Repug Solution to Budget Crisis: Soak the Middle Class

It's not often that corporate-owned repugs come right out and admit that what they really want is income redistribution.

That is, redistribute the last pennies of the poor and middle class from them to the already too rich.

But some Kentucky repug lawmakers are out, loud and proud about their determination to re-create the feudal economy of the 13th century.

Amid the financial worries and talk of state shortfalls, some House Republicans are suggesting that now is the time to eliminate the state’s corporate and individual income taxes.

Not only that, but they’re also calling for dropping the sales tax from 6 cents to a nickel on every dollar of goods purchased.

So how will taking away all that revenue stabilize the shaky status of the state’s coffers?

The legislation drafted by Reps. Bill Farmer of Lexington and David Floyd of Bardstown would replace the income tax by spreading the sales tax to a host of services that are currently exempt, including plumbing, roofing and other contracting work, and some consulting work.

Brilliant! Absolutely fucking brilliant.

Because, of course, income and corporate taxes, minimal as they are, fall more heavily on the wealthy than the middle-class. And the sales tax, of course, takes a far greater percentage of income from the poor and middle-class than it does from the rich.

Vastly expanding the items subject to the sales tax while eliminating income and corporate taxes will create a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking money away from the middle-class and depositing it in the bank accounts of the rich.

Before you know it, everyone earning less than six figures will be economic sharecroppers, feudal serfs barely surviving on the crumbs that fall from the corporate lord's table.

While we're all weak from hunger, illness and despair, we won't even notice when the congressional servants of the plutocrats take away our rights to vote.

Congratulations, Rep. Farmer, on your plan. It's perfect!

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Repug Solution to Budget Crisis: Soak the Middle Class" >>

Republicans Who Call Obama A Socialist Are Showing Either Ignorance Or Desperation

In the demented spirit of a godfather of American fascism, Joe McCarthy, plenty of Republicans, led by McCain attack dog Sarah Palin, are hurling the dreaded "S" word at Barack Obama. It's right-wing regurgitation, like projectile vomit.

The dreaded word in McCarthy's time was "communist." Now it is "socialist," and the far right bases this on Obama's clearly stated intention to enact very limited income redistribution for the benefit of working-class and middle-income Americans.

This misnomer reveals the stupidity of those who use it with any sincerity, and the desperation of those who actually took political science and economics in college and surely know better.

Socialism defined

Here's a basic definition of "socialism," from Webster's New World College Dictionary:

1. any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of the society or the community sharing in the work and the products.

Please note that the crucial part of the definition has to the with "the means of production and distribution." I am unaware that Obama has ever advocated nationalization of industries, Israeli-style kibbutzes or anything else that characterizes bona fide socialism. He is clearly, like almost all other American progressives, a welfare capitalist. He favors a system of private ownership, but with restraints, checks and balances, and limited intervention in the public interest.

Many conservatives, being ignorant, disingenuous, or both, have greatly expanded the definition of "socialism" to include any and all kinds of income redistribution that work for the benefit of those roughly at or below median income. To broadly paraphrase one of their heroes, Adam Smith, the richer people among them say nothing of their own gains; they complain only of those of other people.

Onward.

Any time any public entity, whether a local hospital district or the federal government, makes any decision about taxation and/or appropriates money for anything, income is redistributed. It's a question of to whom.

What Americans have seen for about 35 years, more rapidly at times but always steadily, has been socialism for the rich, certainly by the "broader" definition of the right. A federal tax structure that was once progressive, and remains so on paper in some senses with the retention of brackets, has been gradually rendered impotent by the fine scalpel of legislators and tax lawyers. Most corporations now pay little if any income tax, and the very wealthy have myriad shelters with which they happily dodge responsibility for upkeep of the infrastructure, or even for bankrolling the latest war meant to increase their profits.

Socialism for the rich

As for socialism for the rich, I won't even go into corporate welfare, intrinsic advantages of the rich in the legal system, the system of legal bribery we call campaign finance, etc. I'm just sticking with their definition -- redistribution of income. The distribution of wealth is more unequal than it has been since 1929. (Remember what happened that year?) And this hasn't happened by accident. The '80s supply-side economists led by Arthur Laffer and David Stockman were quite above board in their intention to favor corporations and the rich in taxation, in the apparent belief that such policy would spur investment, create jobs, actually increase tax revenue, and result in "trickle-down."

For the most part, with some interruptions during the Clinton administration, the program of socialism for the rich was put over, and with accompanying indoctrination against anything faintly liberal or progressive. The New Deal was ancient history; and in the minds of many, the opportunistic right succeeded in perversely melding it with the failure of Soviet socialism, or with anything that strayed in the very least from a laissez-faire, supply-side party line.

I stopped being a fan of Ralph Nader after he ensured the presidency for an apocalyptic buffoon like George W. Bush. But Nader said something on a debate show that has stuck with me since: "They (the big corporations) want to socialize their losses and privatize their profits." Never was anything truer said.

Obama, though merely bringing a rather mild bourgeois liberalism back to the table, faces the wrath of fools conned by this right-wing economic nonsense, and the venom of those who would use ignorant "fellow travelers" of the far right to stay in control of the wheel.

But, with two days left until the deciding moment, history appears to be tilting toward Obama. Americans have had 28 years to endure "upscale" socialism. Many who don't listen to frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric know firsthand what such policies have done to them. Indications are that a large turnout of such folks will hugely favor Obama.

Here's a link that shines more light on the subject. There aren't many real socialists left in America, but here's what their presidential candidate thinks about Obama. And, here's one more from the MSM, its own nasty self.

Meanwhile, "this one" voted early -- and I suppose it's not hard to guess that "this one" voted for "that one." I urge anybody who hasn't done the same yet to get to the polls Tuesday. We don't want to see the future postponed for another four years.

There's more: "Republicans Who Call Obama A Socialist Are Showing Either Ignorance Or Desperation" >>

"This Wickedness and Stupidity"

For his bloodthirsty defense of the Iraq catastrophe, Christopher Hitchens will surely spend eternity as a cockroach. But for a cold-eyed, rational dissection of republican insanity, there's no one better.

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted as They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: ""This Wickedness and Stupidity"" >>

Repugs: Presidency a Joke

The "discarded flags" lie is just the latest proof that the repugs do not take this election or the presidency itself seriously.

As TPM reader LT wrote:

It really looks like the Republicans think that the Presidency, and election to it, is some kind of a joke. That it's a game which anyone can play at, so it doesn't matter if they grab a governor who is a political neophyte already embroiled in controversy on every front. It's a joke, so it's fine to ridicule and bully your opponent, fib, stall investigations, etc.

The "seriousness" (or "seriously?") narrative is the kind that could sway swing voters: independents don't want drama in their ticket -- they want people who can get down to business. They want a ticket that treats voters like sober adults, that treats an election to the Presidency seriously. McCain spokespeople say it's "Not about the issues?" What, so it's a high school popularity contest, then?

Yes, of course it is. Because since at least 1980, the repug candidates, the campaigns they run and the maladministrations they oversee are plainly not about issues or governing or even national security.

It's about power: obtaining it, wielding it in a way that enriches themselves and their cronies, and keeping it.

If they thought that nominating Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy on a platform of monthly virgin sacrifices would keep them in power, they'd do it.

With Senator POW-POW-POW Depends and Governor "You'll Keep That Fetus And Like It Young Lady" Caribou Barbie, we're just about there already.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Repugs: Presidency a Joke" >>

An Intriguing Postscript: 'The Real Sarah Palin'

Here's a most interesting link regarding Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's VP choice. The picture that emerges is that of a ruthless, right-wing, fiscally irresponsible opportunist who abysmally mismanaged her hometown on her way to some sort of national prominence. -- MJ

There's more: "An Intriguing Postscript: 'The Real Sarah Palin'" >>

Palin, In Acceptance, Shows One Republican Qualification: She Knows How To Lie

Listening to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance of the GOP vice presidential nomination was mildly entertaining. She's no spellbinder, but she delivers a fair speech. So much for form. As for substance, she already shows one great qualification to be a leading Republican candidate: She can lie to millions of people without a blink.

I kept hearing something about Obama planning to raise Americans' taxes. All kinds of taxes, on all sectors. Palin even brought up an example of her sister and brother-in-law (no, not that one) who were starting up a small business, a service station. How would things get better for them if their taxes were to go up?

The problem: Nobody, certainly not Obama, has been talking about that. I clearly recall Obama saying during the primaries that, with perhaps a few variations, he would favor a reversion of the federal tax burden to where it was during the Clinton years.

Onward.
My wife and I have had something pretty close to a median U.S. income for over 20 years now. I clearly remember 1993, and the passage of the Clinton tax plan (by a margin of one vote in the House). I recall the Republicans' dire predictions for the economy, and how it would be wrecked, and how everyone's taxes would go up.

I also remember what happened to our taxes after the Clinton plan really went into effect. Our taxes DIDN'T go up. The rates DID go up on some very high-income taxpayers -- and within a few years, the federal government had not only a balanced budget, but a surplus.

Sounds like a great point of return. Here are Obama's actual positions, as detailed on his Web site.

Now, as for Palin's "executive" record on taxes?

As an example, I'll refer to the condition in which she left her hometown on her way to Juneau:

Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin cut taxes while simultaneously expanding the town’s operating budget by almost $2 million. She ended her term in 2002 with Wasilla $20 million in debt. [Anchorage Daily News 10/23/06; the Politico, 8/29]

Thanks to fellow bloggers Yellow Dog and Warren Street for leading the way to this tidbit from Think Progress.

It appears, from this, that Sarah Palin has one other prime qualification for the Republican big time. She doesn't think you always need revenue to run a government entity. That puts her squarely in the economic camp of Republicans of the past 30 years. And it puts her, more importantly now, in the camp of the born-again supply-sider John McCain. Reaganomics III, anyone?

There's more: "Palin, In Acceptance, Shows One Republican Qualification: She Knows How To Lie" >>

Sen. Ted Stevens Indicted: GOP's Longest-Serving Senator In The Crosshairs

The New York Times reported today that the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history, Ted Stevens of Alaska, has been indicted on seven counts of falsely reporting income. This comes during a presidential election year, and one in which the 84-year-old Stevens has been seeking re-election. His challenger is Mark Begich, the Democratic mayor of Anchorage.

Click here for the complete NYT report.

It's a rule in journalism never to convict a person in print. Sen. Stevens is innocent until proved guilty.

But one can't help but wonder how a politician of the senator's vast experience could get himself into this predicament.

Ernest Hemingway, no stranger to a variety of predicaments himself, once wrote or said something in response to the common notion that old men grow wiser with age.

It was something to the effect of, "They (old men) do not become wiser. They become more careful."

Perhaps sometimes it just doesn't work either way. We'll have to wait for the courts to decide.

There's more: "Sen. Ted Stevens Indicted: GOP's Longest-Serving Senator In The Crosshairs" >>

McCain: Time To Come Clean About Your Lobbyists' Links To Homicidal Dictators

Sen. John McCain did a fair job in the past of selling himself as a "maverick" Republican -- you know, not one of those whose knees both jerk when Rush Limbaugh's right knee does. I have a vague yet fond memory of him calling Herr Lardbaugh "a circus clown."

But apparently ambition can get the best of people. Or perhaps they never were what they depicted themselves as. Amid all the volleys flying about in the presidential race, it came out early this week that McCain's campaign has been employing lobbyists who have worked for blood-stained foreign dictatorships, and for tidy sums.

The one they call Charlie Black is the senator's "chief political adviser," according to The Washington Post. Here's a current report on Charlie Black's experience as a lobbyist, from Progressive Media USA:

Black Enlisted to Improve Marcos’s Image. The Globe and Mail reported, “A politically well-connected U.S. lobbying firm is being paid nearly $1-million to help a Philippine client linked with President Ferdinand Marcos, and some analysts believe its task is to improve Mr. Marcos’ image.” “The firm, Black, Manafort & Stone Public Affairs, began a year-long contract with a client called the Chamber of Philippines Manufacturers, Exporters and Tourist Associations.” “Stanley Roth, who serves on the staff of a congressional subcommittee investigating Mr. Marcos’ business dealings in the United States, called the arrangement ‘just means of Marcos hiring a public relations firm.’ Under the terms of the contract, the suburban Washington-based concern is to be paid $950,000 plus expenses to provide ‘advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests’ as well as lobbying services.” [The Globe and Mail, 12/20/85]

Meet Charlie Black: lobbyist, political scientist, public relations man for homicidal dictators. As far as I can gather from the latest news dispatches, Charlie is still on the John McCain payroll.

But wait, there's more:

While Black Lobbied for Somalia, Siad Barre’s Army Killed 40,000 – 50,000 Civilians. The Associated Press reported, “The Somali army killed 40,000 to 50,000 unarmed civilians between June 1988 and January 1990, according to human rights group Africa Watch.” [Associated Press, 1/2/95]

Black Lobbied for Zaire’s Dictator. Black, Manafort, Stone lobbied for “Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire.” The “military dictator, Mobuto, was a $1 million-per-year Black, Manafort client until December 1990.” [Common Cause Magazine, Winter 1993; Department of Justice, FARA database, accessed 2/26/08]

There's actually much more than that, but space limitations compel me to keep things relatively brief. Just bear in mind that this is one of Mad Jack's main men.

Granted, there are now a couple of dudes who are no longer on The Straitjacket Express. They were the ones who had to fall on their swords. This is from a recent post on MSNBC:

Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport, the two McCain aides who resigned from positions within the GOP contender's campaign, stepped down this weekend after Newsweek reported that their lobbying firm, Washington power player DCI Group, represented Myanmar's military junta in 2002 to the tune of $348,000.

It should be noted that Mr. Goodyear was, until his resignation, heading McCain's GOP convention team. That's not a small post to award someone without checking their background -- or perhaps figuring instead that no one important would ever know.

In 2008, we're in a political mode of Barack Obama having to give multiple speeches explaining that he differs markedly from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on crucial issues. So perhaps this calls for, at the very least, an explanation from McCain to the effect that he doesn't agree with lobbyists who promoted murderous dictators for pay. It seems appropriate and equitable for Mr. Black to get his walking papers, too. I'm sure he will prosper in his Faustian bargains for many years to come, so no one should worry.

Except maybe John McCain?

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "McCain: Time To Come Clean About Your Lobbyists' Links To Homicidal Dictators" >>

At the end of the day

FISA & telecom immunity -- We will live to fight another day. However, Claire McCaskill sold the Bill of Rights for pocket change. Expect some unpleasant repercussions come re-election time.

Democrats unite! -- Hillary: "As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the White House starting in January 2009." What did Obama say? The better question is what didn't he say? Read Jane Hamsher from last night.

GOP voters don't seem too excited about the elections. For analysis and numbers, Down With Tyranny!

Dennis Kucinich gives up on the WH. "He was regularly shut out of presidential debates - even after he went to the courts to seek airtime in Las Vegas.... ...commentators have given Kucinich credit for giving a greater airing to anti-war sentiment." We still love you, Dennis!

Krugman evaluated the economic stimulus program and it's not pretty. Robert Greenstein at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that "the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders."

Anti-Abortionists MIA -- Republicans say they're pro-life but they don't show up for the Big March. How convenient.

Hate crimes slimebag -- During the Jena march, a "white man accused of driving past a group of black civil rights activists with two nooses dangling from the back of his pickup truck" was indicted for "conspiring to threaten and intimidate the marchers and with having committed a federal hate crime."

Fighting torture could land 11 activists in the federal pen for as much as six months. The Nation

"Attacks Imperil U.S.-Backed Militias in Iraq" -- "American-backed Sunni militias who have fought Sunni extremists to a standstill in some of Iraq’s bloodiest battlegrounds are being hit with a wave of assassinations and bomb attacks, threatening a fragile linchpin of the military’s strategy to pacify the nation." Intel Dump offered further insights, particularly on the political front: "I think that Crocker and Petraeus have written off the Iraqi government at all levels as too corrupt and ineffective to be a part of the long-term counterinsurgency strategy in that country."

Afghanistan backslides -- The warlords shall rise again! See how invading Iraq diverted our forces from the right war at the wrong time?

Et tu, media? -- The honeymoon must be wearing off. Via Kevin Drum, yesterday Obama got some of the same type of media B.S. that was dumped on Hillary today. With enough time -- and it doesn't take long -- media svengalis could transform Barack into a divisive figure (jpg) like they have Clinton. This is how our morally-bankrupt press corp screws America (h/t Taylor Marsh for the jpg).

Bush legacy scrutiny -- An advocacy group "plans to spend $8.5 million" on advertising Bush's failed presidency. "Framing his legacy helps us in the '08 elections, there is no doubt about that," Woodhouse said. "But our principal mission would be defining the failures of Bush and the ideology he represents." Swopa

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

When Republicans play the race card, they lose

Steve Benen, writing at Political Animal, discusses how in 2006 "the National Black Republican Association ran radio spots in Baltimore insisting that African-American voters should back the GOP, because Democrats were responsible for Jim Crow laws, the KKK, and releasing vicious dogs and fire hoses on civil-rights activists."

GOP pundit Bruce Bartlett joined in the ridiculous argument to remind us of the way-back history of racist Democrats. Is his offense a sin of omission in failing to address how the Democratic Party paid for its stand on civil rights as bigoted defectors stampeded toward the Republican Party, which welcomed the racists into its ranks? Are Bartlett's efforts a propaganda extension of the rightwing Project 21 initiative to bamboozle the public with the dubious slogan, a new leadership for Black America?

Following up, Steve wrote:

Bartlett insists that the Democratic Party's history must not be "swept under the rug as old news," adding that if Dems believe Reagan's racist appeals in 1980 still matter today, Democrats' history has to matter, too.

Matt Yglesias nailed Bartlett's argument to the wall with a single stroke and Steve Benen concluded, "I'm far more concerned with the Republicans' transparent present that the Dems' not-so-buried past." To which I commented:

Yeah, me, too.

I met Harold at the Playboy party....

...

The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Harold, call me!

E.J. Dionne wrote at the time of the ad runnning, "And there is what will, sadly, become the most famous advertisement of this [2006] election cycle, the "Harold, call me'' ad run by the Republican National Committee against Rep. Harold Ford Jr., the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Tennessee. To claim that an ad depicting a pretty blonde woman coming on to an African-American politician does not play on the fears of miscegenation on the part of some whites is to ignore history."

How convenient for Bartlett to ignore this recent GOP history.

If Bruce Bartlett, who's hawking his attack on Democrats through his new book release, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past," I wonder how much he writes about Democratic presidents Harry S. Truman and LBJ? I haven't read his book so I don't know. So let's examine the racist past of Democrats during the Truman era and what thereafter happened.

[Keep reading... more history after the jump.]

Almost sixty years ago on July 26, 1948, a Democratic president defied his own party's extremists to end discrimination in the military by issuing Executive Order 9981. With a stroke of his pen, President Truman signed the document that declared racial equality for soldiers of color:

WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense.

[...]

1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

Note these words: the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country's defense. Funny how today, those same words should apply to gays in the military, but in opposition to their Democratic rivals, the 2008 GOP presidential candidates support the ban on equality. Truman's bold leadership lifted the segregation of soldiers of color in the military and helped precipitate the burgeoning issue of desegregation throughout the land.

Fast forward to today and examine two Democratic WH contenders: Obama is African-American and Big Bill Richardson is Hispanic. Where's the diversity in today's GOP compared to today's Democrats? According to the Catholic News Service:

In its analysis of the ethnic makeup of the 109th Congress, Congressional Quarterly said the number of African-Americans in Congress had increased by four with one in the Senate and 42 in the House. All are Democrats.

The number of Hispanics in Congress was up two in the Senate -- one Democrat and one Republican -- and increased by one in the House to 24 -- 19 Democrats and five Republicans.

I haven't had time to research the ethnicity of the current 110th Congress but I daresay you will find more diversity among Democrats than Republicans. Who's walking the talk?

Are we also to ignore former GOP senator George Allen's macaca moment during 2006? Or the racial overtones of the 2006 ad aimed at Democrat Harold Ford in Tennessee? Which matters? History today or the distant past that no longer affects Democratic politics but still impacts the GOP?

Back in 1948 when Truman issued his executive order to denounce racism in the military, a New York Times article, "Presses For Rights: President Acts Despite Split in His Party Over the Chief Issue," reminded me that history repeats itself. See if you can grasp the twirling boomerang and the parallels to the politics du jour within the GOP and its media surrogates. If not, I'll help you out in a minute:

On the eve of his appearance before Congress, the President issued two executive orders to carry out his sweeping aims. He said that men in uniform should have "equality of treatment and opportunity" without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.

Similarly, he decreed that "merit and fitness" should be the only application for a Government job, and that the head of each department "shall be personally responsible for an effective program to insure that fair employment policies are fully observed in all personnel actions within his department."

The two orders were expected to have a thunderbolt effect on the already highly charged political situation in the Deep South, a situation which is expected to be aggravated further tomorrow when Mr. Truman makes his omnibus call on Congress for action. The message, in one of its eleven major elements, is expected to go down the line for his ten-point civil rights program, which last February started the deep fissures in the Democratic party.

[...]

In recent months, Mr. Truman has been caught between two fires on the civil rights issue. The more extreme Southern Democrats, arguing that the program infringed on states rights, have named their own Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. Their feelings, it was predicted, would become even more exacerbated by the executive orders.

[...]

A federal official interested in promoting the rights of Negroes said tonight that while the orders were a step in the right direction, they called for the end of "discrimination," but made no mention of ending "segregation." Proponents of the Negro cause declare that segregation is prima facie evidence of discrimination.

This official recalled that integration of Negroes in the Army went down to companies who served alongside of companies of white troops. He believed that the President's order on the armed forces, which was not specific on the degree of integration or mixing to be attained, might push the line down to platoon.

He did not believe that it would go down to the squad, the smallest unit, or twelve men, as that would involve white men and Negroes eating and sleeping in the same quarters.
[Italics added. The PDF file of the article appears to have moved, so I've used the text from my archive of the 1948 article.]

Truman's presidency coincided during the days of the Dixiecrats, Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights and desegregation under the banner of states rights. Disgruntled Dixiecrats -- Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott types -- would later join the Republican Party to faithfully turn the racially-divided South into its current red-state haven in defiance of the Democratic Party that had the audacity of justice, the integrity and grit, to push civil rights. Forget about doing the right thing: The Right wants the might of its own prejudice.

As the illustrious Digby recently wrote at FDL, "Notice how polite the racism has become? No 'nigger, nigger, nigger' anywhere." Yet we all know the heart of racism still beats, just covertly in the Republican pesharim of "Afro-American" and "states rights." Sadly, rightwing racsim doesn't end with one ethnic minority.

Remember the hissy fit over the first Muslim elected to Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN), his use of the Quran instead of the Bible during his swearing-in ceremony? The Right questioned his loyalties and values:

Does he believe in Sharia law or freedom? Does he respect the authority of nation states or only that of the Nation of Islam? Does he believe in tolerance and equality between Muslims and non-Muslims? Does he believe in freedom of speech even when it slanders Islam? Can he, in good conscience, uphold our man-made constitution even when it conflicts with the Koran?

The following smear really drives the GOP prejudice home: "...it is alarming that citizens of the U.S. have elected someone who appears to be in bed with our enemy." Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) called Ellison's decision a threat to American values. I wonder what The Greatest, Mohammad Ali, thinks of such slanderous rhetoric and the GOP's assault on religious freedom? Good job, Rethugs!

Turning to immigration, Hispanics have left the GOP for the friendlier big tent in the Democratic Party:

It also would imperil Republican prospects for years with Hispanics, the fastest-growing slice of the American electorate. In 2006, surveys suggest Republicans got less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, a drop of about 10 points that cost them a half-dozen House seats and several in the Senate.

This reflects disillusionment with the anti-immigrant posture of prominent Republicans. The party chairman, Mel Martinez, a Florida senator and an immigrant from Cuba, warns it could be ominous for next year: "If we get the same type of Hispanic support in the next election cycle that we did in the last, there is no way we can elect a Republican president."

Ask Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) what reward he received in backing immigration reform that eventually stalled in the Senate. As with the civil rights movement, the stumbling block for Graham emanated from his southern constituency in addition to like-minded wingnuts in the "bigotsphere." Oh, the pain of reaching for a just solution in a party filled with racists.

The dog won't hunt Bruce Bartlett's latest contention that somehow the racist past of Democrats matters today when in truth, the party made a U-turn post-Truman, through the civil rights movement under LBJ, and up until today. What matters, what Bartlett hasn't honestly confronted, is how prejudiced the current GOP and its mouthpieces in Big Media remain 27 years after Reagan's Philadelphia, Mississippi speech in 1980.

I'm still waiting for GOP candidate Ron Paul to publicly denounce his white supremacist friends.

Crickets chirp.

There's more: "When Republicans play the race card, they lose" >>

GOP: It’s OK to play the class warfare card, but only in our primaries

Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson have no problem bashing Mitt Romney as rich.

But, if some Democrat would say this against Romney, should he get the nomination, then Democrats would of course be practicing “class warfare.”

And, some Rethug will probably come up with the line that “playing class warfare helps the terrorists.”

There's more: "GOP: It’s OK to play the class warfare card, but only in our primaries" >>

Crybaby Mitch

A couple of weeks ago, Steve Benen at TPM launched a new meme about the tendency of republicans to faint over the least little thing:

In other words, by throwing a fit, Republicans end up looking weak and hysterical. Indeed, it reinforces the least flattering GOP caricature of all -- these guys can't govern, but they can fall onto a fainting couch like nobody's business.

For years, Republicans worked to create the opposite reputation. They're tough. This is the macho "daddy party." They don't care about "political correctness" and wussies who cry over words that rub people the wrong way. This is a crowd that calls it like they see it, and doesn't look bad or apologize.

And yet, they've now spent the better part of a year trembling over mild rebukes from liberals. If Democrats were smart, they'd look at this as an opportunity to rebrand the GOP as pathetic cry-babies who can barely go a week without throwing a hissy fit over one manufactured outrage or another.

Now Media Czech at BlueGrassRoots adds to the meme with evidence of Mitch McConnell's hurt feelings:

Poor little Mitchy. He of the $10 million war chest, fancy black tie dinners fit for a queen, socialist government handout healthcare, and bribes contributions from big foreign arms contractors. Yes, the third most powerful Republican in the country decided to send out another whiny and pathetic fundraising letter today. Once more, Mitch cries about how the badass liberal blogosphere in Kentucky is kicking his ass.

(More after the jump.)


"3. Liberal bloggers have made numerous unfounded allegations against me and spread these distortions across the web with few holding them to account"

Oh, have some dignity you big fucking baby! This is the second time Mitch has acted like a drama queen in distress in his fundraising letters. Earlier this summer, he whined about how Team Ditch Mitch was holding him accountable for his bullshit.

"Liberals on the internet have already created a website called "Ditch Mitch," and 6,000 radicals from across the nation have already signed up."

Mitch, you may have a big war chest, but the truth is free. And we'll be spreading it every damn day until you go down in flames one year from now. Money can't change the fact that your office spread a false smear of a brain damaged 12-yr old boy and his family to reporters, and then you blatantly LIED about this on camera. Money can't change the fact that you have blocked the expansion of SCHIP and student loans. Money can't change the fact that you have stood by and rubberstamped Bush's horribly disastrous policy in Iraq.

And as you can see in recent polls, Kentuckians are onto you and your days are numbered.

And Mitch, you may be scared to death of us, but please, for your own sake, try to show a little more dignity in public. Voters don't like a whiny drama queen.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Crybaby Mitch" >>

Political Incest Among the Anti-McConnell-ites

Hoo, baby. Turns out that Larry Forgy, the most likely Republican to challenge Mitch McConnell in a primary next year, is a dear, close law-school buddy of -

Wait for it -

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Harry and I both worked our way through law school," Forgy said. Both served in the U.S. Capitol security detail, working 4 p.m. to midnight.

"We were very close," Forgy said.

And Forgy wrote a $1,000 check to Reid's re-election campaign in 1998 -- the same year McConnell served as chairman of the National Senatorial Campaign Committee that was trying to beat Reid and other Democrats. Reid ended up beating Republican U.S. Rep. John Ensign by about 500 votes that year.

Ditch Mitch notes that a Forgy-McConnell battle could rip wide open the rifts in the Kentucky Republican Party caused by McConnell's quiet backing of Anne Northup agains Governor Ernie Fletcher in this spring's primary.

The key is to understand how hated Mitch McConnell is in substantial factions of the Kentucky GOP (he’s very hated). In a primary election where turnout among McConnell Republicans might be suppressed because their man is the embodiment of everything about their party that turns their stomach these days and Forgy loyalists who hate McConnell with a passion and will turnout if for no other reason to cause McConnell trouble, it will be an interesting election..

Never a dull moment around here.

There's more: "Political Incest Among the Anti-McConnell-ites" >>

Stop It! Stop It RIGHT NOW!!!!!

Republicans do NOT own national security. Republicans have NOT made the nation more secure than it was prior to 9-11-01. And it's time for Democrats to NOT run for cover worrying how to respond to a national security threat because said Democrats believe such a threat will only help Republicans.

Why bring this up now? Because a Democrat running for president just perpetuated the myths above:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

STOP THIS MADNESS! The Democrat "best positioned" to deal with GOP political efforts to claim National Security Superiority in a post-attack environment is the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting hundreds, if not thousands, of American deaths as a political advantage for the Republicans.

Every Democrat running for or in office needs to blame the failures of Bush's national security policies on Bush's (and hence, the GOP's) failed policies.

Leading Democrats need to begin LEADING! America is NOT safer because of Bush. America is NOT better off because of Bush. The vast majority of Americans know this. Why do so few Congressional Democrats?

Stop it. Stop it RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

There's more: "Stop It! Stop It RIGHT NOW!!!!!" >>

House Republicans Post YouTube Video--Democrats Are You Paying Any Attention?

Remember a few weeks ago when I asked "Where Is The Democratic Video Explaining Why Reid Pulled The Defense Authorization Bill?" I followed that up with a long post entitled The Video Press Release.

Well boys and girls, look who has a brand new toy.



Posted by HouseRepublicans on August 4, 2007.

A little further research shows that Nancy Pelosi is also publishing videos on YouTube. Here is one from this afternoon.



The difference is that Speaker Pelosi is primarily posting speeches from the house floor. The House Republicans have posted a political statement.

There's more: "House Republicans Post YouTube Video--Democrats Are You Paying Any Attention?" >>

Gonzo's Lament

Abu G finds himself further and further separated from Republicans and more and more refuse to defend him. We proudly present the first Watching Those We Chose production, "Gonzo's Lament."




[All names and quotes are real. There are no innocents to protect.]

There's more: "Gonzo's Lament" >>

Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq

For months the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have been telling Democrats not to micromanage the Iraq war.

Rice: Congress shouldn't micromanage war
Feb. 25, 2007

The White House said it does not want Congress to micromanage U.S. commanders in Iraq. . . .
February 27, 2007

Bush said some lawmakers see a chance "to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror."
March 17, 2007

GOP Rep. Christopher Shays said Congress shouldn't try to "micromanage" the war.
March 22, 2007

Republicans said the bill is an attempt by politicians to micromanage the war. “This bill is designed to bring failure. Failure in Iraq means chaos in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
May 10, 2007

But a new poll shows that most Americans would rather have Congress manage the Iraq war than Bush.

Most Americans see President George W. Bush as too inflexible on the war in Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-run Congress have the final word on when to withdraw U.S. forces, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed on Monday.

Nearly 80 percent of those polled said Bush is not willing enough to change policies over the unpopular war that has taken a huge toll on his approval ratings, the Post reported.

The poll was conducted last week, after Senate Democrats failed to advance a plan that would force Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

More than six in 10 Americans -- 62 percent -- said Congress should have the final say on when to pull out U.S. forces, compared with 31 percent who said the decision should rest with Bush, the poll showed.

A narrow majority, 55 percent, said they supported the proposed pullout plan, which the Senate may not consider again until after its August recess.

The percentage of Americans seeing Bush as too rigid on Iraq has climbed 12 percentage points since December, the Post said.

[snip]

But on the issue of Iraq, the Post/ABC poll showed that the public stands with Congress.

Fifty-five percent said they trusted congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trusted Bush, the Post said.

The poll of 1,125 adults was conducted on July 18-21 and had a three-point margin of error.

Polls taken during July show President Bush's approval ratings ranging from 26 percent (Newsweek, July 2-3) to 33 percent (AP-Ipsos, July 9-11; ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

However, approval ratings for Congress remain just as low, ranging from 24 percent (AP=Ipsos, July 9-11) to 37 percent (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

Yet Americans say Democrats are doing a better job in Congress than Republicans. (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21, 46 percent approve the way Democrats in Congress are doing their job; 34 percent approve the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job).

House and Senate Democrats need to take these numbers to heart and continue to push for a change in Iraq that includes a plan to pull troops out. Such efforts need to be accompanied by prompt responses to Republican smear attacks, as Corpus Juris has noted. After more than six years it should be clear to everyone that calm, civil discourse is not part of the Republican play book.

There's more: "Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq" >>

Drip, Drip, Drip

In what is becoming the political equivalent of the Chinese Water Torture (appropriately enough), yet another stalwart for Bush's Iraq War policy has decided that withdrawal is the right course.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, saying the political "tide has turned'' on the Iraq War, backed forcing President George W. Bush to withdraw U.S. troops and predicted that more Republicans will abandon his war policy.

Snowe's decision, five days after New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici called for a new U.S. military policy in Iraq, reflects the wavering support for Bush's war policy within the president's own party in the Senate.

Snowe said she is considering lending her support to an amendment, still being drafted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, which would require troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.

Unlike Domenici, Snowe is not up for reelection in 2008.

There's more: "Drip, Drip, Drip" >>

Larry Flynt: Douchebag of Liberty

In all honesty, Larry Flynt is not the type of guy I want to be when I grow up. With that proviso, he is certainly a useful ally in the culture war against sanctimonious and hypocritical right wing moralists. The latest casualty of Flynt's meddling appears to be GOP Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

Vitter's admission that he used the escort service is tied to a call from a telephone number listed in public records in his name in Washington on February 27, 2001. Until late last week, a federal judge had prohibited Palfrey from publicly releasing her phone bills, but the ban was lifted and the entire archive — which Palfrey has said would weigh in at roughly 46 pounds in paper form — has been placed on her website. Members of a team assembled by self-described pornographer Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler, are understood to have identified Vitter's name through their own analysis of Palfrey's phone records. Flynt has a long record of exposing what he regards as "hypocrisy" on the part of politicians who tout family or religious values, while falling short in their own lives. Flynt recently placed a full page adverstisement in the Washington Post, asking, "Have you had a sexual encounter with a current member of the United States Congress or a high-ranking government official?" It went on to offer $1 million for documented evidence, and listed a toll-free number and email address.

For me, there is an extra frothy layer of icing on this schadenfreude cake, because Vitter is the hypocrite who replaced Bob Livingston in the House after he resigned owing to sleuthing by Flynt and his minions. As Blue Girl has posted, it's not the sex that is the issue for me, it is the hypocrisy. I would go so far as to say, it's the criminality. In this, I am seconded by the DC Madame herself, Debra Jean Palfrey.

And as the so-called "D.C. Madam" whose escort service Vitter says he used, Palfrey says the agency she ran was merely one-half of the alleged equation. "Why am I the only person being prosecuted?" she told TIME over the phone. "Sen. Vitter should be prosecuted [if he broke the law]" Palfrey has been battling prostitution-related charges in federal court in Washington, and became a celebrity of sorts in May when ABC's 20/20 ran a story on her service "Pamela Martin & Associates."

In his prepared statement Monday night, Vitter did not address whether he broke the law, how many times he used the escort service, when he stopped using it or whether he recommended the service to others. His office did not respond to requests for comment on those issues. But Palfrey argues that those potentially prurient details of Vitter's activity are key to her case. "If Sen. Vitter participated in any illegal behavior, illegal sex, illegal prostitution, intercourse or oral sex of any kind, you would have to wonder why he would not be prosecuted," she said. Palfrey's legal defense is that no prostitution took place because the escorts who worked for her business were issued strict written instructions not to engage in illegal sexual activity. Indeed, Randall Tobias, the senior State Dept. official who admitted using the service and then resigned, has claimed that he only received "massage." Palfrey's lawyer says Vitter will be called as a witness to testify under oath in her court case.

I must say I agree with Ms. Palfrey. I don't think Vitter has the class of even Livingston, so voluntary resignation is probably not on his agenda; but prosecution should be on the DC courts agenda. Censure, at the very least, should be on the Senate's agenda.

By the way, what's this wingnut obsession with "massage" therapy?

There's more: "Larry Flynt: Douchebag of Liberty" >>

Democrats Object To Republicans Wasting Our Time

The Democratic Caucus's Senate Journal has released a blog post and a video entitled "Senate Republicans: The "Grand Obstructionist Party"

Here is how the post begins:

While Senate Democrats are determined to move America in a new direction, Senate Republicans are doing their best to stop change at every turn. Senate Republicans are forcing the Senate to waste hours upon hours debating meaningless motions – wasting Congress’ time and the American people’s time. Senate Democrats are trying to lead the way – but Senate Republicans are determined to stand in the way.

Here is the video.



If the Senate were like basketball, everybody would be demanding the Senate install a "shot clock."

There's more: "Democrats Object To Republicans Wasting Our Time" >>