readers of Kevin Baker's site (and other right wing blogs) will realize that all the talk of impending Armageddon is failing them as well.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Amnesty Amnesia
The day after the election I opined that demographic shifts would require the Republicans to change their policies in order to remain politically viable. The shift took exactly one day, and on Thursday Republican pundits began to concur with my analysis in droves. Sean Hannity endorsed immigration amnesty. Charles Krauthammer, in a piece in the Washington Post, wrote:
For decades Republicans have depended on the Southern Strategy for victory. That strategy, often credited to Richard Nixon, involves stoking racial prejudice among certain southern whites. Prior to the 1960s the south was reliably Democratic (because Republicans were the party of Lincoln), but by using racist code words and "dog whistles" like "states rights" Nixon was able to end the Democratic Party's hold on the Solid South. Reagan did the same in the 1980s, when he talked about "welfare queens." Romney was still doing it when he said "Obama gutted welfare reform."
But over time, with increasingly positive images of blacks in popular culture (Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Halle Berry, Will Smith, Ice Tea), and the total devotion to hip hop by white teens, African Americans were becoming more mainstream and non-threatening. Conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and Alan West further eroded the efficacy of the Southern Strategy.
So, in the 2000s Republicans morphed the Southern Strategy into anti-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiments. These foreign invaders who can't even speak English are stealing our jobs! Never mind that we would never consider doing those jobs ourselves because they are too dangerous, or back-breaking, or degrading and don't pay enough.
In states like Arizona, Georgia, and Mississippi, Republican state legislatures have enacted (or tried to enact) tough new immigration laws, intruding into questionable legal territory. The Republican Party embraced these attitudes nationally, leaving only a few outliers like Rick Perry. Mitt Romney, whose own Mormon church has a long history of racism, tore into Perry for breaking the party line on immigration.
Now, the people persuaded by the Southern Strategy are not some abstract them situated south of the Mason-Dixon line. They include my dad, who lives in Minnesota. When my sister M got engaged to a Hispanic American my dad disowned her. When my sister S went to M's wedding in Texas, he refused to speak to S for years. When my sister J's daughter, N, got pregnant by a Latino boyfriend, my father had a two-fer: he disowned them both.
I am therefore one of the millions of people who are directly affected by this stupid, senseless and divisive racism that the Republican Party has been perpetuating and exploiting to their political advantage for decades.
And the word that most disgusts my father, the word that caused him to despise John McCain as much as he loathed Ted Kennedy? Amnesty.
How are people like my dad going to react to a Republican Party that embraces amnesty for illegal immigrants, in what is undeniably an openly cynical political ploy just to gain more votes? Republicans like Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation invented the health care insurance mandate, but as soon as Obama accepted the compromise that included it, they decreed the mandate to be the end of freedom and democracy.
Will people like my father develop instant amnesty amnesia on command from the Republican Party, like they forgot that they supported the health care mandate? Or are their attitudes on race so deeply ingrained that they will stay home on election day? I'm sure Krauthammer thinks that since they have nowhere else to go, they'll just blindly continue voting Republican.
But is Krauthammer right in blithely assuming that my dad is a Republican patsy who will sit down, shut up and do what he's told? Or will people like my dad join third parties and vote for candidates like George Wallace, as my dad did in 1968?
In other words, is the Republican coalition of big business, stubborn tribal whites, NRA gun enthusiasts and anti-abortion and anti-gay crusaders about to come apart?
[Hispanics] should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).This sounds reasonable enough. But it's going to be hard for the Republican Party to do a full 180 on amnesty, because it's more than just changing a bullet point in a party platform.
The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.
For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.
For decades Republicans have depended on the Southern Strategy for victory. That strategy, often credited to Richard Nixon, involves stoking racial prejudice among certain southern whites. Prior to the 1960s the south was reliably Democratic (because Republicans were the party of Lincoln), but by using racist code words and "dog whistles" like "states rights" Nixon was able to end the Democratic Party's hold on the Solid South. Reagan did the same in the 1980s, when he talked about "welfare queens." Romney was still doing it when he said "Obama gutted welfare reform."
But over time, with increasingly positive images of blacks in popular culture (Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Halle Berry, Will Smith, Ice Tea), and the total devotion to hip hop by white teens, African Americans were becoming more mainstream and non-threatening. Conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and Alan West further eroded the efficacy of the Southern Strategy.
So, in the 2000s Republicans morphed the Southern Strategy into anti-immigrant and anti-Latino sentiments. These foreign invaders who can't even speak English are stealing our jobs! Never mind that we would never consider doing those jobs ourselves because they are too dangerous, or back-breaking, or degrading and don't pay enough.
In states like Arizona, Georgia, and Mississippi, Republican state legislatures have enacted (or tried to enact) tough new immigration laws, intruding into questionable legal territory. The Republican Party embraced these attitudes nationally, leaving only a few outliers like Rick Perry. Mitt Romney, whose own Mormon church has a long history of racism, tore into Perry for breaking the party line on immigration.
Now, the people persuaded by the Southern Strategy are not some abstract them situated south of the Mason-Dixon line. They include my dad, who lives in Minnesota. When my sister M got engaged to a Hispanic American my dad disowned her. When my sister S went to M's wedding in Texas, he refused to speak to S for years. When my sister J's daughter, N, got pregnant by a Latino boyfriend, my father had a two-fer: he disowned them both.
I am therefore one of the millions of people who are directly affected by this stupid, senseless and divisive racism that the Republican Party has been perpetuating and exploiting to their political advantage for decades.
And the word that most disgusts my father, the word that caused him to despise John McCain as much as he loathed Ted Kennedy? Amnesty.
How are people like my dad going to react to a Republican Party that embraces amnesty for illegal immigrants, in what is undeniably an openly cynical political ploy just to gain more votes? Republicans like Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation invented the health care insurance mandate, but as soon as Obama accepted the compromise that included it, they decreed the mandate to be the end of freedom and democracy.
Will people like my father develop instant amnesty amnesia on command from the Republican Party, like they forgot that they supported the health care mandate? Or are their attitudes on race so deeply ingrained that they will stay home on election day? I'm sure Krauthammer thinks that since they have nowhere else to go, they'll just blindly continue voting Republican.
But is Krauthammer right in blithely assuming that my dad is a Republican patsy who will sit down, shut up and do what he's told? Or will people like my dad join third parties and vote for candidates like George Wallace, as my dad did in 1968?
In other words, is the Republican coalition of big business, stubborn tribal whites, NRA gun enthusiasts and anti-abortion and anti-gay crusaders about to come apart?
Thursday, November 08, 2012
A Gerrymandered Mandate
Republicans love to talk up their "mandate" when Republicans win, and deny that Democrats have one when Democrats win.
So it is this year. Republicans say President Obama's victory is no mandate because he only won 50.4% to 48% of the popular vote. In the electoral college the difference is much more marked. If Florida is decided for Obama he'll win 332-206 (or 303-235 if Florida goes to Romney).
When George Bush "won" in 2000 he actually lost the popular vote 47.9% to Gore's 48.4%. Electorally he barely squeaked by, winning 271-266, and doing that only because the Supreme Court stepped in with a 5-4 decision to prevent Florida from conducting a recount. Yet Republicans claimed a huge mandate for their programs of military spending increases and tax cuts for the wealthy.
When George Bush won in 2004 he took the popular vote by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, with a 286-251 electoral advantage, a lead that hinged on Ohio which had very serious irregularities in the computer voting system built by Diebold, a company with ties to the Republican Party. Republicans again claimed a huge mandate for Bush.
When Barack Obama won in 2008 he won the popular vote by 52.9% to McCain's 45.7%, with a 365-173 electoral shellacking. Yet Republicans claimed that Obama had no mandate whatsoever, that he was wrong to pursue the stimulus programs and the health care and financial reforms he promised during the election and that he was too "partisan."
Republicans say Obama's 2012 victory is not a mandate because it's the worst performance a sitting president ever had, because he "only" beat Romney 50.4% to 48%, or a margin of 2.4%. This is a lie of course: Bush beat Kerry by the identical 2.4% margin in 2004. And they somehow forget that George H. W. Bush lost his reelection bid in 1992 to Bill Clinton.
Now some Republicans are saying voters gave them a mandate for lower taxes by returning Republicans to the House. This is completely false.
Republicans kept the House because congressional districts across the country are gerrymandered so that incumbents retain their seats. The gerrymandering lock was strengthened in this cycle because Republicans held so many state legislatures after the 2010 census when the entire country was redistricted. That situation has already been reversed in Minnesota, which gave Democrats commanding majorities in both houses of the legislature on Tuesday. But redistricting allowed Michele Bachmann to keep her seat this year; she won by a mere 4,207 votes while outspending her Democratic challenger 12 to 1. Most of the $23 million she spent on the campaign was raised from contributors outside Minnesota.
Because of the way congressional districts are gerrymandered, a status quo House result doesn't tell us what "the people" really want. You have to look at the results a little more closely. The fact is, six Tea Party House freshmen in swing districts lost their bids for reelection. Tea Party rape fantasizers Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost their Senate bids in Indiana and Missouri, which should have been gimmes for Republicans. Barack Obama won the presidency. And Democrats held on to the Senate, even though 21 of the 33 Democratic seats were up for election.
The election definitely tilted in favor of the Democrats, but the only mandate they have from "the people" is that they do their jobs, come to a reasonable accommodation with the Republicans and get the economy moving again. The mandate for the Republicans is the same, with additional provisos that they stop sabotaging all legislation and appointments, and abandon their tactic of running out the political clock in the vain hope of some Rovian electoral magic in 2016.
Perhaps it will be easier for Republicans now that their number one priority is no longer making sure Barack Obama is a one-term president.
So it is this year. Republicans say President Obama's victory is no mandate because he only won 50.4% to 48% of the popular vote. In the electoral college the difference is much more marked. If Florida is decided for Obama he'll win 332-206 (or 303-235 if Florida goes to Romney).
When George Bush "won" in 2000 he actually lost the popular vote 47.9% to Gore's 48.4%. Electorally he barely squeaked by, winning 271-266, and doing that only because the Supreme Court stepped in with a 5-4 decision to prevent Florida from conducting a recount. Yet Republicans claimed a huge mandate for their programs of military spending increases and tax cuts for the wealthy.
When George Bush won in 2004 he took the popular vote by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%, with a 286-251 electoral advantage, a lead that hinged on Ohio which had very serious irregularities in the computer voting system built by Diebold, a company with ties to the Republican Party. Republicans again claimed a huge mandate for Bush.
When Barack Obama won in 2008 he won the popular vote by 52.9% to McCain's 45.7%, with a 365-173 electoral shellacking. Yet Republicans claimed that Obama had no mandate whatsoever, that he was wrong to pursue the stimulus programs and the health care and financial reforms he promised during the election and that he was too "partisan."
Republicans say Obama's 2012 victory is not a mandate because it's the worst performance a sitting president ever had, because he "only" beat Romney 50.4% to 48%, or a margin of 2.4%. This is a lie of course: Bush beat Kerry by the identical 2.4% margin in 2004. And they somehow forget that George H. W. Bush lost his reelection bid in 1992 to Bill Clinton.
Now some Republicans are saying voters gave them a mandate for lower taxes by returning Republicans to the House. This is completely false.
Republicans kept the House because congressional districts across the country are gerrymandered so that incumbents retain their seats. The gerrymandering lock was strengthened in this cycle because Republicans held so many state legislatures after the 2010 census when the entire country was redistricted. That situation has already been reversed in Minnesota, which gave Democrats commanding majorities in both houses of the legislature on Tuesday. But redistricting allowed Michele Bachmann to keep her seat this year; she won by a mere 4,207 votes while outspending her Democratic challenger 12 to 1. Most of the $23 million she spent on the campaign was raised from contributors outside Minnesota.
Because of the way congressional districts are gerrymandered, a status quo House result doesn't tell us what "the people" really want. You have to look at the results a little more closely. The fact is, six Tea Party House freshmen in swing districts lost their bids for reelection. Tea Party rape fantasizers Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost their Senate bids in Indiana and Missouri, which should have been gimmes for Republicans. Barack Obama won the presidency. And Democrats held on to the Senate, even though 21 of the 33 Democratic seats were up for election.
The election definitely tilted in favor of the Democrats, but the only mandate they have from "the people" is that they do their jobs, come to a reasonable accommodation with the Republicans and get the economy moving again. The mandate for the Republicans is the same, with additional provisos that they stop sabotaging all legislation and appointments, and abandon their tactic of running out the political clock in the vain hope of some Rovian electoral magic in 2016.
Perhaps it will be easier for Republicans now that their number one priority is no longer making sure Barack Obama is a one-term president.
What Needs To Done?
If there is one thing that has left a very bad taste in my mouth about the election this year, it's the low voter turnout. As of this post, we are over 10 million short of the last election. I realize that 2008 was an historic election but I feel an enormous amount of dismay at the fact that out of the 210 million or so people that are eligible to vote, only 120 million voted (130 in the last election).
Folks, this sucks. What needs to be done to get those extra 90 million people in the voting booth?
Folks, this sucks. What needs to be done to get those extra 90 million people in the voting booth?
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Was Hurricane Sandy God's Vote for Obama?
Republicans love to invoke God's will at the slightest hint of meteorological catastrophe. For people like Pat Robertson, every flood, drought, hurricane and tornado is evidence of God's displeasure with a gay pride parade or an abortion clinic.
Karl Rove said that Hurricane Sandy was Obama's October Surprise, and Dick Morris blamed the hurricane and Chris Christie for Obama's victory.
But would God really hammer millions of people on the east coast, in mostly Democratic states, merely to drive home the point that the country would be better off with a Democrat running FEMA? Or was God punishing those Democrats with a hurricane, hoping that the infrastructure in the cities would be destroyed and urban dwellers wouldn't be able to cast their votes, allowing rural and suburban Republicans in those states to stage an electoral coup and win one for the Mitter?
If so, God would be guilty of the largest election tampering scheme in history, dwarfing the fevered Republican dreams of ACORN operatives running around impersonating dead people at the polls. Since natural disasters hurt everyone equally, perhaps the right will stop pretending that God actually has anything to do with them. After all, if God has been siccing earthquakes and hurricanes on us lo these many millennia, he's the largest mass murderer in the history of the world.
Now, I'd be the first to agree that Chris Christie threw Mitt Romney under the bus when Hurricane Sandy hit. Christie was never enthusiastic about Romney, whom he barely mentioned when he addressed the Republican national convention in August. But the truth is, no Republican wanted Romney: he was everyone's third or fourth choice, even among other money men like Sheldon Adelson. Most Republicans would have preferred someone like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain, but they knew the rest of the electorate considers those guys to be incompetent or nuts. So they settled on the guy who likes like a generic Central Casting president.
Besides, what's good for Chris Christie is not what's good for Mitt Romney. First and foremost, Christie needs to make sure his state recovers from the hurricane. Second, Christie is governor of a mostly Democratic state, and he needs to work with Democrats (something Romney might appreciate). Third, Christie may have presidential aspirations, and a Romney presidency would effectively close him out of the running in 2016.
But despite any cynical speculation about Christie's motives for embracing Obama after the hurricane, putting our differences aside and working together to make this country better is the right thing to do. Partisans like Rove and Morris complain bitterly about Christie, but that's what the people of this country want to see. Even John Boehner is also making some encouraging statements, in his own gruff way.
If guys like Chris Christie can lead the Republican Party out of the wilderness and back into the light, more power to him.
Karl Rove said that Hurricane Sandy was Obama's October Surprise, and Dick Morris blamed the hurricane and Chris Christie for Obama's victory.
But would God really hammer millions of people on the east coast, in mostly Democratic states, merely to drive home the point that the country would be better off with a Democrat running FEMA? Or was God punishing those Democrats with a hurricane, hoping that the infrastructure in the cities would be destroyed and urban dwellers wouldn't be able to cast their votes, allowing rural and suburban Republicans in those states to stage an electoral coup and win one for the Mitter?
If so, God would be guilty of the largest election tampering scheme in history, dwarfing the fevered Republican dreams of ACORN operatives running around impersonating dead people at the polls. Since natural disasters hurt everyone equally, perhaps the right will stop pretending that God actually has anything to do with them. After all, if God has been siccing earthquakes and hurricanes on us lo these many millennia, he's the largest mass murderer in the history of the world.
Now, I'd be the first to agree that Chris Christie threw Mitt Romney under the bus when Hurricane Sandy hit. Christie was never enthusiastic about Romney, whom he barely mentioned when he addressed the Republican national convention in August. But the truth is, no Republican wanted Romney: he was everyone's third or fourth choice, even among other money men like Sheldon Adelson. Most Republicans would have preferred someone like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain, but they knew the rest of the electorate considers those guys to be incompetent or nuts. So they settled on the guy who likes like a generic Central Casting president.
Besides, what's good for Chris Christie is not what's good for Mitt Romney. First and foremost, Christie needs to make sure his state recovers from the hurricane. Second, Christie is governor of a mostly Democratic state, and he needs to work with Democrats (something Romney might appreciate). Third, Christie may have presidential aspirations, and a Romney presidency would effectively close him out of the running in 2016.
But despite any cynical speculation about Christie's motives for embracing Obama after the hurricane, putting our differences aside and working together to make this country better is the right thing to do. Partisans like Rove and Morris complain bitterly about Christie, but that's what the people of this country want to see. Even John Boehner is also making some encouraging statements, in his own gruff way.
If guys like Chris Christie can lead the Republican Party out of the wilderness and back into the light, more power to him.
The Times, They Are a-Changin'
For years it's been obvious that long-term demographics predict the demise of the Republican Party as currently constituted. The question has been when that would kick in. Now we have the answer: 2012.
President Obama won reelection largely on the strength of support from women, minority and younger voters. Those voters turned out for him in droves in 2008, and the question was whether that could be sustained.
Many commentators talk about how Obama "lost" the white vote, implying that there was some kind of racial bias of whites against the president. I'm not so sure. The president won in "white" states like Minnesota and Wisconsin (Paul Ryan didn't even pull in his own state). Yes, some whites who voted for the president in 2008 didn't vote for him this time around. That would have happened to any president faced with an obstinate Congress and the lackluster recovery, regardless of race.
But racial (and sexual) politics does have a lot to do with why Romney, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost. The Republican Party banked on conservative religious folks to win the election for them. But the social tide is turning: gay marriage was approved in three states, and Minnesota voted down a constitutional amendment to ban it.
In Minnesota Republicans controlling both houses of the legislature did an end-around the governor to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot, hoping that it would fire up turnout among Catholics and religious conservatives. That tactic backfired. Instead, young people came out in droves to vote against it and a voter suppression bill that would have disenfranchised both younger and elderly voters. And at the same time they elected significant Democratic majorities in both houses.
Now, I'll be the first to say that this demographic shift does not mean the Democratic Party has a permanent lock on the electorate. The Republican Party can stage a comeback if they drop racially motivated policies on immigration, stop opposing gay marriage and military service, and stop incessantly attacking the reproductive rights of women.
It's doubtful they'll do all these at once. Because they're so dependent on the the religious right for turnout they'll most likely stop opposing immigration reform first, hoping that they'll be able to peel off conservative Hispanic Catholics. This will alienate many of the racially motivated Southern whites, but since they have nowhere else to go it's a safe bet. Immigration reform will also please business-oriented Republicans who've been clamoring for more cheap foreign labor to help bust the unions.
It's hard to see how the Republicans can back down on abortion and gay marriage at this point; they've been dependent on conservative Catholics for the last several elections. But since Catholics generally are more sympathetic to Democratic policies of justice and social welfare, any Republican retreat on those issues will cede the field completely.
But continued opposition to gay rights will inevitably cost them the support of libertarians and younger generations. For that reason, Republicans will ultimately have to drop opposition to gay marriage and military service.
In the end the money men like Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers will decide the direction the Republican Party will take. Romney has shown he will take any position on social issues he needs to win. Adelson and the Kochs want results, and if that means jettisoning the conservative social agenda they'll do it.
Cynicism aside, I would love for the Republican Party to make these changes. I used to be a Republican myself. I want to again be able to vote for candidates based on their individual qualifications, rather than voting against them because of their lockstep devotion to their party's narrow self-serving agenda.
President Obama won reelection largely on the strength of support from women, minority and younger voters. Those voters turned out for him in droves in 2008, and the question was whether that could be sustained.
Many commentators talk about how Obama "lost" the white vote, implying that there was some kind of racial bias of whites against the president. I'm not so sure. The president won in "white" states like Minnesota and Wisconsin (Paul Ryan didn't even pull in his own state). Yes, some whites who voted for the president in 2008 didn't vote for him this time around. That would have happened to any president faced with an obstinate Congress and the lackluster recovery, regardless of race.
But racial (and sexual) politics does have a lot to do with why Romney, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost. The Republican Party banked on conservative religious folks to win the election for them. But the social tide is turning: gay marriage was approved in three states, and Minnesota voted down a constitutional amendment to ban it.
In Minnesota Republicans controlling both houses of the legislature did an end-around the governor to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot, hoping that it would fire up turnout among Catholics and religious conservatives. That tactic backfired. Instead, young people came out in droves to vote against it and a voter suppression bill that would have disenfranchised both younger and elderly voters. And at the same time they elected significant Democratic majorities in both houses.
Now, I'll be the first to say that this demographic shift does not mean the Democratic Party has a permanent lock on the electorate. The Republican Party can stage a comeback if they drop racially motivated policies on immigration, stop opposing gay marriage and military service, and stop incessantly attacking the reproductive rights of women.
It's doubtful they'll do all these at once. Because they're so dependent on the the religious right for turnout they'll most likely stop opposing immigration reform first, hoping that they'll be able to peel off conservative Hispanic Catholics. This will alienate many of the racially motivated Southern whites, but since they have nowhere else to go it's a safe bet. Immigration reform will also please business-oriented Republicans who've been clamoring for more cheap foreign labor to help bust the unions.
It's hard to see how the Republicans can back down on abortion and gay marriage at this point; they've been dependent on conservative Catholics for the last several elections. But since Catholics generally are more sympathetic to Democratic policies of justice and social welfare, any Republican retreat on those issues will cede the field completely.
But continued opposition to gay rights will inevitably cost them the support of libertarians and younger generations. For that reason, Republicans will ultimately have to drop opposition to gay marriage and military service.
In the end the money men like Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers will decide the direction the Republican Party will take. Romney has shown he will take any position on social issues he needs to win. Adelson and the Kochs want results, and if that means jettisoning the conservative social agenda they'll do it.
Cynicism aside, I would love for the Republican Party to make these changes. I used to be a Republican myself. I want to again be able to vote for candidates based on their individual qualifications, rather than voting against them because of their lockstep devotion to their party's narrow self-serving agenda.
Six Billion Dollars Down the Drain
It looks like we spent at least $6 billion on this election, and nothing really changed. We've got the same president, the same House and the same Senate. And that $6 billion doesn't even count an unknowable amount of "dark money" spent to influence the election, but estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Much of that money was spent on countless misleading TV ads. Shouldn't we be spending our money on something more constructive, instead of giving it to the lamestream media to harangue us with stuff no one wants to see?
The Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision may be catastrophically wrong, but because of that there's little to be done to directly limit the amount of money being spent. What we can do is require more openness in the process: all ad buys should be reported on the web within 24 hours and dark money "social welfare" groups should be required to disclose all large donors on the web.
ProPublica has been working on a series of stories about dark money organizations. The weirdest part of the story is that they found a bunch of financial documents for one of these "social welfare" organizations in a meth house in Colorado. The documents seem to show coordination between Montana political campaigns and Western Tradition Partners (WTP), a dark money organization. Such coordination is illegal even under Citizen's United.
Without full disclosure of donors to such organizations it has become obvious that we cannot meet the Citizen's United's low standard. WTP's shenanigans show how easily the current system could be corrupted, or at least present the appearance of corruption.
If we know who's behind these ads then we can make a better decision about the reliability of the message, and hold them responsible for their actions.
Much of that money was spent on countless misleading TV ads. Shouldn't we be spending our money on something more constructive, instead of giving it to the lamestream media to harangue us with stuff no one wants to see?
The Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision may be catastrophically wrong, but because of that there's little to be done to directly limit the amount of money being spent. What we can do is require more openness in the process: all ad buys should be reported on the web within 24 hours and dark money "social welfare" groups should be required to disclose all large donors on the web.
ProPublica has been working on a series of stories about dark money organizations. The weirdest part of the story is that they found a bunch of financial documents for one of these "social welfare" organizations in a meth house in Colorado. The documents seem to show coordination between Montana political campaigns and Western Tradition Partners (WTP), a dark money organization. Such coordination is illegal even under Citizen's United.
Without full disclosure of donors to such organizations it has become obvious that we cannot meet the Citizen's United's low standard. WTP's shenanigans show how easily the current system could be corrupted, or at least present the appearance of corruption.
If we know who's behind these ads then we can make a better decision about the reliability of the message, and hold them responsible for their actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)