THE SORT-OF-NEW SOUTH
Nikki Haley was the big story, but there was also news downballot in South Carolina:
Tim Scott is on track to become the first black Republican in Congress since 2003 -- and the first from the South since Reconstruction -- after beating one of the biggest names in South Carolina politics to win a Republican congressional nomination.
... Scott, a member of the South Carolina state House, defeated Paul Thurmond, son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond....
... Scott had national conservative support. Sarah Palin endorsed him, as did the anti-tax Club for Growth.
... In an interview with USA TODAY earlier this week, Scott said President Obama inspired him in a negative sense: the fiscally conservative lawmaker said he considers the president's health care plan "a step toward socialism." ...
I'm mildly impressed -- not too much. Does this mean Southern right-wingers have opened the door to some non-whites? Well, sure. Does it mean there's no racism left in this crowd? I doubt it.
George Carlin, talking about the attitudes of the people in his old neighborhood, famously said that in the neighborhood "a fag was a guy who wouldn't go downtown with you beating up queers."
I'd say that in the new South Carolina GOP, a n----r isn't someone who's black. It's someone who's black and won't join you in beating up Obama.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
THE HIVE MIND OF THE RIGHT
(with an update)
William Kristol:
If Stan McChrystal has to go -- and he probably does -- it will be a sad end to a career of great distinction and a low moment in a lifetime devoted to duty, honor, and country.
... McChrystal should not be the only one to go. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and "AfPak" czar Richard Holbrooke should likewise either submit their resignations or be fired by President Obama....
The imposition of a troop-withdrawal deadline, in particular, has poisoned our Afghanistan strategy.
... the war ... can be won, though it will take some time. The war can, however, be lost rapidly in Washington.
John McCain:
"If the president fires McChrystal, we need a new ambassador and we need an entire new team over there. But most importantly, we need the president to say what Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have both said but what the president refuses to say: Our withdrawal in the middle of 2011 will be conditions based. It's got to be conditions based and he's got to say it....
"He won't say this because he's captive of his far-left base."
So all the Republicans in America not named Paul or Buchanan now have their talking points and their marching orders -- which means Barack Obama also has his marching orders, and doesn't need to ask "How high?" when all of these Republicans -- Liz Cheney and Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin and Andrew McCarthy and all the other self-styled commanders of the commander in chief -- order him to jump. He knows how high. This is how high. This is what he must do, or be declared a traitor.
****
UPDATE: Toby Harnden of The Telegraph posted this a few hours ago:
A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate....
A "replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate"? With the Republicans, is there any such thing? If McChrystal does go, will at least a few Republicans threaten to block confirmation of his replacement unless Obama cleans house following the script above? I wouldn't be surprised -- they're Republicans, and you know it's not a threat to the war effort if Republicans do something like this, by definition.
(with an update)
William Kristol:
If Stan McChrystal has to go -- and he probably does -- it will be a sad end to a career of great distinction and a low moment in a lifetime devoted to duty, honor, and country.
... McChrystal should not be the only one to go. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and "AfPak" czar Richard Holbrooke should likewise either submit their resignations or be fired by President Obama....
The imposition of a troop-withdrawal deadline, in particular, has poisoned our Afghanistan strategy.
... the war ... can be won, though it will take some time. The war can, however, be lost rapidly in Washington.
John McCain:
"If the president fires McChrystal, we need a new ambassador and we need an entire new team over there. But most importantly, we need the president to say what Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have both said but what the president refuses to say: Our withdrawal in the middle of 2011 will be conditions based. It's got to be conditions based and he's got to say it....
"He won't say this because he's captive of his far-left base."
So all the Republicans in America not named Paul or Buchanan now have their talking points and their marching orders -- which means Barack Obama also has his marching orders, and doesn't need to ask "How high?" when all of these Republicans -- Liz Cheney and Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin and Andrew McCarthy and all the other self-styled commanders of the commander in chief -- order him to jump. He knows how high. This is how high. This is what he must do, or be declared a traitor.
****
UPDATE: Toby Harnden of The Telegraph posted this a few hours ago:
A senior Capitol Hill source tells me that General Stanley McChrystal had tendered his resignation to President Barack Obama and that the White House is actively discussing a replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate....
A "replacement who could be quickly confirmed by the Senate"? With the Republicans, is there any such thing? If McChrystal does go, will at least a few Republicans threaten to block confirmation of his replacement unless Obama cleans house following the script above? I wouldn't be surprised -- they're Republicans, and you know it's not a threat to the war effort if Republicans do something like this, by definition.
RIGHTY BLOVIATORS NEVER LET "NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE" GO TO WASTE
The idiot premise of the latest David Brooks column is that "Dr. Faustus, the famous left-wing philologist," encounters "Mephistopheles, who happened to be the provost at his college," sometime in the Bush years, and Mephistopheles offers Faustus five wishes, all of which are granted:
"... First, I would like the nation to be hurled into an economic crisis caused by Wall Street greed and recklessness. This will discredit free-market fundamentalism once and for all....
"Then I would like you to find the smartest Democratic politician in the land and make him president....
"Then I would like you to create a political climate so he can immediately enact an $800 billion spending package. This will avert economic collapse and show the American people how effective government can be....
"Then I would like the Democrats to pass a universal health care law. This will show a grateful nation that government can provide basic security....
"If you do all this, America will be transformed. Conservatism will be in retreat and liberalism will reign supreme! Just to be sure, I would like a multinational oil company to cause the biggest environmental disaster in American history. This will completely discredit corporate America and remind people why they need strong regulations and global warming legislation."
"It will be done."
Har-de-har-har! You see where this is going. Be careful what you wish for, lefty! Except who on the left actually wished for all that trouble, or would have? Who really thought trouble would help Obama?
Brooks isn't a Fox/teabag righty, but the memes of the Fox crowd do migrate to more "respectable" movement-conservative circles, and thence to Bobo. Although he never invokes the quote, I can't help thinking he really believes we lefties all saw overlapping national calamities as a marvelous opportunity -- and he believes this simply because Rahm Emanuel notoriously said that you should never let a crisis go to waste.
(May I just say right now that I wish I could go back in time and cause a small piece of food to be temporarily lodged in Emanuel's windpipe moments before he said that? That little quip has done a great deal of damage.)
It was obvious even in the early days of the financial meltdown that Obama's ambitious plans -- cap-and-trade, expanded aid for education, letting the holy and sacrosanct Bush tax cuts lapse for the rich, not to mention health care reform -- were going to be a much tougher sell in a recession, and we knew that even before we knew how bad it would be. Jim Lehrer to Obama in the first Obama-McCain debate:
As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
I think a lot of us thought Obama would be better than he's been at juggling big plans and unforeseen crises -- but we bloody well didn't think unforeseen crises would be beneficial for him.
I think Brooks has us confused with his righty compatriots, who think everything is an affirmation of their own preconceptions. Boom times? We need tax cuts, because we can afford them! Recession? We need tax cuts, because the economy will suffer otherwise! Crime going up? We need more Jesus in our lives! Crime going down? It just proves we're favored by God! And on and on. You know the drill.
The idiot premise of the latest David Brooks column is that "Dr. Faustus, the famous left-wing philologist," encounters "Mephistopheles, who happened to be the provost at his college," sometime in the Bush years, and Mephistopheles offers Faustus five wishes, all of which are granted:
"... First, I would like the nation to be hurled into an economic crisis caused by Wall Street greed and recklessness. This will discredit free-market fundamentalism once and for all....
"Then I would like you to find the smartest Democratic politician in the land and make him president....
"Then I would like you to create a political climate so he can immediately enact an $800 billion spending package. This will avert economic collapse and show the American people how effective government can be....
"Then I would like the Democrats to pass a universal health care law. This will show a grateful nation that government can provide basic security....
"If you do all this, America will be transformed. Conservatism will be in retreat and liberalism will reign supreme! Just to be sure, I would like a multinational oil company to cause the biggest environmental disaster in American history. This will completely discredit corporate America and remind people why they need strong regulations and global warming legislation."
"It will be done."
Har-de-har-har! You see where this is going. Be careful what you wish for, lefty! Except who on the left actually wished for all that trouble, or would have? Who really thought trouble would help Obama?
Brooks isn't a Fox/teabag righty, but the memes of the Fox crowd do migrate to more "respectable" movement-conservative circles, and thence to Bobo. Although he never invokes the quote, I can't help thinking he really believes we lefties all saw overlapping national calamities as a marvelous opportunity -- and he believes this simply because Rahm Emanuel notoriously said that you should never let a crisis go to waste.
(May I just say right now that I wish I could go back in time and cause a small piece of food to be temporarily lodged in Emanuel's windpipe moments before he said that? That little quip has done a great deal of damage.)
It was obvious even in the early days of the financial meltdown that Obama's ambitious plans -- cap-and-trade, expanded aid for education, letting the holy and sacrosanct Bush tax cuts lapse for the rich, not to mention health care reform -- were going to be a much tougher sell in a recession, and we knew that even before we knew how bad it would be. Jim Lehrer to Obama in the first Obama-McCain debate:
As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
I think a lot of us thought Obama would be better than he's been at juggling big plans and unforeseen crises -- but we bloody well didn't think unforeseen crises would be beneficial for him.
I think Brooks has us confused with his righty compatriots, who think everything is an affirmation of their own preconceptions. Boom times? We need tax cuts, because we can afford them! Recession? We need tax cuts, because the economy will suffer otherwise! Crime going up? We need more Jesus in our lives! Crime going down? It just proves we're favored by God! And on and on. You know the drill.
WE'LL SOON RETURN TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CLUSTERFUCK
My hunch is that this McChrystal hoo-ha is going to result in pretty much nothing beyond what we've already had, namely the resignation of McChrystal's press aide. Oh, the blatherers will blather for days. And there'll probably be a resignation or two (Eikenberry?) after a decent interval. But it certainly doesn't seem like Obama's style to fire someone for insubordination (or for any other reason). The Afghan war is the one major issue facing Obama on which he's found an approach that relieves him of relentless harassment from the wingnuts, so he's going to want to get back to the status quo ante as quickly as possible. And he seems to have a limitless capacity for hope when it comes to trying to work with people who are implacably hostile to him (e.g., all congressional Republicans). So I think he's going to try to restore relations with McChrystal and paper this over.
And, of course, this story isn't going to be the oil spill -- it's not going to get any oxygen from the public, which regards the wars as permanent annoying facts of life and thinks about them as little as possible.
My hunch is that this McChrystal hoo-ha is going to result in pretty much nothing beyond what we've already had, namely the resignation of McChrystal's press aide. Oh, the blatherers will blather for days. And there'll probably be a resignation or two (Eikenberry?) after a decent interval. But it certainly doesn't seem like Obama's style to fire someone for insubordination (or for any other reason). The Afghan war is the one major issue facing Obama on which he's found an approach that relieves him of relentless harassment from the wingnuts, so he's going to want to get back to the status quo ante as quickly as possible. And he seems to have a limitless capacity for hope when it comes to trying to work with people who are implacably hostile to him (e.g., all congressional Republicans). So I think he's going to try to restore relations with McChrystal and paper this over.
And, of course, this story isn't going to be the oil spill -- it's not going to get any oxygen from the public, which regards the wars as permanent annoying facts of life and thinks about them as little as possible.
STRONG AND WRONG, WEAK AND RIGHT, AND OTHER COMBINATIONS
Rachel Maddow last night:
Republicans are at war right now over whether or not BP has been treated unfairly -- and more broadly, on what counts as a conservative response to this environmentsal disaster. On the one hand, you have Republicans like Adam Putnam of Florida and Aaron Schock of Illinois introducing legislation they say to toughen up government regulation of the oil industry. On the other hand, you have Republicans like Randy Brogdon -- he's running for governor in Oklahoma. He tells the Associated Press, quote, "The oil spill is a perfect example of why government should never be involved in the private sector. Government is not the solution. It's the problem. The more government tries to get in and regulate the free market, the worse things become." Mr. Brogdon is trying to get elected on the "don't blame BP" platform, set the oil companies free. Leave BP alone. This is a moment when Republicans ought to be sailing toward huge political victory. They are poised to win lots of congressional seats this year. But in a year when they had enough trouble trying to get people to turn to them for answers in the abstract, now looking to them for answers on this very specific, deadly, pressing ongoing problem may have changed the whole course of politics for this midterm year.
Wow, Rachel -- I'd love to think so. I'd love to think having some folks out there defending BP would sink the GOP at the polls. I'd love to think that the fact that Joe Barton has been denounced by members of his own party is a sign that the party is struggling to devise a response that satisfies both the crazies in the base and the public at large.
I'm just afraid that they have devised a response. It's to talk out of both sides of the party's collective face. And it really could work.
If you barely pay attention to the news, you think the "official" GOP position is that Barton was wrong and that he's been taken to the woodshed for what he said. If you're a talk-radio/Fox News crazy, you know that plenty of your heroes are resisting the demand to recant.
The party isn't really fractured. The party is offering products for both markets.
And both camps are saying what they say forthrightly. Both camps -- even the one that claims to agree with President Obama about the BP escrow fund -- denounce him on most matters forthrightly. And forthrightness, more than any actual position on an issue, may be all that the people in the middle want. It's certainly what Richard Cohen wants, and punditry like his helps shape public opinion:
This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs? The president himself is no help on this score. When it comes to his own image, he has a tin ear. He hugely misunderstood what some people were saying when they demanded that he get angry over the gulf oil catastrophe and the insult-to-injury statements of BP chief executive Tony Hayward....
What these people were seeking was not an eruption of anger, not a tantrum and not a full-scale denunciation of an oil company. What they wanted instead was a sign that this catastrophe meant something to Obama, that it was not merely another problem that had crossed his desk -- and this time just wouldn't budge. He showed not the slightest sign in the idiom that really counts in a media age -- body language -- that he gave a damn. He could see your pain, he could talk about your pain, but he gave no indication that he felt it.
See, you might have thought that we wanted the president to actually do something more to resolve the crisis. But no -- according to Cohen, we just want him to hold his shoulders differently.
I'm not sure if Cohen actually is describing how low-information voters see the world -- but I do think he's describing how Beltway scribes see it. They want strong, and (in Bill Clinton's famous formulation) they prefer even strong and wrong to weak and right. (And, of course, it's easy to be strong when you're in the out party, and all you have to do is talk.)
Haley Barbour, of course, has been part of the "Leave BP Alone" crowd -- and he was rewarded for that stance with a story in The New York Times that touted him as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. Digby recoiled at that, appalled that "this oleaginous whore" would be so celebrated by the allegedly liberal media. Rachel Maddow and The Nation's Chris Hayes tried to puzzle that out last night:
MADDOW: ... Mississippi governor Haley Barbour has been downplaying the spill in every way possible, saying that it's no big deal, saying you don't want to wash your face in it, but it's OK to swim in it. I mean, he's really, really downplaying it, now saying a moratorium on drilling will be worse than the oil spill -- the biggest environmental catastrophe in American history. That has earned him Beltway compliments. The response to that behavior by Haley Barbour is, maybe Haley Barbour is running for president. Can you please explain how that logic works to me?
HAYES: ... There's a sort of cheap contrarianism that folks in the Beltway like. And for some reason, they love Haley Barbour because he used to be one of the racketeers hanging out on Capitol Hill, basically laundering money through Congress and the K Street operation. So he's one of the good old boys.
What they like is his "body language," to use Cohen's formulation. They like the fact that he likes himself and has no self-doubt and is "colorful" and forthright. Is what he says right? They don't care.
As I've pointed out, Beltway scribes love Barbour to pieces, and have written will-Haley-run-for-president? stories over and over again -- in the Mississippi press in '04, in The Washington Post in '05, in U.S. News in '09, in the Post again that same year, and in Newsweek in January of this year. They don't need an oil spill or a hurricane -- they don't need a reason at all. They just dig the guy. Remember how they dug the George W. Bush of 2000? It's as if Haley Barbour is the father Candidate W should have had.
I actually think the public, faced with a Barbour presidential bid, would show better judgment than the press -- I think the public would conclude that Barbour really is an "oleaginous whore" (or oleaginous procurer). If he were running for something this year in a non-oil state, the public would expect him to be a hell of a lot nastier to BP. But for now he's just part of the noise, and as long as some Republicans are in tune with the general public, the rest can probably be as pro-BP as they choose. The party message is calculatedly muddied, and different market segments will hear what they want to hear.
Rachel Maddow last night:
Republicans are at war right now over whether or not BP has been treated unfairly -- and more broadly, on what counts as a conservative response to this environmentsal disaster. On the one hand, you have Republicans like Adam Putnam of Florida and Aaron Schock of Illinois introducing legislation they say to toughen up government regulation of the oil industry. On the other hand, you have Republicans like Randy Brogdon -- he's running for governor in Oklahoma. He tells the Associated Press, quote, "The oil spill is a perfect example of why government should never be involved in the private sector. Government is not the solution. It's the problem. The more government tries to get in and regulate the free market, the worse things become." Mr. Brogdon is trying to get elected on the "don't blame BP" platform, set the oil companies free. Leave BP alone. This is a moment when Republicans ought to be sailing toward huge political victory. They are poised to win lots of congressional seats this year. But in a year when they had enough trouble trying to get people to turn to them for answers in the abstract, now looking to them for answers on this very specific, deadly, pressing ongoing problem may have changed the whole course of politics for this midterm year.
Wow, Rachel -- I'd love to think so. I'd love to think having some folks out there defending BP would sink the GOP at the polls. I'd love to think that the fact that Joe Barton has been denounced by members of his own party is a sign that the party is struggling to devise a response that satisfies both the crazies in the base and the public at large.
I'm just afraid that they have devised a response. It's to talk out of both sides of the party's collective face. And it really could work.
If you barely pay attention to the news, you think the "official" GOP position is that Barton was wrong and that he's been taken to the woodshed for what he said. If you're a talk-radio/Fox News crazy, you know that plenty of your heroes are resisting the demand to recant.
The party isn't really fractured. The party is offering products for both markets.
And both camps are saying what they say forthrightly. Both camps -- even the one that claims to agree with President Obama about the BP escrow fund -- denounce him on most matters forthrightly. And forthrightness, more than any actual position on an issue, may be all that the people in the middle want. It's certainly what Richard Cohen wants, and punditry like his helps shape public opinion:
This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs? The president himself is no help on this score. When it comes to his own image, he has a tin ear. He hugely misunderstood what some people were saying when they demanded that he get angry over the gulf oil catastrophe and the insult-to-injury statements of BP chief executive Tony Hayward....
What these people were seeking was not an eruption of anger, not a tantrum and not a full-scale denunciation of an oil company. What they wanted instead was a sign that this catastrophe meant something to Obama, that it was not merely another problem that had crossed his desk -- and this time just wouldn't budge. He showed not the slightest sign in the idiom that really counts in a media age -- body language -- that he gave a damn. He could see your pain, he could talk about your pain, but he gave no indication that he felt it.
See, you might have thought that we wanted the president to actually do something more to resolve the crisis. But no -- according to Cohen, we just want him to hold his shoulders differently.
I'm not sure if Cohen actually is describing how low-information voters see the world -- but I do think he's describing how Beltway scribes see it. They want strong, and (in Bill Clinton's famous formulation) they prefer even strong and wrong to weak and right. (And, of course, it's easy to be strong when you're in the out party, and all you have to do is talk.)
Haley Barbour, of course, has been part of the "Leave BP Alone" crowd -- and he was rewarded for that stance with a story in The New York Times that touted him as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. Digby recoiled at that, appalled that "this oleaginous whore" would be so celebrated by the allegedly liberal media. Rachel Maddow and The Nation's Chris Hayes tried to puzzle that out last night:
MADDOW: ... Mississippi governor Haley Barbour has been downplaying the spill in every way possible, saying that it's no big deal, saying you don't want to wash your face in it, but it's OK to swim in it. I mean, he's really, really downplaying it, now saying a moratorium on drilling will be worse than the oil spill -- the biggest environmental catastrophe in American history. That has earned him Beltway compliments. The response to that behavior by Haley Barbour is, maybe Haley Barbour is running for president. Can you please explain how that logic works to me?
HAYES: ... There's a sort of cheap contrarianism that folks in the Beltway like. And for some reason, they love Haley Barbour because he used to be one of the racketeers hanging out on Capitol Hill, basically laundering money through Congress and the K Street operation. So he's one of the good old boys.
What they like is his "body language," to use Cohen's formulation. They like the fact that he likes himself and has no self-doubt and is "colorful" and forthright. Is what he says right? They don't care.
As I've pointed out, Beltway scribes love Barbour to pieces, and have written will-Haley-run-for-president? stories over and over again -- in the Mississippi press in '04, in The Washington Post in '05, in U.S. News in '09, in the Post again that same year, and in Newsweek in January of this year. They don't need an oil spill or a hurricane -- they don't need a reason at all. They just dig the guy. Remember how they dug the George W. Bush of 2000? It's as if Haley Barbour is the father Candidate W should have had.
I actually think the public, faced with a Barbour presidential bid, would show better judgment than the press -- I think the public would conclude that Barbour really is an "oleaginous whore" (or oleaginous procurer). If he were running for something this year in a non-oil state, the public would expect him to be a hell of a lot nastier to BP. But for now he's just part of the noise, and as long as some Republicans are in tune with the general public, the rest can probably be as pro-BP as they choose. The party message is calculatedly muddied, and different market segments will hear what they want to hear.
Monday, June 21, 2010
HAYWORTH SAID, "GET RICH OFF THE GOVERNMENT"? AND THAT'S A PROBLEM?
Really now -- I don't understand why this should be a criipling blow to J.D. Hayworth's teabagger-backed campaign to unseat John McCain:
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) ... had an interesting job for a time in 2007: Appearing as an infomercial pitchman -- for a company telling people that they can get free grant money from the federal government.
In 2007, shortly after Hayworth lost his re-election battle in 2006, Hayworth appeared in a half-hour informercial for the National Grants Conferences, ... which advertises itself as running seminars in which people can find out how to get grant money from the federal government -- which the infomercial's on-screen text pitched as being "FREE MONEY" in quotes.
"Well I don't want to shock anybody's sensibilities, but I have to use a four-letter word: Real. This is real," Hayworth said in the infomercial. "The money is out there, the opportunities are out there. And by the way, it's not something where it's the government's money -- it's really your money. You surrendered it in the form of taxation. Now's the time to take advantage of a situation where the government can invest in you. And in turn, you'll have a chance to build a business, or make a better life for yourself -- and in so doing, you'll help improve the country."
It should be noted that the company's conferences and business practices have received an F rating from the Better Business Bureau, and in 2007 it was the target of a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, signed by 32 state attorneys general....
Well, there's Hayward glaringly obvious first line of defense: The FTC and those state AGs are obviously engaging in a shakedown of a private business! And they're doing it because they hate capitalism!
Beyond that, what teabagger would doubt the main premise of the infomercial -- that government programs have billions of dollars lying around just waiting to be snatched up by the first person, deserving or otherwise, who figures out the paperwork? Isn't that what teabaggers think all government programs are? Don't they think all tax money is essentially poured down a rat hole, while elves and fairies maintain the Interstate highways and conduct FBI investigations and run the Pentagon and the national parks and the Centers for Disease Control for free?
Oh, the AGs say that people who paid big money for the seminars were never really able to get all that government loot? Well, that's got to be the result of typical big-government red tape! Right? Don't blame the folks telling you how to cut through the red tape -- blame the evil government because cutting through the red tape is obviously even harder than it looks!
Heck, I think this could actually help Hayworth, if he has the sense to play it right. Clearly he's the victim here -- an honest guy who just wanted to help return more of taxpayers' own cash to the taxpayers themselves, but was thwarted by the evil government mafia, which now is trying to destroy him because he almost helped true patriots unlock the government's secrets!
Really now -- I don't understand why this should be a criipling blow to J.D. Hayworth's teabagger-backed campaign to unseat John McCain:
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) ... had an interesting job for a time in 2007: Appearing as an infomercial pitchman -- for a company telling people that they can get free grant money from the federal government.
In 2007, shortly after Hayworth lost his re-election battle in 2006, Hayworth appeared in a half-hour informercial for the National Grants Conferences, ... which advertises itself as running seminars in which people can find out how to get grant money from the federal government -- which the infomercial's on-screen text pitched as being "FREE MONEY" in quotes.
"Well I don't want to shock anybody's sensibilities, but I have to use a four-letter word: Real. This is real," Hayworth said in the infomercial. "The money is out there, the opportunities are out there. And by the way, it's not something where it's the government's money -- it's really your money. You surrendered it in the form of taxation. Now's the time to take advantage of a situation where the government can invest in you. And in turn, you'll have a chance to build a business, or make a better life for yourself -- and in so doing, you'll help improve the country."
It should be noted that the company's conferences and business practices have received an F rating from the Better Business Bureau, and in 2007 it was the target of a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, signed by 32 state attorneys general....
Well, there's Hayward glaringly obvious first line of defense: The FTC and those state AGs are obviously engaging in a shakedown of a private business! And they're doing it because they hate capitalism!
Beyond that, what teabagger would doubt the main premise of the infomercial -- that government programs have billions of dollars lying around just waiting to be snatched up by the first person, deserving or otherwise, who figures out the paperwork? Isn't that what teabaggers think all government programs are? Don't they think all tax money is essentially poured down a rat hole, while elves and fairies maintain the Interstate highways and conduct FBI investigations and run the Pentagon and the national parks and the Centers for Disease Control for free?
Oh, the AGs say that people who paid big money for the seminars were never really able to get all that government loot? Well, that's got to be the result of typical big-government red tape! Right? Don't blame the folks telling you how to cut through the red tape -- blame the evil government because cutting through the red tape is obviously even harder than it looks!
Heck, I think this could actually help Hayworth, if he has the sense to play it right. Clearly he's the victim here -- an honest guy who just wanted to help return more of taxpayers' own cash to the taxpayers themselves, but was thwarted by the evil government mafia, which now is trying to destroy him because he almost helped true patriots unlock the government's secrets!
MITCH DANIELS WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT
You probably don't care, but Indiana governor Mitch Daniels has been trying to raise his profile lately, presumably in the hope that he can be a contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. The effort has been paying off -- just this month he's been the subject of a long Weekly Standard feature story, a write-up in Business Week, and Washington Post column by Michael Gerson.
Unfortunately for Daniels, he's now all but officially ineligible for the Republican presidential nomination. Why? Because he used to be the budget director for the budget-busting George W. Bush? Nope. Because he's touting his state's pro-business climate even as the onetime centerpiece of the economy in Indianapolis, the Whirlpool refrigerator factory, is closing its doors and moving to Mexico? Nuh-uh.
He's out of the running because he said the unsayable in interviews for that Weekly Standard story:
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," until the economic issues are resolved.
A "truce"? Mike Huckabee was so disgusted he's raising money by denouncing this statement:
Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems....
Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn't get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization....
And a Concerned Women for America spokeswoman says no way:
... So we're just going to give up the fight on abortion, on euthanasia, on "gay marriage," on all of our most sacred traditional values and morals that are just "too tough" to focus on right now? I don’t think so.
Conservatives are more revved up than ever before, having come together to fight the health care reform bill and taxpayer-funded abortion. Pro-life leaders are rising up out of college campuses and at the ballot box. Polling shows that more Americans are pro-life than pro-abortion, and pro-lifers are younger and more energetic than the aging pro-abortion feminists.
Why would we ever call a truce now? Why ever actually?
And Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is appalled:
... stopping government-funded murder isn't a "genuine national emergency?" We cannot "save the republic," in Gov. Daniels' words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the Establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that "truce" was nothing more than surrender.
Do you doubt that Daniels is toast? Two words in response to that: Rudy Giuliani. OK, maybe Daniels (who is, after all, anti-abortion) isn't quite Rudy. But he's really, really said the wrong thing here. I don't think he can ever walk it back.
You probably don't care, but Indiana governor Mitch Daniels has been trying to raise his profile lately, presumably in the hope that he can be a contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. The effort has been paying off -- just this month he's been the subject of a long Weekly Standard feature story, a write-up in Business Week, and Washington Post column by Michael Gerson.
Unfortunately for Daniels, he's now all but officially ineligible for the Republican presidential nomination. Why? Because he used to be the budget director for the budget-busting George W. Bush? Nope. Because he's touting his state's pro-business climate even as the onetime centerpiece of the economy in Indianapolis, the Whirlpool refrigerator factory, is closing its doors and moving to Mexico? Nuh-uh.
He's out of the running because he said the unsayable in interviews for that Weekly Standard story:
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while," until the economic issues are resolved.
A "truce"? Mike Huckabee was so disgusted he's raising money by denouncing this statement:
Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems....
Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn't get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization....
And a Concerned Women for America spokeswoman says no way:
... So we're just going to give up the fight on abortion, on euthanasia, on "gay marriage," on all of our most sacred traditional values and morals that are just "too tough" to focus on right now? I don’t think so.
Conservatives are more revved up than ever before, having come together to fight the health care reform bill and taxpayer-funded abortion. Pro-life leaders are rising up out of college campuses and at the ballot box. Polling shows that more Americans are pro-life than pro-abortion, and pro-lifers are younger and more energetic than the aging pro-abortion feminists.
Why would we ever call a truce now? Why ever actually?
And Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is appalled:
... stopping government-funded murder isn't a "genuine national emergency?" We cannot "save the republic," in Gov. Daniels' words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the Establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that "truce" was nothing more than surrender.
Do you doubt that Daniels is toast? Two words in response to that: Rudy Giuliani. OK, maybe Daniels (who is, after all, anti-abortion) isn't quite Rudy. But he's really, really said the wrong thing here. I don't think he can ever walk it back.
YOUR OWN PETARD
Oh, boo-hoo, NewsBusters:
Sunday Talk Shows All Start With BP Hayward's Yachting, Ignore Obama's Golfing
As NewsBusters previously reported, America's media on Saturday had a collective hissy fit over BP CEO Tony Hayward having the nerve to participate in a yacht race on his day off.
At the same time, no such outrage was expressed concerning President Obama and Vice President Biden going golfing.
This double standard continued Sunday as the three broadcast network political talk shows all began with Hayward's yacht outing while ignoring the President's R&R on the links.
... Without similar scorn, our press are just once again demonstrating their infamous double standard -- not that we're at all surprised.
Guys? Your side has been trying to sell the notion that Obama golfs too much for months, and the message isn't catching on, except among true wingnut believers.
It's never going to catch on. And that's your fault.
Look, you're the ones who keep saying that the Obama administration is engaged in a maximalist orgy of government activism. You're the ones constantly saying that Obama is trying to "ram" something or other "down our throats." And you're the ones who identify Obama specifically as the scheming sinister genius behind it all.
Folks, you can't say the guy is the mastermind of a totalitarian machine that's sweeping all before it and say he's a slacker.
But what about lefties and Bush? Well, we said he slacked off on a lot of issues, and he did. He ignored the "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" Presidential Daily Brief, and went golfing after it was presented to him. Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora; Bush subsequently forgot all about al-Qaeda. Iraq was a disaster for years after the fall of Baghdad, and Bush needed the prod of massive losses in the 2006 midterms to change strategy, three years after the need to do so became obvious to all reasonable people. And Bush never seriously focused on Katrina.
Bush didn't sweat the details -- it was all a simpleminded concoction of Jesus, tax cuts, underregulation, and "freedom" versus "evil."
Our side never accused the people who really did sweat the details in his administration of slacking off. We made fun of Cheney's hunting, but we never thought he hunted so much that he was an ineffective Prince of Darkness. He was extremely effective at that, and we gave him full credit.
You guys (and the mainstream press) say Obama sweats the details too much. So how can he do that and be goofing off? Yes, he seemed inattentive for a while as the oil gushed in the Gulf -- but now you're accusing him of using Capone/Alinsky tactics on BP and calling him a shirker. It can't be both, folks.
Meme fail. Try again.
Oh, boo-hoo, NewsBusters:
Sunday Talk Shows All Start With BP Hayward's Yachting, Ignore Obama's Golfing
As NewsBusters previously reported, America's media on Saturday had a collective hissy fit over BP CEO Tony Hayward having the nerve to participate in a yacht race on his day off.
At the same time, no such outrage was expressed concerning President Obama and Vice President Biden going golfing.
This double standard continued Sunday as the three broadcast network political talk shows all began with Hayward's yacht outing while ignoring the President's R&R on the links.
... Without similar scorn, our press are just once again demonstrating their infamous double standard -- not that we're at all surprised.
Guys? Your side has been trying to sell the notion that Obama golfs too much for months, and the message isn't catching on, except among true wingnut believers.
It's never going to catch on. And that's your fault.
Look, you're the ones who keep saying that the Obama administration is engaged in a maximalist orgy of government activism. You're the ones constantly saying that Obama is trying to "ram" something or other "down our throats." And you're the ones who identify Obama specifically as the scheming sinister genius behind it all.
Folks, you can't say the guy is the mastermind of a totalitarian machine that's sweeping all before it and say he's a slacker.
But what about lefties and Bush? Well, we said he slacked off on a lot of issues, and he did. He ignored the "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" Presidential Daily Brief, and went golfing after it was presented to him. Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora; Bush subsequently forgot all about al-Qaeda. Iraq was a disaster for years after the fall of Baghdad, and Bush needed the prod of massive losses in the 2006 midterms to change strategy, three years after the need to do so became obvious to all reasonable people. And Bush never seriously focused on Katrina.
Bush didn't sweat the details -- it was all a simpleminded concoction of Jesus, tax cuts, underregulation, and "freedom" versus "evil."
Our side never accused the people who really did sweat the details in his administration of slacking off. We made fun of Cheney's hunting, but we never thought he hunted so much that he was an ineffective Prince of Darkness. He was extremely effective at that, and we gave him full credit.
You guys (and the mainstream press) say Obama sweats the details too much. So how can he do that and be goofing off? Yes, he seemed inattentive for a while as the oil gushed in the Gulf -- but now you're accusing him of using Capone/Alinsky tactics on BP and calling him a shirker. It can't be both, folks.
Meme fail. Try again.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
WILL ALL FUTURE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES COME PRE-DESTABILIZED?
The take of this Politico story is that teabaggers -- and persons unknown -- are trying to recall New Jersey senator Bob Menendez, just because they think they can, but we shouldn't worry about that, or the fact that there's a desire in wingnuttia for more recalls where this one came from, because heck, it's not as if allowing all federal elected officials to be permanently subject to recall, regardless of what U.S. law seems to say about the subject, could ever be declared legal by, say, the Roberts Court, now could it? That's just crazy talk, right?
Tea party forces are seizing on a new strategy in their attempt to purge Senate incumbents from office: the recall.
While it's not entirely clear whether their approach will meet constitutional muster, that hasn't stopped determined groups of grass-roots activists from trying in nearly a half-dozen states.
The most prominent attempt to recall a sitting senator is currently unfolding in New Jersey, where Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez awaits a state high court ruling on whether a recall effort against him can go forward....
Other states where nascent recall efforts have been launched against Democrats include Louisiana, where Sen. Mary Landrieu has been targeted, and North Dakota, where Sen. Kent Conrad is the target. Tea party leaders said their allies in Colorado and Michigan are also closely monitoring the RecallNJ effort for clues on how to proceed....
Given the fact that we live in a country where 10%-30% of the citizens believe that the mere election of a Democrat in a perfectly fair election is a violation of the Framers' intent and a harbinger of incipient tyranny, if the courts -- state courts or, on appeal, the Roberts Supreme Court -- allow this to happen, this could put virtually every elected Democrat at the national level in the position of having to run a literally permanent campaign.
Ah, but, Politico assures us, what are the odds that this can proceed?
Still, there are several considerable obstacles to recall efforts: There’s currently no explicit provision providing for the recall of a federal official, and case law in some states has gone against such efforts before....
"There’s two trains of thought," said RoseAnn Salanitri, a 60-year-old, stay-at-home mom who said she came to the idea of pushing for the Menendez recall after doing months of research on the law. "It can be [a loss] if we were inclined to roll over and play dead if they don't agree with our position."
But "we're prepared to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be. Sure, [that would] stall the petition drive in New Jersey, but should it go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it literally opens the door to the entire country to do this...."
Indeed.
Ah, but aren't recall campaigns expensive?
Less clear is exactly how the New Jersey court battle -- a hugely expensive effort -- is being funded. Salanitri said the group now has a 527 committee in place for a legal fund....
Um, if it's a hugely expensive effort and it's going forward, you can assume it isn't being funded by a bunch of retirees in tricorn hats. Peek under the rock and I'm sure you'll find some deep-pocketed parts of the movement-conservative government-in-exile footing the bills.
And that's the problem. If this is allowed to proceed -- here and the several other states where activists want to do it -- it's going to happen whenever any Democrats slips near or below par in approval. (Menendez is currently at 38% approval, 43% disapproval, according to Quinnipiac.) It hamstrings every elected Democrat, or at least every Democrat who might be serving in a state where Republicans can set the dates of special elections to ensure low turnout, except among the fired-up right-wing faithful. It means every Democrat has to raise an even bigger war chest -- for scheduled and unscheduled elections. It might majke Democratic rule impossible.
And by the way, RoseAnn Salanitri makes no secret of the fact that these don't see Menendez as having a particularly egregious record -- they're just targeting him because they need a test case and he's there:
"We could only pick one. ... Simply, [Menendez] is a younger man, and he's in better health, and we thought he had a longer career ahead of him."
Which means everyone's a potential target.
These bastards are the ones who claim to burst into worshipful tears at the sight of the Constitution, and yet they have no interest whatsoever in respecting the results of free and fair elections.
I suppose this could be turned on their guys someday, but for now, this is a recipe for government destabilization. If they get to do this once, they'll never stop doing it.
The take of this Politico story is that teabaggers -- and persons unknown -- are trying to recall New Jersey senator Bob Menendez, just because they think they can, but we shouldn't worry about that, or the fact that there's a desire in wingnuttia for more recalls where this one came from, because heck, it's not as if allowing all federal elected officials to be permanently subject to recall, regardless of what U.S. law seems to say about the subject, could ever be declared legal by, say, the Roberts Court, now could it? That's just crazy talk, right?
Tea party forces are seizing on a new strategy in their attempt to purge Senate incumbents from office: the recall.
While it's not entirely clear whether their approach will meet constitutional muster, that hasn't stopped determined groups of grass-roots activists from trying in nearly a half-dozen states.
The most prominent attempt to recall a sitting senator is currently unfolding in New Jersey, where Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez awaits a state high court ruling on whether a recall effort against him can go forward....
Other states where nascent recall efforts have been launched against Democrats include Louisiana, where Sen. Mary Landrieu has been targeted, and North Dakota, where Sen. Kent Conrad is the target. Tea party leaders said their allies in Colorado and Michigan are also closely monitoring the RecallNJ effort for clues on how to proceed....
Given the fact that we live in a country where 10%-30% of the citizens believe that the mere election of a Democrat in a perfectly fair election is a violation of the Framers' intent and a harbinger of incipient tyranny, if the courts -- state courts or, on appeal, the Roberts Supreme Court -- allow this to happen, this could put virtually every elected Democrat at the national level in the position of having to run a literally permanent campaign.
Ah, but, Politico assures us, what are the odds that this can proceed?
Still, there are several considerable obstacles to recall efforts: There’s currently no explicit provision providing for the recall of a federal official, and case law in some states has gone against such efforts before....
"There’s two trains of thought," said RoseAnn Salanitri, a 60-year-old, stay-at-home mom who said she came to the idea of pushing for the Menendez recall after doing months of research on the law. "It can be [a loss] if we were inclined to roll over and play dead if they don't agree with our position."
But "we're prepared to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be. Sure, [that would] stall the petition drive in New Jersey, but should it go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it literally opens the door to the entire country to do this...."
Indeed.
Ah, but aren't recall campaigns expensive?
Less clear is exactly how the New Jersey court battle -- a hugely expensive effort -- is being funded. Salanitri said the group now has a 527 committee in place for a legal fund....
Um, if it's a hugely expensive effort and it's going forward, you can assume it isn't being funded by a bunch of retirees in tricorn hats. Peek under the rock and I'm sure you'll find some deep-pocketed parts of the movement-conservative government-in-exile footing the bills.
And that's the problem. If this is allowed to proceed -- here and the several other states where activists want to do it -- it's going to happen whenever any Democrats slips near or below par in approval. (Menendez is currently at 38% approval, 43% disapproval, according to Quinnipiac.) It hamstrings every elected Democrat, or at least every Democrat who might be serving in a state where Republicans can set the dates of special elections to ensure low turnout, except among the fired-up right-wing faithful. It means every Democrat has to raise an even bigger war chest -- for scheduled and unscheduled elections. It might majke Democratic rule impossible.
And by the way, RoseAnn Salanitri makes no secret of the fact that these don't see Menendez as having a particularly egregious record -- they're just targeting him because they need a test case and he's there:
"We could only pick one. ... Simply, [Menendez] is a younger man, and he's in better health, and we thought he had a longer career ahead of him."
Which means everyone's a potential target.
These bastards are the ones who claim to burst into worshipful tears at the sight of the Constitution, and yet they have no interest whatsoever in respecting the results of free and fair elections.
I suppose this could be turned on their guys someday, but for now, this is a recipe for government destabilization. If they get to do this once, they'll never stop doing it.
A REPORTER HEARS WHAT SHE WANTS TO HEAR AND DISREGARDS THE REST
Via Digby, I see that The Washington Post's Lori Montgomery is peddling conventional wisdom ...
If Congress doesn't provide additional stimulus spending, economists inside and outside the administration warn that the nation risks a prolonged period of high unemployment or, more frightening, a descent back into recession. But a competing threat -- the exploding federal budget deficit -- seems to be resonating more powerfully in Congress and among voters.
... and a blogger Ben Somberg has demonstrated that she's utterly wrong about the public's priorities:
... is this notion supported by what the polling actually says? No. Not even close.
A Pew Research / National Journal poll from early June asked "Which of the following national economic issues worries you most?" Number one was "job situation" with 41%. "Federal budget deficit" got 23%.
An NBC / Wall Street Journal poll from early May asked "Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government." Sure enough, "job creation and economic growth" won with 35%. "The deficit and government spending" got 20%.
A Fox News poll also in early May got even more dramatic results. "Economy and jobs" topped the priority list with 47%, while "deficit, spending" garnered only 15%....
Now, I don't want to be too kind to conventional wisdom-mongers like Lori Montgomery, but I know why they think what they think. Obviously they want to believe it's true, because pious deficit hawkery is always in fashion in Washington. Beyond that, though, there are polls that seem to confirm what they so much want to believe.
I just threw a whole bunch of numbers at you above. If you're still with me, I'm going to throw a few more at you. Then I'm going to play "can you spot the differences in these two pictures?"
This is from a June 2009 Pew Research Center "Pollwatch," but I think the nation's attitudes have changed less than you'd think since then:
... The latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds the public evenly divided over whether deficit reduction or stimulus spending is the higher priority for the government right now. Among 1,005 adults interviewed over landline and cell phones June 18-21, 48% place a higher priority on "spending more to help the economy recover" while 46% prioritize "reducing the budget deficit."
...[A recent] NBC/WSJ survey asked if the president and Congress should worry more about "boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits now and in the future" or "keeping the budget deficit down even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover." When these countervailing arguments are provided, they find more siding with deficit reduction by a 23-point margin (58% vs. 35%). [A recent] CBS/NYT survey asked if the government "should spend money to stimulate the national economy, even if it means increasing the budget deficit" or "should NOT spend money to stimulate the national economy and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit." This formulation also found more favoring deficit reduction, but by a narrower 11-point margin (52% vs. 41%).
So even a year ago you could find polls seeming to show what Lori Montgomery thinks is out there -- great concern about deficits.
But did you notice what words are missing in the poll questions listed by Pew?
"Employment." "Unemployment." "Jobs."
If you compare debts and the deficit to helping "the economy to recover" or "stimulat[ing] the economy," people want to prioritize deficits and debt.
But if you compare debts and the deficit to jobs, you find that, well, people want some damn jobs.
****
The extent to which debt and deficits concern most Americas is already greater than it should be, even in polls where these rank far down on priority lists, for a simple reason, I think: to an ordinary person, being in financial trouble is being in debt. Most people don't think of the government as being different from themselves. They don't think about the fact that it might be necessary to spend up to churn up economic activity, and that the money spent will be well spent in the long run.
(To some extent I fault the Keynesians in our government, who can't, or don't bother to, explain this idea in plain language. Businesses do this all the time -- advertising even when they're running losses, for instance. Individuals sometimes do it, too -- for instance, paying for schooling or retraining when they're broke and unemployed. I'd appreciate it if the president of the United States would make such comparisons.)
But, in any event, poll respondents absolutely prefer job creation to debt reduction. Job creation is something they get. "Economic stimulus"? Not so much. "Economic stimulus" is abstract.
It's good that pollsters poll these questions several different ways. It helps us get a nuanced picture of public opinion. It's bad, however, that reporters like Montgomery cherry-pick the polls, or are simply blind to the ones that don't jibe with Beltway conventional wisdom.
Via Digby, I see that The Washington Post's Lori Montgomery is peddling conventional wisdom ...
If Congress doesn't provide additional stimulus spending, economists inside and outside the administration warn that the nation risks a prolonged period of high unemployment or, more frightening, a descent back into recession. But a competing threat -- the exploding federal budget deficit -- seems to be resonating more powerfully in Congress and among voters.
... and a blogger Ben Somberg has demonstrated that she's utterly wrong about the public's priorities:
... is this notion supported by what the polling actually says? No. Not even close.
A Pew Research / National Journal poll from early June asked "Which of the following national economic issues worries you most?" Number one was "job situation" with 41%. "Federal budget deficit" got 23%.
An NBC / Wall Street Journal poll from early May asked "Please tell me which one of these items you think should be the top priority for the federal government." Sure enough, "job creation and economic growth" won with 35%. "The deficit and government spending" got 20%.
A Fox News poll also in early May got even more dramatic results. "Economy and jobs" topped the priority list with 47%, while "deficit, spending" garnered only 15%....
Now, I don't want to be too kind to conventional wisdom-mongers like Lori Montgomery, but I know why they think what they think. Obviously they want to believe it's true, because pious deficit hawkery is always in fashion in Washington. Beyond that, though, there are polls that seem to confirm what they so much want to believe.
I just threw a whole bunch of numbers at you above. If you're still with me, I'm going to throw a few more at you. Then I'm going to play "can you spot the differences in these two pictures?"
This is from a June 2009 Pew Research Center "Pollwatch," but I think the nation's attitudes have changed less than you'd think since then:
... The latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds the public evenly divided over whether deficit reduction or stimulus spending is the higher priority for the government right now. Among 1,005 adults interviewed over landline and cell phones June 18-21, 48% place a higher priority on "spending more to help the economy recover" while 46% prioritize "reducing the budget deficit."
...[A recent] NBC/WSJ survey asked if the president and Congress should worry more about "boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits now and in the future" or "keeping the budget deficit down even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover." When these countervailing arguments are provided, they find more siding with deficit reduction by a 23-point margin (58% vs. 35%). [A recent] CBS/NYT survey asked if the government "should spend money to stimulate the national economy, even if it means increasing the budget deficit" or "should NOT spend money to stimulate the national economy and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit." This formulation also found more favoring deficit reduction, but by a narrower 11-point margin (52% vs. 41%).
So even a year ago you could find polls seeming to show what Lori Montgomery thinks is out there -- great concern about deficits.
But did you notice what words are missing in the poll questions listed by Pew?
"Employment." "Unemployment." "Jobs."
If you compare debts and the deficit to helping "the economy to recover" or "stimulat[ing] the economy," people want to prioritize deficits and debt.
But if you compare debts and the deficit to jobs, you find that, well, people want some damn jobs.
****
The extent to which debt and deficits concern most Americas is already greater than it should be, even in polls where these rank far down on priority lists, for a simple reason, I think: to an ordinary person, being in financial trouble is being in debt. Most people don't think of the government as being different from themselves. They don't think about the fact that it might be necessary to spend up to churn up economic activity, and that the money spent will be well spent in the long run.
(To some extent I fault the Keynesians in our government, who can't, or don't bother to, explain this idea in plain language. Businesses do this all the time -- advertising even when they're running losses, for instance. Individuals sometimes do it, too -- for instance, paying for schooling or retraining when they're broke and unemployed. I'd appreciate it if the president of the United States would make such comparisons.)
But, in any event, poll respondents absolutely prefer job creation to debt reduction. Job creation is something they get. "Economic stimulus"? Not so much. "Economic stimulus" is abstract.
It's good that pollsters poll these questions several different ways. It helps us get a nuanced picture of public opinion. It's bad, however, that reporters like Montgomery cherry-pick the polls, or are simply blind to the ones that don't jibe with Beltway conventional wisdom.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
WHY THERE'LL BE MORE SHARRON ANGLE MOMENTS LIKE THIS
Sharron Angle just did (surprise!) another interview with the right-wing press -- this time with Human Events. The title of the piece is "Sharron Angle Goes On the Attack," but, as you may know, in firing back at her critics she seems to have shot herself in the foot again. Asked about the Scientology-linked prison rehabilitation program she supported a few years back, she said:
"...Those two protocols were developed by [the late Church of Scientology founder] L. Ron Hubbard, and they had to give him credit. But it is not Scientology, but rather natural homeopathic medicine."
Oh. So, it's, um, not linked to Scientology, but it was devised by the guy who founded Scientology. And it's homeopathic! That's good, right? The Framers were homeopathic, weren't they?
Rand Paul, the other GOP Senate candidate with a foot-in-mouth problem, has mostly been sticking to a Rose Garden strategy (he did emerge just now to express sympathy for Joe Barton -- although, given the near-universal sympathy for BP at this moment among right-wing talkers and pundits, I think the pro-BP stance is going to become increasingly popular on the right, so maybe this won't hurt Paul).
Angle, however, probably can't stay out of the national press -- and I say this based on a Hotline story from a couple of days ago:
Ex-NV Assemb. Sharron Angle (R) is raising more than $100K a day online since winning the right to face Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid, according to data kept on her website.
... That pace has helped her bring in new staff and begin to build the foundations of a statewide organization, something she lacked in the primary.
The cash is crucial to Angle's success. She had just $138K in the bank and a $170K debt as of her pre-primary report through May 19....
Still, her money picture stands in stark contrast to Reid's campaign; the top Senate Dem had $9.1M in the bank through the same date....
Her strategy, clearly, is to keep talking, if only to the right-wing media. She clearly thinks she needs to become a nationwide right-wing heroine so she can raise enough cash from out-of-state wingnut donors to make this a race.
So I think she's going to do a lot of interviews with right-wing journalists and right-wing talkers.
If many of these interviews are live, or if they're on tape, like this Human Events interview, and they're not edited in a way that makes her look good, she's going to put a permanent shoe print on her tongue.
On the other hand, I'm not sure she can possibly make this prison program look worse than it assuredly does to Nevada voters already. So maybe, as self-inflicted wounds go, this one was only a graze.
Sharron Angle just did (surprise!) another interview with the right-wing press -- this time with Human Events. The title of the piece is "Sharron Angle Goes On the Attack," but, as you may know, in firing back at her critics she seems to have shot herself in the foot again. Asked about the Scientology-linked prison rehabilitation program she supported a few years back, she said:
"...Those two protocols were developed by [the late Church of Scientology founder] L. Ron Hubbard, and they had to give him credit. But it is not Scientology, but rather natural homeopathic medicine."
Oh. So, it's, um, not linked to Scientology, but it was devised by the guy who founded Scientology. And it's homeopathic! That's good, right? The Framers were homeopathic, weren't they?
Rand Paul, the other GOP Senate candidate with a foot-in-mouth problem, has mostly been sticking to a Rose Garden strategy (he did emerge just now to express sympathy for Joe Barton -- although, given the near-universal sympathy for BP at this moment among right-wing talkers and pundits, I think the pro-BP stance is going to become increasingly popular on the right, so maybe this won't hurt Paul).
Angle, however, probably can't stay out of the national press -- and I say this based on a Hotline story from a couple of days ago:
Ex-NV Assemb. Sharron Angle (R) is raising more than $100K a day online since winning the right to face Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid, according to data kept on her website.
... That pace has helped her bring in new staff and begin to build the foundations of a statewide organization, something she lacked in the primary.
The cash is crucial to Angle's success. She had just $138K in the bank and a $170K debt as of her pre-primary report through May 19....
Still, her money picture stands in stark contrast to Reid's campaign; the top Senate Dem had $9.1M in the bank through the same date....
Her strategy, clearly, is to keep talking, if only to the right-wing media. She clearly thinks she needs to become a nationwide right-wing heroine so she can raise enough cash from out-of-state wingnut donors to make this a race.
So I think she's going to do a lot of interviews with right-wing journalists and right-wing talkers.
If many of these interviews are live, or if they're on tape, like this Human Events interview, and they're not edited in a way that makes her look good, she's going to put a permanent shoe print on her tongue.
On the other hand, I'm not sure she can possibly make this prison program look worse than it assuredly does to Nevada voters already. So maybe, as self-inflicted wounds go, this one was only a graze.
JAPAN'S TEABAGGERS
Interesting article in today's New York Times about an attitude among certain members of the Japanese public that ought to seem familiar to Americans:
YOKOHAMA, Japan -- "The Cove," an Oscar-winning documentary about dolphin hunting in Japan, would seem to be a natural fit for movie theaters here, but so far the distributor has yet to find a single one that will screen the film.
And if Shuhei Nishimura and his compatriots on Japan's nationalist fringe have their way, none ever will.
... activists' noisy rallies, online slanders, intimidating phone calls and veiled threats of violence are frightening theaters into canceling showings of "The Cove" ...
It is a stark example as well of how public debate on topics deemed delicate here can be easily muffled by a small minority, the most vocal of whom are the country's estimated 10,000 rightists....
Other areas that have been effectively made taboo by the right wing include Japan's royal family, rights for ethnic minorities, Tokyo's occupation of parts of Asia in the last century, the nation's role in World War II and organized crime groups, many of which have close links with the far right....
America's noisy right-wingers aren't shutting down movies, or, as the article goes on to note, doing anything like this:
In 2006, a rightist burned down the house of a member of Parliament after he criticized Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni shrine [which honors some Japanese war criminals others among other World War II dead]. The same year, a right-wing group hurled a firebomb at the offices of The Nikkei, a leading daily newspaper, after it published reports on the emperor's views of the shrine.
But it's a difference of degree only. The American version of this is electoral rather than physical intimidation. Our angry rightists also don't understand that they're a minority of the country, or simply don't care, and they also think they have a monopoly on patriotism that entitles them to get their way all the time.
The gun lobby is a classic example of this. Just as Japan's rightists think restrictions on dolphin hunting are an affront to Japan's deep roots as a fishing culture (even though few Japanese these days even eat dolphin), the gun fetishists believe that we're still a nation of musket-wielding yeoman farmers who substitute for a nonexistent standing army, and therefore people on the terrorist watch list should still be able to buy guns. Or something like that. And woe betide the politician who crosses them.
The teabaggers certainly think they own the patent on Americanism, just as the Japanese rightists think they own Japanese patriotism. Last summer's town-hall mobs engaged in Japanese-style intimidation, and, while it's not at all clear that the playacting patriots of the tea party movement would ever actually act on their threats, they certainly want us to believe that they'll resort to "Second Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way (hello, Sharron Angle).
And we've certainly seen violent, lethal intimidation from opponents of abortion in this country -- with the result that the vast majority of the country simply doesn't have abortion services. Nonviolent abortion opponents tut-tut and theatrically distance themselves every time an anti-abortion terrorist kills a doctor, but the terrorism really does get the job done.
When this happens, in Japan or America, it's because what we think is an agreed-upon notion of patriotism really ian't universal. The intimidators are traitors to the notion of nonviolent self-governance. Not only aren't they the biggest patriots, they're not patriots at all, because both nations idealize peaceful self-rule.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. I do think we'll see a significant uptick of violence if the economy doesn't improve and the teabaggers don't fully triumph in November.
Interesting article in today's New York Times about an attitude among certain members of the Japanese public that ought to seem familiar to Americans:
YOKOHAMA, Japan -- "The Cove," an Oscar-winning documentary about dolphin hunting in Japan, would seem to be a natural fit for movie theaters here, but so far the distributor has yet to find a single one that will screen the film.
And if Shuhei Nishimura and his compatriots on Japan's nationalist fringe have their way, none ever will.
... activists' noisy rallies, online slanders, intimidating phone calls and veiled threats of violence are frightening theaters into canceling showings of "The Cove" ...
It is a stark example as well of how public debate on topics deemed delicate here can be easily muffled by a small minority, the most vocal of whom are the country's estimated 10,000 rightists....
Other areas that have been effectively made taboo by the right wing include Japan's royal family, rights for ethnic minorities, Tokyo's occupation of parts of Asia in the last century, the nation's role in World War II and organized crime groups, many of which have close links with the far right....
America's noisy right-wingers aren't shutting down movies, or, as the article goes on to note, doing anything like this:
In 2006, a rightist burned down the house of a member of Parliament after he criticized Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to the Yasukuni shrine [which honors some Japanese war criminals others among other World War II dead]. The same year, a right-wing group hurled a firebomb at the offices of The Nikkei, a leading daily newspaper, after it published reports on the emperor's views of the shrine.
But it's a difference of degree only. The American version of this is electoral rather than physical intimidation. Our angry rightists also don't understand that they're a minority of the country, or simply don't care, and they also think they have a monopoly on patriotism that entitles them to get their way all the time.
The gun lobby is a classic example of this. Just as Japan's rightists think restrictions on dolphin hunting are an affront to Japan's deep roots as a fishing culture (even though few Japanese these days even eat dolphin), the gun fetishists believe that we're still a nation of musket-wielding yeoman farmers who substitute for a nonexistent standing army, and therefore people on the terrorist watch list should still be able to buy guns. Or something like that. And woe betide the politician who crosses them.
The teabaggers certainly think they own the patent on Americanism, just as the Japanese rightists think they own Japanese patriotism. Last summer's town-hall mobs engaged in Japanese-style intimidation, and, while it's not at all clear that the playacting patriots of the tea party movement would ever actually act on their threats, they certainly want us to believe that they'll resort to "Second Amendment remedies" if they don't get their way (hello, Sharron Angle).
And we've certainly seen violent, lethal intimidation from opponents of abortion in this country -- with the result that the vast majority of the country simply doesn't have abortion services. Nonviolent abortion opponents tut-tut and theatrically distance themselves every time an anti-abortion terrorist kills a doctor, but the terrorism really does get the job done.
When this happens, in Japan or America, it's because what we think is an agreed-upon notion of patriotism really ian't universal. The intimidators are traitors to the notion of nonviolent self-governance. Not only aren't they the biggest patriots, they're not patriots at all, because both nations idealize peaceful self-rule.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. I do think we'll see a significant uptick of violence if the economy doesn't improve and the teabaggers don't fully triumph in November.
Friday, June 18, 2010
WOULD ISSA'S SCHEME WRECK THE GOP? REGRETTABLY, NO
Politico reports that GOP congressman Darrell Issa wants to double the size of his staff if Republicans take over the House following the 2010 midterms and he becomes chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The point of this?
Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration -- a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.
David Weigel thinks that could be disastrous for Republicans:
Let me just repeat something a few conservatives who were active during the Clinton years have told me. If Republicans win the House, it will be because voters grew disgusted with the Democrats' priorities during a deep recession -- why spend so much time on health care, cap-and-trade and the rest of it instead of job creation?
... it's hard to imagine a scenario where an electorate, angry about the economy, hands Republicans the reins of power, and endorses a series of fishing expeditions about scandals that ("jobgate" aside) never got much traction outside of the Washington Times.
Weigel lists some scandals that have captivated the right ("what ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) told members of the administration, why the DOJ didn't pursue a case against the New Black Panther Party, why an Americorps inspector general was fired, and precisely what was offered to some U.S. Senate candidates in order to get them out of their races"), and it's true -- America doesn't care about the administration's role in any of them. I'd say America doesn't even care about the Sestak story, aka "Jobgate."
But if Republicans are pursuing this stuff visibly and tirelessly, Americans might care just because it's on the news every night. That's the big story they'll be fed. They'll care about it because that's what's on offer.
But won't they care more about the economy? Sure. But remember the history of some recent scandals. The public didn't want Clinton impeached when economic times were good. When times were bad -- around '74, a period of inflation and the first energy crisis -- people were ready to see Nixon driven from office. And they were perfectly content to see him driven from office not because of the economy or the war, but because of a completely unrelated break-in and cover-up. I'd say that in a bad economy, Americans were happy to see Nixon become the repository of their anger for any reason whatsoever. I worry that the same thing could happen to Obama if we're really in an economic lost decade.
Weigel titles his post "Will Darrell Issa Wreck the GOP?" But not even the thoroughly unpopular Clinton impeachment wrecked the GOP -- sure, there were some losses at the polls in '98, but notice which party couldn't capitalize on peace and prosperity with a decisive victory in 2000, and which party emerged with control of all three branches of government.
Be afriad of Issa. Be very afraid. Be particularly afraid of him because David Broder and other Beltway mandarins will inevitably conclude that he's doing America a service.
Politico reports that GOP congressman Darrell Issa wants to double the size of his staff if Republicans take over the House following the 2010 midterms and he becomes chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The point of this?
Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration -- a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.
David Weigel thinks that could be disastrous for Republicans:
Let me just repeat something a few conservatives who were active during the Clinton years have told me. If Republicans win the House, it will be because voters grew disgusted with the Democrats' priorities during a deep recession -- why spend so much time on health care, cap-and-trade and the rest of it instead of job creation?
... it's hard to imagine a scenario where an electorate, angry about the economy, hands Republicans the reins of power, and endorses a series of fishing expeditions about scandals that ("jobgate" aside) never got much traction outside of the Washington Times.
Weigel lists some scandals that have captivated the right ("what ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) told members of the administration, why the DOJ didn't pursue a case against the New Black Panther Party, why an Americorps inspector general was fired, and precisely what was offered to some U.S. Senate candidates in order to get them out of their races"), and it's true -- America doesn't care about the administration's role in any of them. I'd say America doesn't even care about the Sestak story, aka "Jobgate."
But if Republicans are pursuing this stuff visibly and tirelessly, Americans might care just because it's on the news every night. That's the big story they'll be fed. They'll care about it because that's what's on offer.
But won't they care more about the economy? Sure. But remember the history of some recent scandals. The public didn't want Clinton impeached when economic times were good. When times were bad -- around '74, a period of inflation and the first energy crisis -- people were ready to see Nixon driven from office. And they were perfectly content to see him driven from office not because of the economy or the war, but because of a completely unrelated break-in and cover-up. I'd say that in a bad economy, Americans were happy to see Nixon become the repository of their anger for any reason whatsoever. I worry that the same thing could happen to Obama if we're really in an economic lost decade.
Weigel titles his post "Will Darrell Issa Wreck the GOP?" But not even the thoroughly unpopular Clinton impeachment wrecked the GOP -- sure, there were some losses at the polls in '98, but notice which party couldn't capitalize on peace and prosperity with a decisive victory in 2000, and which party emerged with control of all three branches of government.
Be afriad of Issa. Be very afraid. Be particularly afraid of him because David Broder and other Beltway mandarins will inevitably conclude that he's doing America a service.
BARTONISM ISN'T DEAD -- IT'S JUST GOING UNDERGROUND
The headline at Politico is "GOP Rushes to Clean Up Joe Barton Mess"; elected officials and others continue to distance themselves from Joe Barton's apology to BP, and there's a suggestion that he may still lose his place of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, even after his apology for the apology.
But that doesn't mean the entire right is ready to renounce Barton's original message. Far from it. Righty bloggers and lower-profile propagandists are telling their ideological soul mates that Barton was right the first time.
Lucianne.com this morning (click to enlarge):
MacRanger of the blog Macsmind:
Barton’s Right – Shut up Boehner – It was a Shakedown
Getting a bit tired of our ineffective and guy shy leadership that seems afraid of it's own shadow. This week the enept John Boehner slammed Representative Joe L. Barton for calling Obama's pressure on BP a shakedown. Boehner wasn’t the only GOPer stumbling all over himself to force Barton to apologize. Barton shouldn’t have, he was right....
RedState diarist texasgalt:
... Obviously the Republican leadership stepped up to defend Barton and echo his concern for the administration’s dictatorial tone? Right? Republicans believe in the rule of law and hate political lynchings. Right? Sorry, they wimped out again.
No, the Republican leadership just couldn’t find the courage to support Barton and what he really said . . . which was the administration was out of line to extort money.... Take a deep breath. Did you catch the rotten stench of a new Il Duce rising in America? ...
David "Fredo" Limbaugh, in a column posted several hours after Barton's remarks caused the firestorm:
Just as Obama browbeat and bought off the American Medical Association and big pharma to go along with Obamacare, he summoned BP executives to his office. Flanked by Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened criminal action against BP, he shook down BP into forking over a $20 billion installment to defer the government's further wrath. BP is but another prop Obama has chosen to advance another plank of his statist agenda -- this time his plan to shut down our conventional energy industry in favor of new, quixotic alternative energy methods that will succeed only in propelling this nation even faster toward Third World status.
Meanwhile, Fox Nation is trying to come at this tangentially -- in the interests of the GOP it's not featuring anything that wholeheartedly says Joe Barton was right, but it highlights a thread titled " Stupak: BP Escrow Account Could Fund Health Care" (FN is clearly hoping readers will think the BP escrow account is a sleazy way to pay for health care reform, whereas all Stupak said was that the fund might pay for the health care of workers idled by the spill who've lost coverage). Another FN thread focuses on the fact that Barton was "forced" to back down; faithful readers know how to respond to that:
The man was only telling the truth.
****
There was no need to apologize. Any time a gov't offical (biden) tells a company exe to pay up or else, that's a shakedown.
****
rep barton for what it is worth...you told the truth and you should stick to the truth. barry did shake bp down in style that even jackson and sharpton would be proud of. and if anyone thinks that this slush fund won't be used politically, then they are just as stupid and incompetent as barry.
Jackson and Sharpton? Please note that MacRanger also wrote, "Obama learned well the tactics of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson well." For righties, the word "shakedown" always invokes Jackson, thanks to this 2002 bestseller from Regnery:
So the very notion of a "shakedown" is racially coded for a lot of these folks. Think they're going to drop the message just because House Republicans have?
****
UPDATE: Sill me -- I'm ticking off right-wing B-listers and Think Progress has done a video compilation of anti-"shakedown" pronouncements by A-listers:
The headline at Politico is "GOP Rushes to Clean Up Joe Barton Mess"; elected officials and others continue to distance themselves from Joe Barton's apology to BP, and there's a suggestion that he may still lose his place of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, even after his apology for the apology.
But that doesn't mean the entire right is ready to renounce Barton's original message. Far from it. Righty bloggers and lower-profile propagandists are telling their ideological soul mates that Barton was right the first time.
Lucianne.com this morning (click to enlarge):
MacRanger of the blog Macsmind:
Barton’s Right – Shut up Boehner – It was a Shakedown
Getting a bit tired of our ineffective and guy shy leadership that seems afraid of it's own shadow. This week the enept John Boehner slammed Representative Joe L. Barton for calling Obama's pressure on BP a shakedown. Boehner wasn’t the only GOPer stumbling all over himself to force Barton to apologize. Barton shouldn’t have, he was right....
RedState diarist texasgalt:
... Obviously the Republican leadership stepped up to defend Barton and echo his concern for the administration’s dictatorial tone? Right? Republicans believe in the rule of law and hate political lynchings. Right? Sorry, they wimped out again.
No, the Republican leadership just couldn’t find the courage to support Barton and what he really said . . . which was the administration was out of line to extort money.... Take a deep breath. Did you catch the rotten stench of a new Il Duce rising in America? ...
David "Fredo" Limbaugh, in a column posted several hours after Barton's remarks caused the firestorm:
Just as Obama browbeat and bought off the American Medical Association and big pharma to go along with Obamacare, he summoned BP executives to his office. Flanked by Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened criminal action against BP, he shook down BP into forking over a $20 billion installment to defer the government's further wrath. BP is but another prop Obama has chosen to advance another plank of his statist agenda -- this time his plan to shut down our conventional energy industry in favor of new, quixotic alternative energy methods that will succeed only in propelling this nation even faster toward Third World status.
Meanwhile, Fox Nation is trying to come at this tangentially -- in the interests of the GOP it's not featuring anything that wholeheartedly says Joe Barton was right, but it highlights a thread titled " Stupak: BP Escrow Account Could Fund Health Care" (FN is clearly hoping readers will think the BP escrow account is a sleazy way to pay for health care reform, whereas all Stupak said was that the fund might pay for the health care of workers idled by the spill who've lost coverage). Another FN thread focuses on the fact that Barton was "forced" to back down; faithful readers know how to respond to that:
The man was only telling the truth.
****
There was no need to apologize. Any time a gov't offical (biden) tells a company exe to pay up or else, that's a shakedown.
****
rep barton for what it is worth...you told the truth and you should stick to the truth. barry did shake bp down in style that even jackson and sharpton would be proud of. and if anyone thinks that this slush fund won't be used politically, then they are just as stupid and incompetent as barry.
Jackson and Sharpton? Please note that MacRanger also wrote, "Obama learned well the tactics of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson well." For righties, the word "shakedown" always invokes Jackson, thanks to this 2002 bestseller from Regnery:
So the very notion of a "shakedown" is racially coded for a lot of these folks. Think they're going to drop the message just because House Republicans have?
****
UPDATE: Sill me -- I'm ticking off right-wing B-listers and Think Progress has done a video compilation of anti-"shakedown" pronouncements by A-listers:
EITHER ALLOW IT OR GIVE A DAMN GOOD EXPLANATION WHY YOU CAN'T
I've been straddling the fence lately on the subject of President Obama's job performance, leaning more lately, albeit reluctantly, toward being part of the liberal backlash against the guy. Yeah, I understand the backlash against the backlash -- he's got a list of achievements, he's doing what he's doing with little cooperation from Blue Dogs and absolute resistance from Republicans, and he can't be expected to perform miracles.
And, well, maybe it's highly unrealistic to expect him and his team to eliminate all red tape in the Gulf. But I think there ought to be a prejudice, an instinct, toward action -- not a reckless one, but a dialing down of the cautiousness just a notch -- so the administration avoids moments like this:
Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore....
Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday....
But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges....
Dude, you know the narrative. Obama's too slow to act. Obama loves big government. If these guys want to go out without every safety box checked off, and Jindal, a guy who wants your job, a guy who has a book coming out in a few weeks and badly wants to improve his public image right now, is backing them up, well, screw it -- your guys shouldn't be standing in their way. Treat this an emergency, and regard this as analogous to a "good Samaritan" law that lets doctors intervene in emergencies without dotting all i's and crossing all t's.
I know the right hits you six ways from Sunday, but in the worst case -- someone dies or is seriously wounded and it turns out the safety gear wasn't up to code -- even the right-wing noise machine couldn't possibly get traction arguing that you weren't paying enough attention to safety regulations. The target market for the right-wing noise machine doesn't believe in safety regulations -- at all. The target market for the right-wing noise machine has been whipped up into such an Ayn Rand frenzy in recent years that a candidate who called for the overturning of child labor laws could probably win Sarah Palin's endorsement and a GOP primary.
And besides, if you were a slick enough pol, you'd find a way to shift the onus, so that if anything happened to any of these guys, it would be Jindal's fault, because they'd be Jindal's guys.
Look -- maybe the real explanation here isn't the one given in the story. But it would help to be on top of these things, and be ready with a good explanation if you have one. This story's from the nightly news at ABC, and the nightly network news is a dinosaur institution, but you need to be vigilant and get out in front of stories like this because you could have known the right would be looking extra hard for something to blow the stench of Joe Barton out of the air.
Be a smart pol. Don't let yourself get bitten by stories like this. Head them off.
****
UPDATE: Well, if this delay was temporary and he problem has been resolved, as this story (pointed out by commenter rdxtion) suggests, then this is mostly a messaging problem for the White House. But I'd still like to see some countermessaging -- this story was huge on the right, and needs to be rebutted.
I've been straddling the fence lately on the subject of President Obama's job performance, leaning more lately, albeit reluctantly, toward being part of the liberal backlash against the guy. Yeah, I understand the backlash against the backlash -- he's got a list of achievements, he's doing what he's doing with little cooperation from Blue Dogs and absolute resistance from Republicans, and he can't be expected to perform miracles.
And, well, maybe it's highly unrealistic to expect him and his team to eliminate all red tape in the Gulf. But I think there ought to be a prejudice, an instinct, toward action -- not a reckless one, but a dialing down of the cautiousness just a notch -- so the administration avoids moments like this:
Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore....
Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday....
But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges....
Dude, you know the narrative. Obama's too slow to act. Obama loves big government. If these guys want to go out without every safety box checked off, and Jindal, a guy who wants your job, a guy who has a book coming out in a few weeks and badly wants to improve his public image right now, is backing them up, well, screw it -- your guys shouldn't be standing in their way. Treat this an emergency, and regard this as analogous to a "good Samaritan" law that lets doctors intervene in emergencies without dotting all i's and crossing all t's.
I know the right hits you six ways from Sunday, but in the worst case -- someone dies or is seriously wounded and it turns out the safety gear wasn't up to code -- even the right-wing noise machine couldn't possibly get traction arguing that you weren't paying enough attention to safety regulations. The target market for the right-wing noise machine doesn't believe in safety regulations -- at all. The target market for the right-wing noise machine has been whipped up into such an Ayn Rand frenzy in recent years that a candidate who called for the overturning of child labor laws could probably win Sarah Palin's endorsement and a GOP primary.
And besides, if you were a slick enough pol, you'd find a way to shift the onus, so that if anything happened to any of these guys, it would be Jindal's fault, because they'd be Jindal's guys.
Look -- maybe the real explanation here isn't the one given in the story. But it would help to be on top of these things, and be ready with a good explanation if you have one. This story's from the nightly news at ABC, and the nightly network news is a dinosaur institution, but you need to be vigilant and get out in front of stories like this because you could have known the right would be looking extra hard for something to blow the stench of Joe Barton out of the air.
Be a smart pol. Don't let yourself get bitten by stories like this. Head them off.
****
UPDATE: Well, if this delay was temporary and he problem has been resolved, as this story (pointed out by commenter rdxtion) suggests, then this is mostly a messaging problem for the White House. But I'd still like to see some countermessaging -- this story was huge on the right, and needs to be rebutted.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
HOW FOX NEWS TRIES TO COPE WHEN RIGHTIES ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF PUBLIC OPINION
"Quick -- let's do a completely unscientific online poll that only our viewers will respond to, so we can then report an outcome that's the complete opposite of what any reputable pollster would come up with!"
Well, the Foxsters have to do something -- I don't think even the built-in GOP bias of Rasmussen's robocall polling operation will be able to generate results that say the public thinks BP is getting screwed. Online polls with self-selected respondents are the only way you're going to get results like that.
"Quick -- let's do a completely unscientific online poll that only our viewers will respond to, so we can then report an outcome that's the complete opposite of what any reputable pollster would come up with!"
Well, the Foxsters have to do something -- I don't think even the built-in GOP bias of Rasmussen's robocall polling operation will be able to generate results that say the public thinks BP is getting screwed. Online polls with self-selected respondents are the only way you're going to get results like that.
STUCK IN A MOMENT THEY CAN'T GET OUT OF
Steve Benen ticks off the many, many Republicans and right-wingers who've taken the side of BP on the issue of the escrow account -- Joe Barton, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, the Heritage Foundation, and so on -- and asks,
What on earth is going on here?
I suspect there are two factors playing out.
The first is that Republicans probably feel like they don't have a choice, at least in a partisan sense.... After all, whatever Democrats are for, Republicans are against, regardless or merit or circumstances....
The second is that BP is a giant, private oil company, and when it's under fire, the Republicans' knee-jerk response is to launch a defense. Even if BP is to blame -- even if BP is criminally responsible -- Republicans want to blame government, bureaucrats, and environmentalists. Holding a giant corporation accountable just makes the GOP uncomfortable.
Yeah, but it's more than that.
If you see what came out of negotiations between BP and the White House through the eyes of Palin/Beck/Paul/Limbaugh/tea party Republicans, it tracks many of the memes they've been trying to spread for a year and a half. These memes operate on the perceptions of the people who spread them as much as they do on receptive listeners who hear them over and over again, especially if the meme-spreaders live in a small, insular world where the only people they talk to are other meme-spreaders. And that pretty much describes the modern Fox/tea party GOP.
Meme #1: Obama not only hates capitalism but is seeking to destroy capitalism in America. Meme #2: Obama has an unholy lust for corporations -- he wants to take as many of them over as possible. Meme #3: Obama is the sinister gene-spliced hellspawn of Al Capone and Saul Alinsky, with Bill Ayers and Piven and Cloward thrown in -- for him, capitalist enterprises are there to be shaken down, Mob-style, but the proceeds, instead of being pocketed, are to be redistributed to Obama's ideological "cronies" (ACORN! SEIU!). Meme #4: Everything that upsets right-wingers about Obama upsets them because it's in violation of the Constitution. It's not merely that they don't like any of it -- it's that it's all illegal, every last bit of it, from reforming health care to hiring advisers the press refers to as "czars."
Right-wingers don't just say these things to gull the rubes. Right-wingers have actually come to believe this stuff.
Thus, Ben Stein on the escrow fund:
But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM.
(Um, yeah -- as if the guy would have still had a job in any event had the White House not saved the company from liquidation.)
Thus, commenter RealityChk in a Fox Nation thread about Michele Bachmann's remarks:
Don't you realize that Obama used threats against BP to fashion the extortion back room deal with BP to create a slush fund that Obama's Czar will control. This is the Chicago Corrupt Politics way to make money from a slush fund where there is usually very little public accountability. Just as there has been very little "Public Accountability" for the $$$Trillion Stimulus funds that were dished out to Obama's friends, unions, supporters, etc. The Escrow Fund will benefit Obama more than it will benefit the Gulf States.
And a follow-up comment from someone named Scott - CO:
You are a FOOL if you think one dime of this $$ will go to anyone other than a Marxist union thug, acorn or libturds who support this FASCIST!
They believe this stuff. And they believe it especially in this case because a corporation's ox is being gored, because money is being (as they like to put it) "redistributed," and because Obama seems to be acting as tough as they say he always is (even though he hardly ever is).
This is reality that's just too close to their Obama fever dreams for them to formulate a more prudent response. They've worked themselves up into a paranoid lather, and now reality kinda looks like their delusions.
Steve Benen ticks off the many, many Republicans and right-wingers who've taken the side of BP on the issue of the escrow account -- Joe Barton, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour, the Heritage Foundation, and so on -- and asks,
What on earth is going on here?
I suspect there are two factors playing out.
The first is that Republicans probably feel like they don't have a choice, at least in a partisan sense.... After all, whatever Democrats are for, Republicans are against, regardless or merit or circumstances....
The second is that BP is a giant, private oil company, and when it's under fire, the Republicans' knee-jerk response is to launch a defense. Even if BP is to blame -- even if BP is criminally responsible -- Republicans want to blame government, bureaucrats, and environmentalists. Holding a giant corporation accountable just makes the GOP uncomfortable.
Yeah, but it's more than that.
If you see what came out of negotiations between BP and the White House through the eyes of Palin/Beck/Paul/Limbaugh/tea party Republicans, it tracks many of the memes they've been trying to spread for a year and a half. These memes operate on the perceptions of the people who spread them as much as they do on receptive listeners who hear them over and over again, especially if the meme-spreaders live in a small, insular world where the only people they talk to are other meme-spreaders. And that pretty much describes the modern Fox/tea party GOP.
Meme #1: Obama not only hates capitalism but is seeking to destroy capitalism in America. Meme #2: Obama has an unholy lust for corporations -- he wants to take as many of them over as possible. Meme #3: Obama is the sinister gene-spliced hellspawn of Al Capone and Saul Alinsky, with Bill Ayers and Piven and Cloward thrown in -- for him, capitalist enterprises are there to be shaken down, Mob-style, but the proceeds, instead of being pocketed, are to be redistributed to Obama's ideological "cronies" (ACORN! SEIU!). Meme #4: Everything that upsets right-wingers about Obama upsets them because it's in violation of the Constitution. It's not merely that they don't like any of it -- it's that it's all illegal, every last bit of it, from reforming health care to hiring advisers the press refers to as "czars."
Right-wingers don't just say these things to gull the rubes. Right-wingers have actually come to believe this stuff.
Thus, Ben Stein on the escrow fund:
But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President's job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.
The BP behavior is reminiscent of how, immediately after assuming office, Mr. Obama, with no Congressional authority or administrative allowance, simply made a phone call to fire the head of GM.
(Um, yeah -- as if the guy would have still had a job in any event had the White House not saved the company from liquidation.)
Thus, commenter RealityChk in a Fox Nation thread about Michele Bachmann's remarks:
Don't you realize that Obama used threats against BP to fashion the extortion back room deal with BP to create a slush fund that Obama's Czar will control. This is the Chicago Corrupt Politics way to make money from a slush fund where there is usually very little public accountability. Just as there has been very little "Public Accountability" for the $$$Trillion Stimulus funds that were dished out to Obama's friends, unions, supporters, etc. The Escrow Fund will benefit Obama more than it will benefit the Gulf States.
And a follow-up comment from someone named Scott - CO:
You are a FOOL if you think one dime of this $$ will go to anyone other than a Marxist union thug, acorn or libturds who support this FASCIST!
They believe this stuff. And they believe it especially in this case because a corporation's ox is being gored, because money is being (as they like to put it) "redistributed," and because Obama seems to be acting as tough as they say he always is (even though he hardly ever is).
This is reality that's just too close to their Obama fever dreams for them to formulate a more prudent response. They've worked themselves up into a paranoid lather, and now reality kinda looks like their delusions.
IF THE APOLITICAL PEOPLE LEAD, THE LEADERS WILL FOLLOW
I don't know for sure if the $20 billion fund BP has been pressured to create is a terrific or at least very good thing or less than meets the eye, but so far it seems like a win -- a good thing for the afflicted (if it's done right) and a serious bite taken out of BP. It looks like a win for Obama, too, after a disappointing weak-tea speech (the deal makes the speech seem like even more of a waste of time). The BP deal is revealing the true colors of corporatist Republicans like Michele Bachman and Haley Barbour, at a time when the right wants to seem like America's populist wing. (UPDATE: Joe Barton, too.) I'm seeing a lot of good here.
So it seems to me that the apolitical majority of Americans have done something that the left alone has never managed to do: they've pressured a reluctant Barack Obama to move to the left on an issue. When 71% of the country says the president has been too soft on BP and only 3% say he's been too tough, even the conflict-averse Obama responds. On the public option, on breaking up the big banks, on civil liberties, angry lefties alone have never managed to get this kind of response.
It's yet another indication that if the left wants to have any clout, it needs to make inroads among people in the vast middle -- many of whom are inclined to a basic liberalism but aren't fired up by the issues that move committed lefties. We need, as I've said, to make more liberals. We need to get a bigger percentage of the population on our side. And no, I don't know how to do that. I'm just analyzing the problem. The right, via talk radio and Fox, has politicized people who wouldn't have been politicized otherwise; the right has made politics compelling and entertaining, and made right-wing ideas seem to a lot of people like plain common sense. The left needs to find a way to do that for people who aren't ideologues now. The right alone can decide the fate of an issue because the committed right is fairly large; the left alone simply can't do that. It won't be possible until the left grows.
I don't know for sure if the $20 billion fund BP has been pressured to create is a terrific or at least very good thing or less than meets the eye, but so far it seems like a win -- a good thing for the afflicted (if it's done right) and a serious bite taken out of BP. It looks like a win for Obama, too, after a disappointing weak-tea speech (the deal makes the speech seem like even more of a waste of time). The BP deal is revealing the true colors of corporatist Republicans like Michele Bachman and Haley Barbour, at a time when the right wants to seem like America's populist wing. (UPDATE: Joe Barton, too.) I'm seeing a lot of good here.
So it seems to me that the apolitical majority of Americans have done something that the left alone has never managed to do: they've pressured a reluctant Barack Obama to move to the left on an issue. When 71% of the country says the president has been too soft on BP and only 3% say he's been too tough, even the conflict-averse Obama responds. On the public option, on breaking up the big banks, on civil liberties, angry lefties alone have never managed to get this kind of response.
It's yet another indication that if the left wants to have any clout, it needs to make inroads among people in the vast middle -- many of whom are inclined to a basic liberalism but aren't fired up by the issues that move committed lefties. We need, as I've said, to make more liberals. We need to get a bigger percentage of the population on our side. And no, I don't know how to do that. I'm just analyzing the problem. The right, via talk radio and Fox, has politicized people who wouldn't have been politicized otherwise; the right has made politics compelling and entertaining, and made right-wing ideas seem to a lot of people like plain common sense. The left needs to find a way to do that for people who aren't ideologues now. The right alone can decide the fate of an issue because the committed right is fairly large; the left alone simply can't do that. It won't be possible until the left grows.
AMERICA HEARTS DICKISHNESS!
New Jersey's new Republican governor, Chris Christie, has made a name for himself with self-important boorisness in response to reporters, transit riders, teachers...
And even though Americans never elect presidents they perceive as mean-spirited and confrontational -- peevish W and even sociopathic Nixon managed to make themselves look upbeat and optimistic on the campaign trail -- there's a hell of a lot of talk on the right about running Christie for president. And that makes me smile, because fundamentally misreading the mood of the electorate -- thinking, in other words, that voters want a conduit for non-stop outrage, an uber-teabagger, rather than an inspirational figure is precisely the kind of misstep a political faction makes when its members stop listening to anyone but one another. It might be -- might be -- the beginning of the decline for the movement right (even though that decline may be slow in coming).
Today I see that National Review Online -- seen yesterday trying to sell Sharron Angle to the nation as a heart-tuggingly inspirational homeschooler turned reluctant pol -- is declaring that Christie's time may be now, under the headline "It's Too Early for Christie, but Americans Are Yearning for His Style." Actually, there's no empirical evidence that even New Jerseyans are "yearning for his style" -- Rasmussen, also in on the attempt to sell Christie, has a poll out today showing Christie with good numbers in his home state, but local polls say he's a divisive figure -- 33%-37% approval-disapproval in an April poll from Rutgers, 44%-42% in a May poll from Fairleigh Dickinson, and this today from Quinnipiac:
New Jersey voters give Gov. Christopher Christie a split 44 - 43 percent job approval rating and 44 percent describe him as a "leader," while 43 percent call him a "bully," according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters also say 52 - 38 he is "confrontational," rather than "honest and refreshing." ...
"... A leader (hurrah) or a bully (boo, hiss)? We're divided about the Gov. Men sort of like his feisty attitude; women sort of don't," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute....
(I'm not sure about that "sort of" -- he's at 36%-50% among women, 53%-36% among men. Big surprise, then, that the third clip I posted above comes from Red Eye, the Fox News show that's basically a right-wing Maxim of the air; in it, host Greg Gutfeld reacts to Christie's dressing-down of a female teacher as if it's especially choice political porn.)
I really, really want NRO and Rasmussen and Fox News to keep trying to sell this guy to America as the guy who should be America's next president. I want it because it tells me the right-wing noise machine may be just starting to lose its touch. The guy is a presidential loser. I hope the hell he runs.
New Jersey's new Republican governor, Chris Christie, has made a name for himself with self-important boorisness in response to reporters, transit riders, teachers...
And even though Americans never elect presidents they perceive as mean-spirited and confrontational -- peevish W and even sociopathic Nixon managed to make themselves look upbeat and optimistic on the campaign trail -- there's a hell of a lot of talk on the right about running Christie for president. And that makes me smile, because fundamentally misreading the mood of the electorate -- thinking, in other words, that voters want a conduit for non-stop outrage, an uber-teabagger, rather than an inspirational figure is precisely the kind of misstep a political faction makes when its members stop listening to anyone but one another. It might be -- might be -- the beginning of the decline for the movement right (even though that decline may be slow in coming).
Today I see that National Review Online -- seen yesterday trying to sell Sharron Angle to the nation as a heart-tuggingly inspirational homeschooler turned reluctant pol -- is declaring that Christie's time may be now, under the headline "It's Too Early for Christie, but Americans Are Yearning for His Style." Actually, there's no empirical evidence that even New Jerseyans are "yearning for his style" -- Rasmussen, also in on the attempt to sell Christie, has a poll out today showing Christie with good numbers in his home state, but local polls say he's a divisive figure -- 33%-37% approval-disapproval in an April poll from Rutgers, 44%-42% in a May poll from Fairleigh Dickinson, and this today from Quinnipiac:
New Jersey voters give Gov. Christopher Christie a split 44 - 43 percent job approval rating and 44 percent describe him as a "leader," while 43 percent call him a "bully," according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Voters also say 52 - 38 he is "confrontational," rather than "honest and refreshing." ...
"... A leader (hurrah) or a bully (boo, hiss)? We're divided about the Gov. Men sort of like his feisty attitude; women sort of don't," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute....
(I'm not sure about that "sort of" -- he's at 36%-50% among women, 53%-36% among men. Big surprise, then, that the third clip I posted above comes from Red Eye, the Fox News show that's basically a right-wing Maxim of the air; in it, host Greg Gutfeld reacts to Christie's dressing-down of a female teacher as if it's especially choice political porn.)
I really, really want NRO and Rasmussen and Fox News to keep trying to sell this guy to America as the guy who should be America's next president. I want it because it tells me the right-wing noise machine may be just starting to lose its touch. The guy is a presidential loser. I hope the hell he runs.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
LIMBAUGH'S HATEMONGER MINISTER
Right Wing Watch and Truth Wins Out report that the minister who officiated at Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding was former NFL player and rabid hatemonger Ken Hutcherson. A quote from this man of God:
During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, "God hates soft men" and "God hates effeminate men." Hutcherson went on to say, "If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I'd rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end."
Yeah, that's just what Jesus would do.
More:
Among Hutcherson's many anti-gay activities: Leading a walkout of public schools in opposition to the Day Of Silence, attempting a Microsoft shareholder revolt to overturn the company’s protections of gay employees, fighting the Matthew Shepard Act, supporting the "ex-gay movement, and campaigning against Washington state's Referendum 71.
Hutcherson, like Pink Swastika coauthor Scott Lively, is linked to the Latvia-based anti-gay hate group Watchmen on the Walls, which may have been involved in a gay-bashing death in Sacramento in 2007.
Hutcherson may also be America's only African-American white supremacist; last year he stuck up for Limbaugh by arguing that Limbaugh is the victim of something called "Minority Thought Pattern":
Let's not mince words: the Minority Thought Pattern is the total disdain and hatred of what God has accomplished through the white male throughout history. Coming from an African-American, I know this will shock you.
I am not minimizing the accomplishments of women, African-Americans, immigrants, the religious, or anyone else who is part of America. But the white male was here on Plymouth Rock for God to use, and the Pilgrims had a great belief in that God. The nation built out of their efforts, reflecting their values (most especially their religious values), has become the light of liberty for the world and an obstacle to those power-hungry individuals who hate it....
The Minority Thought Pattern is the fuel for minorities, and especially African-Americans, to attack the very fabric that has given them the greatest opportunity to accomplish anything they so desire....
In 2005, in response to a critical op-ed by a Seattle rabbi that cited their anti-gay remarks, Hutcherson and Rabbi Daniel Lapin -- yes, that Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the one who was Jack Abramoff's good buddy -- joined forces to write "Help! A Jew and a Black Under Attack!" for WorldNetDaily, in which they compared gay marriage to nuclear waste:
...early in the 20th century, people would seek therapeutic benefit in the tunnels of uranium mines in Montana. This horrifying practice persisted for decades before the dangers of radioactivity were fully understood.
By the time they were understood, it was too late. By then, large numbers of patients had contracted cancers, become diseased and had died. By the time the perils of homosexual marriage become obvious, it might well be too late. That is our belief ...
Lapin was apparently untroubled by the fact that Hutcherson believes the Jews killed Christ, as he explained in this 2005 interview when asked about the just-released film The Passion of the Christ:
I think it's going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That's just plain truth... that's Biblical truth.
Sweet guy. Seems like a perfect choice for Limbaugh.
Right Wing Watch and Truth Wins Out report that the minister who officiated at Rush Limbaugh's recent wedding was former NFL player and rabid hatemonger Ken Hutcherson. A quote from this man of God:
During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, "God hates soft men" and "God hates effeminate men." Hutcherson went on to say, "If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I'd rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end."
Yeah, that's just what Jesus would do.
More:
Among Hutcherson's many anti-gay activities: Leading a walkout of public schools in opposition to the Day Of Silence, attempting a Microsoft shareholder revolt to overturn the company’s protections of gay employees, fighting the Matthew Shepard Act, supporting the "ex-gay movement, and campaigning against Washington state's Referendum 71.
Hutcherson, like Pink Swastika coauthor Scott Lively, is linked to the Latvia-based anti-gay hate group Watchmen on the Walls, which may have been involved in a gay-bashing death in Sacramento in 2007.
Hutcherson may also be America's only African-American white supremacist; last year he stuck up for Limbaugh by arguing that Limbaugh is the victim of something called "Minority Thought Pattern":
Let's not mince words: the Minority Thought Pattern is the total disdain and hatred of what God has accomplished through the white male throughout history. Coming from an African-American, I know this will shock you.
I am not minimizing the accomplishments of women, African-Americans, immigrants, the religious, or anyone else who is part of America. But the white male was here on Plymouth Rock for God to use, and the Pilgrims had a great belief in that God. The nation built out of their efforts, reflecting their values (most especially their religious values), has become the light of liberty for the world and an obstacle to those power-hungry individuals who hate it....
The Minority Thought Pattern is the fuel for minorities, and especially African-Americans, to attack the very fabric that has given them the greatest opportunity to accomplish anything they so desire....
In 2005, in response to a critical op-ed by a Seattle rabbi that cited their anti-gay remarks, Hutcherson and Rabbi Daniel Lapin -- yes, that Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the one who was Jack Abramoff's good buddy -- joined forces to write "Help! A Jew and a Black Under Attack!" for WorldNetDaily, in which they compared gay marriage to nuclear waste:
...early in the 20th century, people would seek therapeutic benefit in the tunnels of uranium mines in Montana. This horrifying practice persisted for decades before the dangers of radioactivity were fully understood.
By the time they were understood, it was too late. By then, large numbers of patients had contracted cancers, become diseased and had died. By the time the perils of homosexual marriage become obvious, it might well be too late. That is our belief ...
Lapin was apparently untroubled by the fact that Hutcherson believes the Jews killed Christ, as he explained in this 2005 interview when asked about the just-released film The Passion of the Christ:
I think it's going to be controversial to the whole view of the Jewish nation. The truth is that they did push to have Christ crucified. That's just plain truth... that's Biblical truth.
Sweet guy. Seems like a perfect choice for Limbaugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)