In John Nichols' column about the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' recent opinion striking down the "individual mandate" (IM) portion of the Affordable Care Act, he correctly points out that this decision is actually a very positive development in the fight over the American people's "right" to adequate medical care versus the "right" of large health insurance companies to deny care at their whim so as to maximize their profits.
After all, the primary effect of the IM will be to force people to pay money that many can't afford and thereby produce more windfall profits for greedy health insurance company executives and shareholders.
The most critical part of the appellate court's opinion consists of its conclusion that the IM provision is "severable" from the rest of the law i.e. the court's finding that the IM is unconstitutional does NOT invalidate the entire law, only the IM portion of it.
I can hear the Blue Cross executives screaming from here. And I think they're somewhere in the Midwest. Most of them are probably on their way home after over indulging in fried butter sticks and voting for Michele Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll.
What follows is a copy of a letter that I wrote on The Nation's blog in response to Mr. Nichols' article:
"In reference to John Nichols' column about 'Medicare for All,' he neglects to mention some of the most significant negative effects that will surely ensue if single payer is enacted:
(1) 120 Americans will no longer have the opportunity to die each and every day from lack of adequate medical care;
(2) We will lose the privilege of paying $350 billion per year for Health Insurance Companies' profits and administrative costs;
(3) We will be forced to pay approximately 40% of what we currently pay for our medications, thereby costing our friends in the pharmaceutical industry an equivalent share of their current profits; and
(4) We will no longer be able to enjoy some of the most important benefits of the current system, such as paying for our deductibles and co-pays.
But the worst part of all of this is that insurance company executives will lose the take home packages to which they have become accustomed, such as the $14 million that Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly took home last year shortly before she explained to the press that Blue Cross had no choice but to raise its premium rates by up to 39% this year because they had suffered through such a terrible fourth quarter last fall.
So, in view of this entire parade of horribles, doesn't our 'free market society' demand that our system of dispensing medical care remain exactly as is?'
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
David Schuster Sums Up Everything That's Wrong With Our Obsequious President.
David Schuster, in a colloquy with Keith on the June 24, 2011, edition of "Countdown," pretty well summed up everything about this president that has been driving those of us on the left C-R-A-Z-Y. At least now we know that even Congressional Democrats are fed up with Barack Obama's always playing nice to people who constantly pull every dirtry trick in the book on him.
They use the term, "adult in the room," to describe the president's chosen approach to dealing with dirt bags. I regard that term as woefully inadequate to accurately describe the president's non stop capitulation to the GOOP's unreasonable demands.
In my mind, it's more like a street fight in which one participant boxes with strict adherence to the Marques of Queensbury Rules while his adversary uses brass knuckles, knives, and anything else he can find to cheat with. I wonder who ordinarily wins fights like this?
So, what follows is reasonably close to a verbatim rendition of last week's conversation between Keith and David. And, BTW, it's really great to have both of them back on the air even though Keith can't resist getting in digs at Chris Matthews at every opportunity....
David: “Part of the problem is that the Democratic caucus is infuriated because they see the president and Max Baucus essentially being the grownups in the room, saying, “Yes, we will be willing to put Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, and Medicaid cuts on the table if Republicans will be willing to put tax changes on the table.
But now there’s Eric Cantor behaving like a two-year old, and a lot of Democrats are mad that there’s been no discipline; there’s been no punishment for Cantor walking out of the talks. And there’s a lot of anger in the Democratic caucus that the White House is trying to be grown up and, they believe, trying to talk rationally to people who are acting like children in terms of the Republican caucus.
“This has given Democrats essentially the opportunity to whack Republicans, to say they’re not being serious; that, if Republicans are willing to let the economy go into the ditch, and they don’t care, and Republicans only care about tax cuts for the rich, and they’re willing to wreck the economy for them.... The Democrats were very much on message on this talking point today.
Keith: “Senator Demint threatened his fellow Republicans today, saying, ‘vote for no compromise or start looking for another job.’ Is there any indication that the Democrats are willing to play a similar brand of hardball?”
[Ed.'s Note: You have to give Sen. Demented at least some credit. After all, he's the first GOOP who has done anything to create jobs this year.]
David: “There is. If you listen to people on the hill, they are eager for the White House to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to deliver a speech to the nation and say, ‘You know what? This raising the debt ceiling - it’s not about Medicare; it’s not about Social Security; it’s not about tax relief. It’s about protecting the economy or sending the economy into a tailspin. It’s that simple. And either the Republicans stand for protecting the economy, or they want to damage it.
“The Democrats believe that, at a certain point, the president can remove the side issues and make it that simple. He can go before the American people, deliver speech after speech, and use the bully pulpit of the White House to essentially beat up the Republicans, beat them into submission.
[Ed. Note: Didn't the President and the First lady recently campaign against bullying? Apparently, his aversion to this conduct also extends to his use of the bully pulpit.]
“But the president hasn’t been willing to do that. He’s still trying to be the grownup in the room. Nevertheless, this card can still be played, and it’s one that a lot of Democrats are eager for the White House to put on the table. “
Keith: “At what point though does this get hammered home to the president?”
David: “That where there’s a lot of nervousness, Keith. There are a lot of Democrats and a lot of progressives who are concerned that this is a president who, time and again, issue after issue, has not shown the stomach to play the sort of hardball politics, bare knuckle politics that, say, George W. Bush was willing to play or Bill Clinton was willing to play. That this is not a president who likes to bring the hammer down. He doesn’t want to be the guy who’s being tough, who’s saying, ‘We’re going to do it my way or else we’re going to beat the hell out of you. That’s not his style, and yet there are a lot of Democrats who like to say that, at a certain point, when the president is up against Republicans who are playing dirty politics, the president can NOT be the adult in the room. He’s got to show that he can be respected; that he can fight just as hard, stand just as hard for his principles as Republicans are trying to stand for theirs.”
I'm not holding my breath. IMHO, by repeatedly capitulating to the scumbags and goofballs on the right, Barack Obama is just as responsible for ruining this country as they are.
They use the term, "adult in the room," to describe the president's chosen approach to dealing with dirt bags. I regard that term as woefully inadequate to accurately describe the president's non stop capitulation to the GOOP's unreasonable demands.
In my mind, it's more like a street fight in which one participant boxes with strict adherence to the Marques of Queensbury Rules while his adversary uses brass knuckles, knives, and anything else he can find to cheat with. I wonder who ordinarily wins fights like this?
So, what follows is reasonably close to a verbatim rendition of last week's conversation between Keith and David. And, BTW, it's really great to have both of them back on the air even though Keith can't resist getting in digs at Chris Matthews at every opportunity....
David: “Part of the problem is that the Democratic caucus is infuriated because they see the president and Max Baucus essentially being the grownups in the room, saying, “Yes, we will be willing to put Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, and Medicaid cuts on the table if Republicans will be willing to put tax changes on the table.
But now there’s Eric Cantor behaving like a two-year old, and a lot of Democrats are mad that there’s been no discipline; there’s been no punishment for Cantor walking out of the talks. And there’s a lot of anger in the Democratic caucus that the White House is trying to be grown up and, they believe, trying to talk rationally to people who are acting like children in terms of the Republican caucus.
“This has given Democrats essentially the opportunity to whack Republicans, to say they’re not being serious; that, if Republicans are willing to let the economy go into the ditch, and they don’t care, and Republicans only care about tax cuts for the rich, and they’re willing to wreck the economy for them.... The Democrats were very much on message on this talking point today.
Keith: “Senator Demint threatened his fellow Republicans today, saying, ‘vote for no compromise or start looking for another job.’ Is there any indication that the Democrats are willing to play a similar brand of hardball?”
[Ed.'s Note: You have to give Sen. Demented at least some credit. After all, he's the first GOOP who has done anything to create jobs this year.]
David: “There is. If you listen to people on the hill, they are eager for the White House to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to deliver a speech to the nation and say, ‘You know what? This raising the debt ceiling - it’s not about Medicare; it’s not about Social Security; it’s not about tax relief. It’s about protecting the economy or sending the economy into a tailspin. It’s that simple. And either the Republicans stand for protecting the economy, or they want to damage it.
“The Democrats believe that, at a certain point, the president can remove the side issues and make it that simple. He can go before the American people, deliver speech after speech, and use the bully pulpit of the White House to essentially beat up the Republicans, beat them into submission.
[Ed. Note: Didn't the President and the First lady recently campaign against bullying? Apparently, his aversion to this conduct also extends to his use of the bully pulpit.]
“But the president hasn’t been willing to do that. He’s still trying to be the grownup in the room. Nevertheless, this card can still be played, and it’s one that a lot of Democrats are eager for the White House to put on the table. “
Keith: “At what point though does this get hammered home to the president?”
David: “That where there’s a lot of nervousness, Keith. There are a lot of Democrats and a lot of progressives who are concerned that this is a president who, time and again, issue after issue, has not shown the stomach to play the sort of hardball politics, bare knuckle politics that, say, George W. Bush was willing to play or Bill Clinton was willing to play. That this is not a president who likes to bring the hammer down. He doesn’t want to be the guy who’s being tough, who’s saying, ‘We’re going to do it my way or else we’re going to beat the hell out of you. That’s not his style, and yet there are a lot of Democrats who like to say that, at a certain point, when the president is up against Republicans who are playing dirty politics, the president can NOT be the adult in the room. He’s got to show that he can be respected; that he can fight just as hard, stand just as hard for his principles as Republicans are trying to stand for theirs.”
I'm not holding my breath. IMHO, by repeatedly capitulating to the scumbags and goofballs on the right, Barack Obama is just as responsible for ruining this country as they are.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
CLARENCE THOMAS IS A CORRUPT, AGENDA DRIVEN, IDEALOGICAL EXTREMIST WHOSE EVERY DAY ON THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER TARNISHES ITS REPUTATION.
The following is a copy of a solicitation that I received this morning (June 21, 2011) from Credo requesting signatures on their petition to urge Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. At the end, I have added a couple of additional details about his writings while on the High Court.
This cause will be my primary goal for the foreseeable future.
"It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign."
A New York Times expose published Sunday details the improper ties between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and influential right wing funder and activist Harlan Crow.
Crow is a major contributor to conservative causes and a stalwart supporter of Clarence Thomas. In past years he reportedly gave Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, $500,000 to exploit the Citizens United decision [in which her husband concurred] and start a shadowy, Tea Party-related group called Liberty Central. He gave Thomas a Bible (estimated value $15,000) that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, and allegedly provided the Supreme Court Justice with access to his yacht and private jet.
As if that wasn't enough, the New York Times has revealed that Thomas may have improperly solicited a multi-million dollar donation from Crow to benefit one of his own pet projects near his birth place in a remote coastal community outside Savannah, Georgia.
Enough is enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court is not legally bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, though Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy have testified to Congress that members of the Supreme Court voluntarily follow the code which explicitly prohibits justices from directly soliciting charitable donations. If Thomas can't legally be removed from office because adherence to ethics rules for the Supreme Court are voluntary, then we must simply demand his resignation.
Crow is far from a disinterested philanthropist. He has donated nearly $5 million to Republican campaigns and right wing groups, including a six digit donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which so effectively attacked Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. He's on the board of the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute which brought a case to the Supreme Court challenging federal voting rights laws, a case that found only one sympathetic vote on the court — that of Clarence Thomas.
Recusal is not enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Crow is not the sole source of questionable ethical behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas. His highly questionable relationship to an ethically challenged Supreme Court justice is simply the latest to be exposed.
Clarence Thomas participated in a secret political fundraising event put on by the Koch brothers to fund Tea Party infrastructure groups.
And for years, Thomas disregarded rules requiring him to report his wife's income on financial disclosure forms. His household received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the conservative Heritage Foundation during a period when he was voting on landmark cases in which the right wing think tank had a clear ideological stake.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must resign.
This type of behavior wouldn't be tolerated for any other federal court judge. Common Cause Attorney Arn Pearson says in the Times, "The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period. If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action."
Even absent a legally binding code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, a Justice resigning for ethics violations is not without precedent. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace in 1969 after it was revealed that he had received gifts from interested benefactors similar to those received by Clarence Thomas.4
Fortas, prior to resigning, actually recused himself from voting in cases related to his benefactor. Thomas, however, has refused to recuse himself from cases before the court in which organizations related to Harlan Crow continue to file briefs.
Enough is enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Clarence Thomas' behavior has long been beyond the pale. In response to these latest revelations by the New York Times, it's long since time to demand Clarence Thomas' resignation.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, New York Times, June 19, 2011.
2. What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?, Think Progress, October 20, 2010.
3. Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says, Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2011.
4. Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done, Think Progress, June 19, 2011.
Postscript. Here are just two of Thomas's writings of which I am aware:
He has written that, in his opinion, the constitution does not prevent prison guards from torturing inmates (for the fun of it).
He penned the lone dissent from a decision of the High Court in which the 8 to 1 majority ruled that it was unconstitutional for school officials to strip search an elementary school-aged female solely because they had received uncorroborated information that she might be in possession of a legal drug! (She wasn't.)
This menace must be removed.
This cause will be my primary goal for the foreseeable future.
"It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign."
A New York Times expose published Sunday details the improper ties between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and influential right wing funder and activist Harlan Crow.
Crow is a major contributor to conservative causes and a stalwart supporter of Clarence Thomas. In past years he reportedly gave Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, $500,000 to exploit the Citizens United decision [in which her husband concurred] and start a shadowy, Tea Party-related group called Liberty Central. He gave Thomas a Bible (estimated value $15,000) that once belonged to Frederick Douglass, and allegedly provided the Supreme Court Justice with access to his yacht and private jet.
As if that wasn't enough, the New York Times has revealed that Thomas may have improperly solicited a multi-million dollar donation from Crow to benefit one of his own pet projects near his birth place in a remote coastal community outside Savannah, Georgia.
Enough is enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court is not legally bound by the code of conduct for federal judges, though Justices Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy have testified to Congress that members of the Supreme Court voluntarily follow the code which explicitly prohibits justices from directly soliciting charitable donations. If Thomas can't legally be removed from office because adherence to ethics rules for the Supreme Court are voluntary, then we must simply demand his resignation.
Crow is far from a disinterested philanthropist. He has donated nearly $5 million to Republican campaigns and right wing groups, including a six digit donation to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which so effectively attacked Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. He's on the board of the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute which brought a case to the Supreme Court challenging federal voting rights laws, a case that found only one sympathetic vote on the court — that of Clarence Thomas.
Recusal is not enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Crow is not the sole source of questionable ethical behavior on the part of Clarence Thomas. His highly questionable relationship to an ethically challenged Supreme Court justice is simply the latest to be exposed.
Clarence Thomas participated in a secret political fundraising event put on by the Koch brothers to fund Tea Party infrastructure groups.
And for years, Thomas disregarded rules requiring him to report his wife's income on financial disclosure forms. His household received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the conservative Heritage Foundation during a period when he was voting on landmark cases in which the right wing think tank had a clear ideological stake.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must resign.
This type of behavior wouldn't be tolerated for any other federal court judge. Common Cause Attorney Arn Pearson says in the Times, "The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period. If any other federal judge was doing it, he could face disciplinary action."
Even absent a legally binding code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, a Justice resigning for ethics violations is not without precedent. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace in 1969 after it was revealed that he had received gifts from interested benefactors similar to those received by Clarence Thomas.4
Fortas, prior to resigning, actually recused himself from voting in cases related to his benefactor. Thomas, however, has refused to recuse himself from cases before the court in which organizations related to Harlan Crow continue to file briefs.
Enough is enough. It's time for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign.
Clarence Thomas' behavior has long been beyond the pale. In response to these latest revelations by the New York Times, it's long since time to demand Clarence Thomas' resignation.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, New York Times, June 19, 2011.
2. What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?, Think Progress, October 20, 2010.
3. Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says, Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2011.
4. Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done, Think Progress, June 19, 2011.
Postscript. Here are just two of Thomas's writings of which I am aware:
He has written that, in his opinion, the constitution does not prevent prison guards from torturing inmates (for the fun of it).
He penned the lone dissent from a decision of the High Court in which the 8 to 1 majority ruled that it was unconstitutional for school officials to strip search an elementary school-aged female solely because they had received uncorroborated information that she might be in possession of a legal drug! (She wasn't.)
This menace must be removed.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Best Commentary I Have Heard about Congressmant Anthony Weiner and the Democratic Party in General.
Mike Papantonio expressed these most eloquent thoughts about Congressman Anthony Weiner on "The Ed Show" earlier this week.
Unfortunately, these comments were made before the latest alleged photo was released, which caused Papantonio to do a 180, which one can obviously understand.
However, in the course of recanting, for want of a better word, last night (June 8th), Papantonio did interject a few "pithy" comments about just how low on the evolutionary scale Andrew Breitbart is.
Here is a reasonably accurate recap of what he said on Monday night, June 6th:
"When Republican David Vitter was caught on the top of the DC Madame’s list, he didn’t resign, and Republicans stood behind him. Ensign was caught in a steamy sex tryst and then tried to cover it up with campaign funds. He didn’t resign until four years later when he had no choice. People forget that John Boner helped cover up the Mark Foley story when Foley was soliciting sex from underage Congressional pages. So it’s wrong to throw Anthony Weiner under the bus.
Look: progressives need courageous people with conviction. Weiner’s one of them. This is the time you stand behind them. It’s typical of Democrats to be afraid to go to bat for him. You could have gotten Weiner to show up for another Democrat. But it doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats ... they typically show this kind of lack of courage. They cave in. They’re afraid of every damn thing. So they won’t say, “Listen, let’s talk about what a lie is.
A lie is when you look at a camera and tell the American people that there are weapons of mass destruction, and it ends up in the deaths of thousands of Americans. THAT’S a lie. This is a bump in the road, and, if Democrats would show some courage like this Congressman does, they would be out there for him. Unfortunately, it’s a problem Democrats have. Weiner would be there for them; I can promise you that.
Boner lies every day about creating jobs, and Ryan lies every day about what he’s going to go to Medicare. These guys lie all the time. These are the lies that bother me.
What we’re missing about this whole thing is that Weiner isn’t just a Congressman. Weiner frames issues. Weiner says the things that other politicians are afraid to say. He’s like Bernie Sanders. I’m saying he’s worth fighting for because he’s the guy who will go out on the front line and say what every other Democrat might be thinking but doesn’t have the darn courage to say. And right now that’s what the Democrats need more than anything else: people with courage.
Nancy Pelosi did the right thing by calling for an ethics investigation. But don’t push this thing too much.
Let’s remember who we’re talking about. Yes, he may have some gremlins that he needs to deal with, but, when it comes to taking care of the American people, to taking care of people who are out of work, taking care of people in the country who need help, Anthony Weiner’s the guy who’s always there for them, and we’ve got to remember that as we go forward."
Unfortunately, these comments were made before the latest alleged photo was released, which caused Papantonio to do a 180, which one can obviously understand.
However, in the course of recanting, for want of a better word, last night (June 8th), Papantonio did interject a few "pithy" comments about just how low on the evolutionary scale Andrew Breitbart is.
Here is a reasonably accurate recap of what he said on Monday night, June 6th:
"When Republican David Vitter was caught on the top of the DC Madame’s list, he didn’t resign, and Republicans stood behind him. Ensign was caught in a steamy sex tryst and then tried to cover it up with campaign funds. He didn’t resign until four years later when he had no choice. People forget that John Boner helped cover up the Mark Foley story when Foley was soliciting sex from underage Congressional pages. So it’s wrong to throw Anthony Weiner under the bus.
Look: progressives need courageous people with conviction. Weiner’s one of them. This is the time you stand behind them. It’s typical of Democrats to be afraid to go to bat for him. You could have gotten Weiner to show up for another Democrat. But it doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats ... they typically show this kind of lack of courage. They cave in. They’re afraid of every damn thing. So they won’t say, “Listen, let’s talk about what a lie is.
A lie is when you look at a camera and tell the American people that there are weapons of mass destruction, and it ends up in the deaths of thousands of Americans. THAT’S a lie. This is a bump in the road, and, if Democrats would show some courage like this Congressman does, they would be out there for him. Unfortunately, it’s a problem Democrats have. Weiner would be there for them; I can promise you that.
Boner lies every day about creating jobs, and Ryan lies every day about what he’s going to go to Medicare. These guys lie all the time. These are the lies that bother me.
What we’re missing about this whole thing is that Weiner isn’t just a Congressman. Weiner frames issues. Weiner says the things that other politicians are afraid to say. He’s like Bernie Sanders. I’m saying he’s worth fighting for because he’s the guy who will go out on the front line and say what every other Democrat might be thinking but doesn’t have the darn courage to say. And right now that’s what the Democrats need more than anything else: people with courage.
Nancy Pelosi did the right thing by calling for an ethics investigation. But don’t push this thing too much.
Let’s remember who we’re talking about. Yes, he may have some gremlins that he needs to deal with, but, when it comes to taking care of the American people, to taking care of people who are out of work, taking care of people in the country who need help, Anthony Weiner’s the guy who’s always there for them, and we’ve got to remember that as we go forward."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
With "Friends" Like Harry Reid, Ed Schultz, and Jon Stewart, Who Needs Rush Limbaugh?
Besides death and taxes, there are two other things that can be counted on like clockwork: Republican deception and lies and Democratic spinelessness.
It was sickening to watch the rats desert the sinking ship known as Anthony Weiner today. At least we now know why Harry Reid is their "leader." When asked what he would say if Weiner called him for help, Harry bravely proclaimed: "I'd tell him to call someone else." Nice going, Harry. That’s the way to stand up for your fellow liberals.
Some Ohio Congresswoman also engaged in Obamaian preemptive capitulation by donating $1000 that she had been given by Anthony's campaign to charity as instructed to do by the Republicans who, to their credit, would have circled the wagons around one of their own when he was in his hour of need. (Lord knows they've had plenty of practice.)
Then Big Ed,. great Big Ed, came unhinged. I've never seen him so furious. And who were the hapless targets of his fury? Joan Walsh and Bill Press, because they had the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Anthony should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be presumed guilty of tweeting an X-rated picture of himself strictly on the say so of, of all people, Andrew "The Editor" Breitbart, who is quite possibly the least credible individual on the planet.
Plus Breitbart looks like he should be the star of that commercial where the guy crawls out from under his rock to discover that he can save 15% on his insurance premiums.
It hasn't been a good couple of weeks for Big Eddie. First he needlessly, IMHO, apologized to Laura Ingraham; now he yells at Joan Walsh and Bill Press because they tried to mount a lukewarm defense of Anthony Weiner, who, notwithstanding the abject foolishness of his adolescent behavior, is still the most passionate and eloquent voice on the hill for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised in this country. Anthony deserves something for that, at least something more than the trembling, weak kneed response of Harry Reid and the out of control fury of Ed Schultz.
Congratulations, Ed. In the space of less than ten days, you have stood up for Laura Ingraham and Andrew Breitbart, two of the lowest forms of life in a right wing currently overloaded with bottom dwellers.
However, the most shameful performance of everyone, by leaps and bounds, belonged to Anthony's "friend," Jon Stewart. Look, I know Stewart is first and foremost a comedian; he relies primarily on the day's headlines for his material; and certainly no stories are, unfortunately, more headline grabbing this week than stories about Anthony Weiner.
But there is a limit, and for Stewart to strut around stage with his chin pushed out to mock his "friend's" appearance on top of all the other piling on that was taking place in the press, the blogosphere, and, of course, on right wing radio and The Fox Propaganda Channel, was a stunning act of disloyalty.
If an apology is warranted in all of this mess, Jon Stewart is the one who owes one to his former house mate, because, if anything was conclusively demonstrated tonight, it was that oldest and most hackneyed of aphorisms that, with friends like Jon Stewart, who needs Rush Limbaugh?
It was sickening to watch the rats desert the sinking ship known as Anthony Weiner today. At least we now know why Harry Reid is their "leader." When asked what he would say if Weiner called him for help, Harry bravely proclaimed: "I'd tell him to call someone else." Nice going, Harry. That’s the way to stand up for your fellow liberals.
Some Ohio Congresswoman also engaged in Obamaian preemptive capitulation by donating $1000 that she had been given by Anthony's campaign to charity as instructed to do by the Republicans who, to their credit, would have circled the wagons around one of their own when he was in his hour of need. (Lord knows they've had plenty of practice.)
Then Big Ed,. great Big Ed, came unhinged. I've never seen him so furious. And who were the hapless targets of his fury? Joan Walsh and Bill Press, because they had the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Anthony should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be presumed guilty of tweeting an X-rated picture of himself strictly on the say so of, of all people, Andrew "The Editor" Breitbart, who is quite possibly the least credible individual on the planet.
Plus Breitbart looks like he should be the star of that commercial where the guy crawls out from under his rock to discover that he can save 15% on his insurance premiums.
It hasn't been a good couple of weeks for Big Eddie. First he needlessly, IMHO, apologized to Laura Ingraham; now he yells at Joan Walsh and Bill Press because they tried to mount a lukewarm defense of Anthony Weiner, who, notwithstanding the abject foolishness of his adolescent behavior, is still the most passionate and eloquent voice on the hill for the disadvantaged and disenfranchised in this country. Anthony deserves something for that, at least something more than the trembling, weak kneed response of Harry Reid and the out of control fury of Ed Schultz.
Congratulations, Ed. In the space of less than ten days, you have stood up for Laura Ingraham and Andrew Breitbart, two of the lowest forms of life in a right wing currently overloaded with bottom dwellers.
However, the most shameful performance of everyone, by leaps and bounds, belonged to Anthony's "friend," Jon Stewart. Look, I know Stewart is first and foremost a comedian; he relies primarily on the day's headlines for his material; and certainly no stories are, unfortunately, more headline grabbing this week than stories about Anthony Weiner.
But there is a limit, and for Stewart to strut around stage with his chin pushed out to mock his "friend's" appearance on top of all the other piling on that was taking place in the press, the blogosphere, and, of course, on right wing radio and The Fox Propaganda Channel, was a stunning act of disloyalty.
If an apology is warranted in all of this mess, Jon Stewart is the one who owes one to his former house mate, because, if anything was conclusively demonstrated tonight, it was that oldest and most hackneyed of aphorisms that, with friends like Jon Stewart, who needs Rush Limbaugh?
Monday, June 6, 2011
How Much More of Life Achievement Award Winning Scumbag and Professional Liar, Andrew Bretbart's, Malevolent Dirty Tricks Are Going To Be Tolerated?
“I deeply regret what I have done, and I am NOT resigning.” - Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Hallelujah!
As difficult as it obviously was for Congressman Weiner to "come clean," it is heartening to hear that he has no plans to resign, which was obviously the primary objective of professional liar and dirt bag emeritus, Andrew Breitbart.
But the real story here is Breitbart, who, along with many of his 16-legged relatives and associates, should be behind bars (for multiple violations of people's rights to privacy as well as libel) where he can while away the hours with the rest of the vermin, instead of besmirching the internet with his incessant efforts to close down every successful, left leaning program and ruin the lives of every effective,left leaning politician, usually by photo shopping, tape splicing, and every other low rent, underhanded, dishonest, scumbag method of deception known to man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd82HxYyHZg
Hallelujah!
As difficult as it obviously was for Congressman Weiner to "come clean," it is heartening to hear that he has no plans to resign, which was obviously the primary objective of professional liar and dirt bag emeritus, Andrew Breitbart.
But the real story here is Breitbart, who, along with many of his 16-legged relatives and associates, should be behind bars (for multiple violations of people's rights to privacy as well as libel) where he can while away the hours with the rest of the vermin, instead of besmirching the internet with his incessant efforts to close down every successful, left leaning program and ruin the lives of every effective,left leaning politician, usually by photo shopping, tape splicing, and every other low rent, underhanded, dishonest, scumbag method of deception known to man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd82HxYyHZg
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Ideological Terrorism
What follows is a summary of comments made by Sally Kohn on the May 31, 2011, edition of "The Ed Show" with Thomas Roberts filling in [very well I might add] for Ed. Ms. Kohn is the founder of movementvision.org. The interview is not repeated verbatim, but it's close.
Ms. Kohn's remarks essentially pertain to the current Republican efforts to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to force their mean spirited, medieval agenda on Democrats and the American people in general:
[A few observations by this blogger are internally bracketed.]
We’re at a new level of political threat. The Republicans are using the so called debt crisis for political theater. This time they are seriously threatening to ruin the future of the middle class. Let’s be very clear: This is ideological terrorism. They are threatening to blow up our nation’s economy and our future for the sake of some political point.
[Blogger’s Note: Yes, "some political point" all right. Like reducing taxes to the bare minimum for their rich and corporate campaign contributors, and the hell with everyone else].
This is a manufactured crisis that is being exploited by Republicans in order to cram down our throats a long held ideological agenda to kill government and everything that’s made America work for the middle class and the poor.
The truth at this moment is that businesses are sitting on record levels of capital that they’re not spending. Government is the spender of last resort. In the private sector, successful businesses have two times, three times, 14 times, sometimes 50 times, larger debt-to-income ratios than the government has. So why is it okay for them but not for us?
The so called deficit problem is merely a red herring that Republicans are trying to exploit. If they were serious about the deficit, 70% of their budget plan wouldn’t be going to more tax cuts for the rich. They would actually be lowering the deficit, which their plan doesn’t do.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan said, “Defaulting on the federal deficit would be unthinkable.” But that Republican Party was very different from the one we have now - the current Republican ideological terrorists are holding our government and our economy hostage.
[Blogger's Notes: This is hardly anything new. They forced the obscene 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy down our throats last December by holding the extension of unemployment benefits hostage even though the consequence was that legions of people, who were unemployed through no fault of their own, faced the all too real prospect of becoming homeless and/or starving.
Yet the Republicans' only concern was protecting their mega-rich campaign donors from (gasp!) paying a few more dollars in taxes, money that wouldn't support most of them for two days.
Then they took us down to the wire again by threatening to shut down the entire government if Democrats didn't agree to a galaxy of immediate and substantial spending cuts.]
We will lose standing in the world if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. Our future, our children’s future, our grand children’s future will not continue to go on. Moreover, if Republicans get their way and slash government by 3/4 as they are planning to do with discretionary spending, our kids will not have the life that Americans have come to know.
-End of Ms. Kohn's Remarks-
What follows is commentary by this blogger should anyone wish to read on:
The scenario that we are witnessing has an eerily familiar feel to it. Hypothetically, what invariably happens when a spoiled child asks for $5, and you give it to him even though he doesn't necessarily need (or deserve) it? Why, he asks for more, of course. So the next time you give him $10. Is that going to satisfy him? Not a chance. He's on a roll now, and he's well on his way to asking for $15 and then $20. And he will continue to increase his demands into eternity unless you authoritatively put your foot down and say, "That is enough." And hold to it.
This is precisely what is happening with today's extremist incarnation of the Republican Party. They have become too damned used to getting their way. They keep dragging Democrats farther and farther to the right, and weak-kneed liberals and moderates (and a few Democrats who are philosophically not that far away from the Flea Party crazies) continue to accommodate them, thereby invariably causing "the goal posts to keep moving rightward."
Bill Maher said it best: "For 30 years, the Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital."
Well, what happens when you continually compromise with residents of an asylum? Yep, eventually you wind up with your own suite.
And this is precisely what is going to happen unless Democrats, and particularly the Capitulator-in-Chief, draw the proverbial line in the sand, and, once and for all, say, "That is enough. No more. We're done."
In other words, I'm waiting to hear Democrats, especially the President, say, with firm conviction and no hesitation:
"We will NOT address budget issues unless tax increases for the rich and for corporations are front and center on the table, and the oil subsidies are eliminated once and for all. And all reductions to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are absolutely off the table. We can address waste and inefficiency in these programs, as well as the overinflated costs of medical care, but we will not cut so much as one cent from benefits."
I'd like to hear those words come from our President and Democratic Congressmen and Women with the same certainty and confidence that you hear from the Town Crier (Speaker John Boehner) when he says that "tax increases are off the table" and demands "trillions of dollars in spending cuts" in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling, and from Senate Majority Leader and tortoise lookalike, Mitch McConnell, when he says that he will not agree to an increase in the debt limit unless it is accompanied by substantial cuts to Medicare.
This is what this country has been waiting to hear, Mr. President. Without it, we are lost.
I called in and spoke with Big Eddie yesterday morning (June 1st) and asked what he thought of the debt ceiling issue because we have been hearing from Lawrence and most everyone else that the failure to raise the limit would have cataclysmic, worldwide effects.
Ed wasn't quite as sure about this as everyone else seems to be so one probably has to defer to the majority in this situation. But there is a middle ground that solves the entire quandary, and, on this aspect of the problem, I fully agree with Ed, Lawrence, and just about everyone else on MSNBC:
Even though the freshmen Flea Baggers in Congress are completely clueless (in addition to being mean spirited and stupid) and would eagerly watch with unvarnished glee as we plummeted into the abyss of default, "old timers" like Boehner, McConnell and their contemporaries well know that would be too crazy, and they will never allow it to happen. Neither would their Wall Street masters permit them to wreck our economy. The masters reserve that right for themselves.
So the course is clear: If the GOP forces us to play "chicken" again, we have no choice but to accept the dare. But this time, we don't have the option of swerving off to the side of the road even at the last moment. As dangerous as it may be, we have to go all the way to the precipice. Because, if we don't, the demands of that spoiled child will never end until the wheels finally come off, and our beloved country careens off the cliff and plummets into the darkness below.
Ms. Kohn's remarks essentially pertain to the current Republican efforts to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to force their mean spirited, medieval agenda on Democrats and the American people in general:
[A few observations by this blogger are internally bracketed.]
We’re at a new level of political threat. The Republicans are using the so called debt crisis for political theater. This time they are seriously threatening to ruin the future of the middle class. Let’s be very clear: This is ideological terrorism. They are threatening to blow up our nation’s economy and our future for the sake of some political point.
[Blogger’s Note: Yes, "some political point" all right. Like reducing taxes to the bare minimum for their rich and corporate campaign contributors, and the hell with everyone else].
This is a manufactured crisis that is being exploited by Republicans in order to cram down our throats a long held ideological agenda to kill government and everything that’s made America work for the middle class and the poor.
The truth at this moment is that businesses are sitting on record levels of capital that they’re not spending. Government is the spender of last resort. In the private sector, successful businesses have two times, three times, 14 times, sometimes 50 times, larger debt-to-income ratios than the government has. So why is it okay for them but not for us?
The so called deficit problem is merely a red herring that Republicans are trying to exploit. If they were serious about the deficit, 70% of their budget plan wouldn’t be going to more tax cuts for the rich. They would actually be lowering the deficit, which their plan doesn’t do.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan said, “Defaulting on the federal deficit would be unthinkable.” But that Republican Party was very different from the one we have now - the current Republican ideological terrorists are holding our government and our economy hostage.
[Blogger's Notes: This is hardly anything new. They forced the obscene 2003 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy down our throats last December by holding the extension of unemployment benefits hostage even though the consequence was that legions of people, who were unemployed through no fault of their own, faced the all too real prospect of becoming homeless and/or starving.
Yet the Republicans' only concern was protecting their mega-rich campaign donors from (gasp!) paying a few more dollars in taxes, money that wouldn't support most of them for two days.
Then they took us down to the wire again by threatening to shut down the entire government if Democrats didn't agree to a galaxy of immediate and substantial spending cuts.]
We will lose standing in the world if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. Our future, our children’s future, our grand children’s future will not continue to go on. Moreover, if Republicans get their way and slash government by 3/4 as they are planning to do with discretionary spending, our kids will not have the life that Americans have come to know.
-End of Ms. Kohn's Remarks-
What follows is commentary by this blogger should anyone wish to read on:
The scenario that we are witnessing has an eerily familiar feel to it. Hypothetically, what invariably happens when a spoiled child asks for $5, and you give it to him even though he doesn't necessarily need (or deserve) it? Why, he asks for more, of course. So the next time you give him $10. Is that going to satisfy him? Not a chance. He's on a roll now, and he's well on his way to asking for $15 and then $20. And he will continue to increase his demands into eternity unless you authoritatively put your foot down and say, "That is enough." And hold to it.
This is precisely what is happening with today's extremist incarnation of the Republican Party. They have become too damned used to getting their way. They keep dragging Democrats farther and farther to the right, and weak-kneed liberals and moderates (and a few Democrats who are philosophically not that far away from the Flea Party crazies) continue to accommodate them, thereby invariably causing "the goal posts to keep moving rightward."
Bill Maher said it best: "For 30 years, the Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved into a mental hospital."
Well, what happens when you continually compromise with residents of an asylum? Yep, eventually you wind up with your own suite.
And this is precisely what is going to happen unless Democrats, and particularly the Capitulator-in-Chief, draw the proverbial line in the sand, and, once and for all, say, "That is enough. No more. We're done."
In other words, I'm waiting to hear Democrats, especially the President, say, with firm conviction and no hesitation:
"We will NOT address budget issues unless tax increases for the rich and for corporations are front and center on the table, and the oil subsidies are eliminated once and for all. And all reductions to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are absolutely off the table. We can address waste and inefficiency in these programs, as well as the overinflated costs of medical care, but we will not cut so much as one cent from benefits."
I'd like to hear those words come from our President and Democratic Congressmen and Women with the same certainty and confidence that you hear from the Town Crier (Speaker John Boehner) when he says that "tax increases are off the table" and demands "trillions of dollars in spending cuts" in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling, and from Senate Majority Leader and tortoise lookalike, Mitch McConnell, when he says that he will not agree to an increase in the debt limit unless it is accompanied by substantial cuts to Medicare.
This is what this country has been waiting to hear, Mr. President. Without it, we are lost.
I called in and spoke with Big Eddie yesterday morning (June 1st) and asked what he thought of the debt ceiling issue because we have been hearing from Lawrence and most everyone else that the failure to raise the limit would have cataclysmic, worldwide effects.
Ed wasn't quite as sure about this as everyone else seems to be so one probably has to defer to the majority in this situation. But there is a middle ground that solves the entire quandary, and, on this aspect of the problem, I fully agree with Ed, Lawrence, and just about everyone else on MSNBC:
Even though the freshmen Flea Baggers in Congress are completely clueless (in addition to being mean spirited and stupid) and would eagerly watch with unvarnished glee as we plummeted into the abyss of default, "old timers" like Boehner, McConnell and their contemporaries well know that would be too crazy, and they will never allow it to happen. Neither would their Wall Street masters permit them to wreck our economy. The masters reserve that right for themselves.
So the course is clear: If the GOP forces us to play "chicken" again, we have no choice but to accept the dare. But this time, we don't have the option of swerving off to the side of the road even at the last moment. As dangerous as it may be, we have to go all the way to the precipice. Because, if we don't, the demands of that spoiled child will never end until the wheels finally come off, and our beloved country careens off the cliff and plummets into the darkness below.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Democrats: For Once Grow Some Spines. No Cuts to ANY Social Programs Until ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Mega Rich are Repealed.
From Bush Treasury Secy Paul O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty" - "Reagan proved deficits don't matter,' Dick Cheney said during a Cabinet meeting. 'We won the (2002) midterms. [More tax cuts with deficit increases] is our due.'
"By 'due,' Cheney meant that because the GOP won the midterms on a platform of more tax cuts and deficit...increases, they could pass even more tax cuts and run up even higher deficits."
"Voters knew that a Clinton surplus of $200 billion had been transformed into a $200 billion deficit under Bush (it is now $450 billion), and voted for Republicans anyway. That's what Cheney meant by 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.' For Cheney, Reagan proved there was no political cost to big deficits.
"Secretary O'Neill questioned the sagacity of giving more tax cuts to the wealthy. A month later, Cheney called O'Neill to suggest he announce his wish to retire. 'I'm too old to begin telling lies now,' said O'Neill, so Cheney fired him....
"Since Cheney had been responsible for bringing the 'straight shooter' O'Neill into the Bush administration, we can take O'Neill's words as the truth."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-06.htm
[Ed. Note: Cheney? A "straight shooter?" Sounds like the Veep could have learned something from him.
The above comments are excerpts from an article that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2004. The author also mentioned one more intriguing point:
Even Bush "briefly, showed some interest [in the deficit problem], asking if they hadn't already done enough for wealthy taxpayers."
Who talked him into changing his mind and continuing to support even more giveaways to the super wealthy??
You'll never guess ...
Okay, I lied, You could have guessed correctly in a heartbeat. (No, not one of Dick Cheney's. I meant a regular heartbeat]:
"Adviser Karl Rove admonished Bush to 'stick to principle,' the principle being that deficits were his due, and the debate was over."
More on Cheney's belief that the size of the deficit doesn't matter was in a March, 2010, edition of Salon. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/03/23/dick_cheney_was_right_about_deficits
This article explained that "Republican strategy is based on the fact that the American public is deeply confused." In other words, most Americans are against govt spending in the abstract, but favor more spending when it comes to most govt programs that are specified by name. However, they also favor cutting taxes and balancing the budget.
"When asked whether they favor higher spending, lower taxes, or a balanced budget, Americans answer 'Yes."
In other words, people WANT continued spending, or MORE spending, on programs they've gotten used to, such as Social Security and Medicare. They also like tax cuts but only if those cuts apply to their own individual income brackets. And the LEAST important of the three to most Americans is the size of the federal deficit.
The Salon article also describes the original "Reagan revolutionaries" as having the same objective in mind as I have consistently attributed to the current crop of GOP crooks and liars:
"The original Reagan revolutionaries were small-government conservatives with a 'starve the beast' strategy. They would cut taxes first, and then TAKE ADVANTAGE OF the clamor over the resulting deficits to cut spending." Bingo!
So there you have it in a nutshell. The Salon column explained exactly why the lowest of the low among GOP governors (Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Scott, and of course, the real "Wicked With of the West," Jan Brewer), all presided over huge tax giveaways to the mega rich and corporations in each of their states, and only then, after these gratuitous, unnecessary tax cuts for their friends and campaign contributors had bled their respective treasuries substantially into negative territory, did they start bleating about their states' being broke and how, because of their states' burgeoning deficits, the governors were "forced" to save money somehow, somewhere.
And, of course, as always with Rethuglicans, that "somewhere" began and ended with f funding for critical services for the most vulnerable members of their constituencies: the sick, the poor, the elderly, the mentally challenged, and the involuntarily unemployed.
So please explain to me how the theory espoused by the first "Reagan revolutionaries" doesn't describe exactly what's going on right now all over this country?
Which should provide Democrats with one overriding lesson: The president and the Democratic Majority in the Senate would be crazy, not to mention extraordinarily self destructive, if they were to play right into the Rethuglicans' hands by participating in this wholly unnecessary and massive budget cutting debate that's based exclusively on a Republican shell game.
Since the President is certain to cave in, and more, to GOP demands, as he always does, I'm afraid our hopes rely entirely on the Senate Democrats, not the most courageous, hard hitting band of folks either. But I'm afraid they're all we've got. The ONLY appropriate stance for Democratic legislators to adopt now is: Not one cent of program cutting until the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% have been repealed. Period. Conversation over.
So lets hope against hope that enough Democrats in the Senate (at least the 41 necessary to sustain a FILIBUSTER against any GOP House bill that includes significant cuts to social spending) grow some spines for once and STAND UP to this latest, and quite possibly gravest, GOP effort to cut the moorings entirely from the poor and the other most hapless, helpless, defenseless and voiceless members of our society (who parenthetically are not known to make particularly large contributions to the coffers of Republican candidates) so that they will be left entirely to their own devices. Sink or swim (or starve to death or die from perfectly treatable illnesses. Today's breed of Republican could not care less.
If you think I'm exaggerating, check with some of those Arizonans who continue to desperately await lifesaving transplant surgeries that Jan Brewer refuses to let them have. Or that poor, crippled man who was on the ground in Ohio when he absorbed vicious taunts and insults from numerous Tea Baggers who showed him exactly how much they empathized with him last year)
Because, mark my words, the complete abolition of government aid to the disadvantaged in exactly what the Kochs and other GOP puppet masters want, and, like Major Strasse at Rick’s, they will be satisfied with no less.
"By 'due,' Cheney meant that because the GOP won the midterms on a platform of more tax cuts and deficit...increases, they could pass even more tax cuts and run up even higher deficits."
"Voters knew that a Clinton surplus of $200 billion had been transformed into a $200 billion deficit under Bush (it is now $450 billion), and voted for Republicans anyway. That's what Cheney meant by 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter.' For Cheney, Reagan proved there was no political cost to big deficits.
"Secretary O'Neill questioned the sagacity of giving more tax cuts to the wealthy. A month later, Cheney called O'Neill to suggest he announce his wish to retire. 'I'm too old to begin telling lies now,' said O'Neill, so Cheney fired him....
"Since Cheney had been responsible for bringing the 'straight shooter' O'Neill into the Bush administration, we can take O'Neill's words as the truth."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0119-06.htm
[Ed. Note: Cheney? A "straight shooter?" Sounds like the Veep could have learned something from him.
The above comments are excerpts from an article that appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2004. The author also mentioned one more intriguing point:
Even Bush "briefly, showed some interest [in the deficit problem], asking if they hadn't already done enough for wealthy taxpayers."
Who talked him into changing his mind and continuing to support even more giveaways to the super wealthy??
You'll never guess ...
Okay, I lied, You could have guessed correctly in a heartbeat. (No, not one of Dick Cheney's. I meant a regular heartbeat]:
"Adviser Karl Rove admonished Bush to 'stick to principle,' the principle being that deficits were his due, and the debate was over."
More on Cheney's belief that the size of the deficit doesn't matter was in a March, 2010, edition of Salon. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/03/23/dick_cheney_was_right_about_deficits
This article explained that "Republican strategy is based on the fact that the American public is deeply confused." In other words, most Americans are against govt spending in the abstract, but favor more spending when it comes to most govt programs that are specified by name. However, they also favor cutting taxes and balancing the budget.
"When asked whether they favor higher spending, lower taxes, or a balanced budget, Americans answer 'Yes."
In other words, people WANT continued spending, or MORE spending, on programs they've gotten used to, such as Social Security and Medicare. They also like tax cuts but only if those cuts apply to their own individual income brackets. And the LEAST important of the three to most Americans is the size of the federal deficit.
The Salon article also describes the original "Reagan revolutionaries" as having the same objective in mind as I have consistently attributed to the current crop of GOP crooks and liars:
"The original Reagan revolutionaries were small-government conservatives with a 'starve the beast' strategy. They would cut taxes first, and then TAKE ADVANTAGE OF the clamor over the resulting deficits to cut spending." Bingo!
So there you have it in a nutshell. The Salon column explained exactly why the lowest of the low among GOP governors (Scott Walker, John Kasich, Rick Scott, and of course, the real "Wicked With of the West," Jan Brewer), all presided over huge tax giveaways to the mega rich and corporations in each of their states, and only then, after these gratuitous, unnecessary tax cuts for their friends and campaign contributors had bled their respective treasuries substantially into negative territory, did they start bleating about their states' being broke and how, because of their states' burgeoning deficits, the governors were "forced" to save money somehow, somewhere.
And, of course, as always with Rethuglicans, that "somewhere" began and ended with f funding for critical services for the most vulnerable members of their constituencies: the sick, the poor, the elderly, the mentally challenged, and the involuntarily unemployed.
So please explain to me how the theory espoused by the first "Reagan revolutionaries" doesn't describe exactly what's going on right now all over this country?
Which should provide Democrats with one overriding lesson: The president and the Democratic Majority in the Senate would be crazy, not to mention extraordinarily self destructive, if they were to play right into the Rethuglicans' hands by participating in this wholly unnecessary and massive budget cutting debate that's based exclusively on a Republican shell game.
Since the President is certain to cave in, and more, to GOP demands, as he always does, I'm afraid our hopes rely entirely on the Senate Democrats, not the most courageous, hard hitting band of folks either. But I'm afraid they're all we've got. The ONLY appropriate stance for Democratic legislators to adopt now is: Not one cent of program cutting until the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% have been repealed. Period. Conversation over.
So lets hope against hope that enough Democrats in the Senate (at least the 41 necessary to sustain a FILIBUSTER against any GOP House bill that includes significant cuts to social spending) grow some spines for once and STAND UP to this latest, and quite possibly gravest, GOP effort to cut the moorings entirely from the poor and the other most hapless, helpless, defenseless and voiceless members of our society (who parenthetically are not known to make particularly large contributions to the coffers of Republican candidates) so that they will be left entirely to their own devices. Sink or swim (or starve to death or die from perfectly treatable illnesses. Today's breed of Republican could not care less.
If you think I'm exaggerating, check with some of those Arizonans who continue to desperately await lifesaving transplant surgeries that Jan Brewer refuses to let them have. Or that poor, crippled man who was on the ground in Ohio when he absorbed vicious taunts and insults from numerous Tea Baggers who showed him exactly how much they empathized with him last year)
Because, mark my words, the complete abolition of government aid to the disadvantaged in exactly what the Kochs and other GOP puppet masters want, and, like Major Strasse at Rick’s, they will be satisfied with no less.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Suggestion To Democratic Lawmakers Who Quixotically Seek Harmony With Their Republican Counterparts: If You Want Harmony, Join a Barbershop Quartet
This link contains one of the best collection of relevant thoughts about today's unfortunate political situation that I have read. There is, however, one point the author makes with which I couldn't disagree more: Among his short list of "American Heroes," he includes Malcolm X. Just what persuaded him to include this purveyor of venom and hate in the same category with people like Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King is beyond my comprehension.
However, notwithstanding this colossal exception, the remainder of the author's points are magnificently incisive, particularly his full frontal assault on the wishy washiness of today's Democrats and their pathetically foolish attempts to achieve "bipartisanship" in the current atmosphere. Are you listening, Mr.President?
IMHO, the best line of the entire article (directed at Democratic legislators who fecklessly seek to engage in "harmony" with their Republican counterparts) is the one I chose for the title of this post. Here's the rest, penned by Mr. John Cory at Reader Supported News:
"I am angry.
I'm tired of pundits and know-nothing media gasbags. I'm tired of snarky "inside politics" programming. I am sick of the bigotry and hatred of 'birthers' and faux patriotic cranks and their GOP puppet masters. And I'm really pissed at the Democratic Party that confuses having a plate of limp noodles with having a spine.
I'm going to vomit if I hear the word "bipartisanship' one more time.
It was 'bipartisanship" that gave us this activist conservative Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that says money is free speech and corporations are persons except when real people try to hold them accountable for their greed and poisonous ways.
'Bipartisanship' gave us the Patriot Act and FISA and illegal wiretaps and two wars and "free speech zones" and "no fly" lists. God bless bipartisan America.
I get nauseated every time the Senate explains how it takes a super majority to do anything for the American people. Tell you what Senate Bozos, if it takes 60 votes to pass legislation than it should take 60% of the popular vote to get you elected.
When some Tea Party crank says, 'I want my country back,' I respond, 'No madam, you want your country backward.'
When a deficit-mongering politician says, "How do we pay for this?" Why not ask, "What did you Republicans do with the surplus we Democrats left you?"
When a compassionate conservative says, "Health care reform is socialism," why not answer, "No, sir it is the moral and American way to care for people."
Yes, I can hear it now: "You are naïve and simplistic. These are complicated matters and require sophisticated solutions. Democrats are a big tent and strive for balance. But Republicans block our path at every turn. We are thinking and considering new ways to work in harmony with everyone."
Bite me.
The only thing you get with "harmony" is a Barbershop Quartet.
Democrats stop being Republican Lite. Stop whining about that mean GOP and their nasty messaging. Grow a pair, get a message, get a bumper sticker and hang it out there. Get some strong vivid talking points.
G-O-P = Greed Over People.
Greed Kills - jobs, people and the economy.
Terrorism is Viagra for Republicans: The more fear - the more excited they get.
When a soldier dies for America, who dares ask if they were gay or straight?
Don't act so shocked, Democratic Party. Have you looked around lately?
You're losing the young vote that showed up to elect Obama. You're losing those old enough to remember real Democrats. Why? Because you don't talk to them any more than you talk to me. You talk at me. You talk around me. You talk down to me. You talk about me. You don't talk with me. And you don't inspire and you don't champion and without that you are nothing more than an arbitrator of compromise and abdication.
You are facing a bully. Deal with it!
Republicans want the country backwards. They champion superstition over science because it entrenches ignorance and bigotry and captures the easily frightened.
Republicans treat the Constitution the way they treat the Bible, with selective interpretation and selective application to others while exempting themselves from judgment and accountability.
Republicans preach the gospel of fear because fear is darkness and darkness covers their theft of civil liberties and Constitutional principles.
For thirty years the Republican Party has claimed the mantel of law and order but now quake in dread of the American judicial system when putting terrorists on trial. How criminal is that?
Torture is illegal. Period. John Wayne and Jack Bauer were not our Founding Fathers - only in the make-believe world of Republican drugstore-patriots.
DADT needs to be repealed. Now. It is unconscionable, immoral, and disgusting.
Empathy, compassion and equality are not pejoratives. They are American values proven again and again throughout our history.
Republicans believe that bake-sales and cookies for chemotherapy best determine the value of life and health care because life is a preexisting condition and the 'free market' should not have to take on such a high risk - after all, no one gets out alive, so why should the corporation be left holding the bag? Unless of course the price is right.
Republicans believe that government should keep its hands off health care but should put its hands inside a woman's body.
Republicans believe in small government - small enough to hold the "right" people and small enough to be owned and operated by the "right" people. And who are the "right" people? Them. Not you.
Democratic Party, DNC, DLCC, DSCC or whatever your acronym - I have only one question for you: Really?
You can't win against these guys? You can't get your message out against these guys? You can't give America leadership against these guys?
Really?"
Finally, here are a few memorable aphorisms that were included, along with some of the author's choices of "American Heroes" -
American Heroes
Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Angela Davis, Fannie Lou Hamer, Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Brown, Joe Hill, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Leonard Peltier, Margaret Sanger
Quote
It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
Oscar Wilde
More Heroes
Susan B. Anthony, Morris Dees, Sojourner Truth
Quote
If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.
John Steinbeck
Still More Heroes
Sam Houston, Lenny Bruce, Clarence Darrow
Quote
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.
Molly Ivins
Even More Heroes
Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Roger Williams
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Steven Weinberg
Ted McLaughlin
Job didn't seem to have much use for his anger, but this old hippie certainly does!
Freedom From Religion
It's too bad the Bible doesn't teach better morals, since some people actually try and derive their morality from it. --Daniel Florien
The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism
I don't follow the word of the Bible which condemns homosexuality, the eating of shellfish,and the mixing of fibers in a fabric while condoning hebephilia, genocide, and slavery. I'm simply thunderstruck that such a book could be used as a moral absolute for anyone. --Kylyssa Shay"
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2010/03/listen-up-democrats.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Flhav+%28jobsanger%29
However, notwithstanding this colossal exception, the remainder of the author's points are magnificently incisive, particularly his full frontal assault on the wishy washiness of today's Democrats and their pathetically foolish attempts to achieve "bipartisanship" in the current atmosphere. Are you listening, Mr.President?
IMHO, the best line of the entire article (directed at Democratic legislators who fecklessly seek to engage in "harmony" with their Republican counterparts) is the one I chose for the title of this post. Here's the rest, penned by Mr. John Cory at Reader Supported News:
"I am angry.
I'm tired of pundits and know-nothing media gasbags. I'm tired of snarky "inside politics" programming. I am sick of the bigotry and hatred of 'birthers' and faux patriotic cranks and their GOP puppet masters. And I'm really pissed at the Democratic Party that confuses having a plate of limp noodles with having a spine.
I'm going to vomit if I hear the word "bipartisanship' one more time.
It was 'bipartisanship" that gave us this activist conservative Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that says money is free speech and corporations are persons except when real people try to hold them accountable for their greed and poisonous ways.
'Bipartisanship' gave us the Patriot Act and FISA and illegal wiretaps and two wars and "free speech zones" and "no fly" lists. God bless bipartisan America.
I get nauseated every time the Senate explains how it takes a super majority to do anything for the American people. Tell you what Senate Bozos, if it takes 60 votes to pass legislation than it should take 60% of the popular vote to get you elected.
When some Tea Party crank says, 'I want my country back,' I respond, 'No madam, you want your country backward.'
When a deficit-mongering politician says, "How do we pay for this?" Why not ask, "What did you Republicans do with the surplus we Democrats left you?"
When a compassionate conservative says, "Health care reform is socialism," why not answer, "No, sir it is the moral and American way to care for people."
Yes, I can hear it now: "You are naïve and simplistic. These are complicated matters and require sophisticated solutions. Democrats are a big tent and strive for balance. But Republicans block our path at every turn. We are thinking and considering new ways to work in harmony with everyone."
Bite me.
The only thing you get with "harmony" is a Barbershop Quartet.
Democrats stop being Republican Lite. Stop whining about that mean GOP and their nasty messaging. Grow a pair, get a message, get a bumper sticker and hang it out there. Get some strong vivid talking points.
G-O-P = Greed Over People.
Greed Kills - jobs, people and the economy.
Terrorism is Viagra for Republicans: The more fear - the more excited they get.
When a soldier dies for America, who dares ask if they were gay or straight?
Don't act so shocked, Democratic Party. Have you looked around lately?
You're losing the young vote that showed up to elect Obama. You're losing those old enough to remember real Democrats. Why? Because you don't talk to them any more than you talk to me. You talk at me. You talk around me. You talk down to me. You talk about me. You don't talk with me. And you don't inspire and you don't champion and without that you are nothing more than an arbitrator of compromise and abdication.
You are facing a bully. Deal with it!
Republicans want the country backwards. They champion superstition over science because it entrenches ignorance and bigotry and captures the easily frightened.
Republicans treat the Constitution the way they treat the Bible, with selective interpretation and selective application to others while exempting themselves from judgment and accountability.
Republicans preach the gospel of fear because fear is darkness and darkness covers their theft of civil liberties and Constitutional principles.
For thirty years the Republican Party has claimed the mantel of law and order but now quake in dread of the American judicial system when putting terrorists on trial. How criminal is that?
Torture is illegal. Period. John Wayne and Jack Bauer were not our Founding Fathers - only in the make-believe world of Republican drugstore-patriots.
DADT needs to be repealed. Now. It is unconscionable, immoral, and disgusting.
Empathy, compassion and equality are not pejoratives. They are American values proven again and again throughout our history.
Republicans believe that bake-sales and cookies for chemotherapy best determine the value of life and health care because life is a preexisting condition and the 'free market' should not have to take on such a high risk - after all, no one gets out alive, so why should the corporation be left holding the bag? Unless of course the price is right.
Republicans believe that government should keep its hands off health care but should put its hands inside a woman's body.
Republicans believe in small government - small enough to hold the "right" people and small enough to be owned and operated by the "right" people. And who are the "right" people? Them. Not you.
Democratic Party, DNC, DLCC, DSCC or whatever your acronym - I have only one question for you: Really?
You can't win against these guys? You can't get your message out against these guys? You can't give America leadership against these guys?
Really?"
Finally, here are a few memorable aphorisms that were included, along with some of the author's choices of "American Heroes" -
American Heroes
Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, Angela Davis, Fannie Lou Hamer, Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Brown, Joe Hill, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Leonard Peltier, Margaret Sanger
Quote
It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made.
Oscar Wilde
More Heroes
Susan B. Anthony, Morris Dees, Sojourner Truth
Quote
If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.
John Steinbeck
Still More Heroes
Sam Houston, Lenny Bruce, Clarence Darrow
Quote
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.
Molly Ivins
Even More Heroes
Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Roger Williams
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. Steven Weinberg
Ted McLaughlin
Job didn't seem to have much use for his anger, but this old hippie certainly does!
Freedom From Religion
It's too bad the Bible doesn't teach better morals, since some people actually try and derive their morality from it. --Daniel Florien
The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism
I don't follow the word of the Bible which condemns homosexuality, the eating of shellfish,and the mixing of fibers in a fabric while condoning hebephilia, genocide, and slavery. I'm simply thunderstruck that such a book could be used as a moral absolute for anyone. --Kylyssa Shay"
http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2010/03/listen-up-democrats.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Flhav+%28jobsanger%29
Friday, March 18, 2011
There Might Be a Lower Form of Life and More Dishonest Piece of Crap Than Newt Gingrich. I Just Haven't Found Him Yet.
The following is my response to the Eye of Newt's latest reprehensible canard about the President (that he shouldn't have made his Final Four predictions while crises in Japan and Libya are in progress) that may be found at: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/gingrich-on-libya-thankfully-french-not-distracted-by-brackets.php#disqus_thread .............
"Newt's reasoning is as impeccable as ever. A Republican President would NEVER have allowed himself to be distracted by sports when dangerous international situations were occurring.
For example, George W. Bush would never have ignored the warning he was given in August of 2001 that al Qaeda was getting ready to launch an attack on our soil with airplanes.
Nor would he have filmed a spot warning of the dangers of terrorism, concluded with the words, "Now, watch this drive," and then approached the nearest tee. (BTW, was this the beginning of the Tea Party?)
Newt, maybe you should return to your favorite canard about Obama's body being inhabited by the anti colonialist spirit of his dead, African warrior grandfather. Only an arrogant, condescending scum bag could possibly think he could make up the most ridiculous, outrageous crap imaginable and yet convince the American people to believe it.
You want to know the real reason why Obama made his Final Four predictions even though crises in Libya and Japan were in progress? I can tell you why. I happen to know the exact reason:
Because Barack Obama loves this country so much that he must have been working too hard and had a lapse of judgment.
However, at least the President's lapse didn't make him commit adultery while his wife was lying in a hospital bed with cancer.
Newt."
"Newt's reasoning is as impeccable as ever. A Republican President would NEVER have allowed himself to be distracted by sports when dangerous international situations were occurring.
For example, George W. Bush would never have ignored the warning he was given in August of 2001 that al Qaeda was getting ready to launch an attack on our soil with airplanes.
Nor would he have filmed a spot warning of the dangers of terrorism, concluded with the words, "Now, watch this drive," and then approached the nearest tee. (BTW, was this the beginning of the Tea Party?)
Newt, maybe you should return to your favorite canard about Obama's body being inhabited by the anti colonialist spirit of his dead, African warrior grandfather. Only an arrogant, condescending scum bag could possibly think he could make up the most ridiculous, outrageous crap imaginable and yet convince the American people to believe it.
You want to know the real reason why Obama made his Final Four predictions even though crises in Libya and Japan were in progress? I can tell you why. I happen to know the exact reason:
Because Barack Obama loves this country so much that he must have been working too hard and had a lapse of judgment.
However, at least the President's lapse didn't make him commit adultery while his wife was lying in a hospital bed with cancer.
Newt."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Latest Republican Assault on the Right to Vote
Let's see. Republicans routinely intimidate minorities at the polls. They send phony letters to Democrats containing the wrong addresses of their polling places. One of their larger contributors provides the voting machines to numerous states. They shut down one of the Democrats' most successful voter registration organizations (ACORN) by fraudulently altering a videotape to manufacture a crime that never happened.
They are assiduously trying to destroy the unions, which coincidentally happen to be the largest source of reliably Democratic voters in the country. And now they're trying to dissuade young people, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic, from going to the polls?? (See link below.)
Hmm. Are we beginning to detect a pattern here? I mean, what could possibly be more un-American than discouraging, intimidating, and out and out lying to people to prevent them from exercising their "inalienable" right to elect their representatives?
Wait a moment. I thought Republicans had cornered the market on patriotism. Don't tell me that the GOP is guilty of hypocrisy?? Say it ain't so.
The "Party of Lincoln" would undoubtedly love to resurrect the requirement of passing an IQ test before one could vote, but they don't dare because they know that the vast majority of Tea Baggers would flunk it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/gop-to-young-voters-dont_b_833149.html
They are assiduously trying to destroy the unions, which coincidentally happen to be the largest source of reliably Democratic voters in the country. And now they're trying to dissuade young people, who tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic, from going to the polls?? (See link below.)
Hmm. Are we beginning to detect a pattern here? I mean, what could possibly be more un-American than discouraging, intimidating, and out and out lying to people to prevent them from exercising their "inalienable" right to elect their representatives?
Wait a moment. I thought Republicans had cornered the market on patriotism. Don't tell me that the GOP is guilty of hypocrisy?? Say it ain't so.
The "Party of Lincoln" would undoubtedly love to resurrect the requirement of passing an IQ test before one could vote, but they don't dare because they know that the vast majority of Tea Baggers would flunk it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-pelosi/gop-to-young-voters-dont_b_833149.html
VERY URGENT - JAMES O'KEEFE IS AT IT AGAIN. THIS TIME HE MUST BE STOPPED BECAUSE HE PRESENTS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO LIBERALISM IN THIS COUNTRY
THIS is urgent! VERY URGENT!!!
That lowest of all scumbags, James O'Keefe, is at it again ruining the lives of anyone who dares to work for a left leaning organization. Having put ACORN out of business, he has now set his sights on NPR. Later in the day, I will describe what he did to them in some detail. It can also be found on this link:
Here are the main points:
(1) Many states have laws that criminalize the surreptitious taping of a conversation without the consent of all parties unless law enforcement is involved. Let's see if we can get this guy back into jail which is obviously, precisely where he belongs.
(2) Last May, he pled guilty to an offense involving the break in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's office where he planned to perpetrate more execrable dirty tricks. I doubt I'll ever know why he got off so easy in that case, but I would imagine he's a least on probation for it, and, if so, one of the express conditions should be that he not engage in any more of this sneaky, lizard-like crap.
So someone should report him to the court where he is (hopefully) on probation. If the judge agrees that he's in violation, he could be sent to jail for quite awhile without even having a trial.
(3) At a minimum, there is absolutely no reason why the DNC or George Soros or someone like that couldn't hire private investigators to watch this slime ball around the clock.
That way, they could well catch him as he engages in criminal conduct in which case they will probably be able to hand the local prosecutor a ready made case to prosecute on a silver platter.
And secondarily, if PIs are tailing this putz around the clock, the least they should be able to accomplish is to spot, and then warn, his next intended victim before more left leaning companies go out of business and more employees of those companies lose their jobs and see their lives ruined.
This asshole is exceedingly dangerous, and I fail to see how the Democrats can possibly neglect to take every necessary step to catch this guy and put him out of business once and for all.
Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way about just how docile the Democrats, led by our President, have been for a long time. But this time, hopefully the courage of those Wisconsinites and the Wisconsin 14 will rub off enough to convince them to display a little backbone. The very existence of the party and of liberalism in this country might well be at stake. This time, the Democrats simply cannot afford to be docile and capitulate preemptively.
Again.
That lowest of all scumbags, James O'Keefe, is at it again ruining the lives of anyone who dares to work for a left leaning organization. Having put ACORN out of business, he has now set his sights on NPR. Later in the day, I will describe what he did to them in some detail. It can also be found on this link:
Here are the main points:
(1) Many states have laws that criminalize the surreptitious taping of a conversation without the consent of all parties unless law enforcement is involved. Let's see if we can get this guy back into jail which is obviously, precisely where he belongs.
(2) Last May, he pled guilty to an offense involving the break in at Sen. Mary Landrieu's office where he planned to perpetrate more execrable dirty tricks. I doubt I'll ever know why he got off so easy in that case, but I would imagine he's a least on probation for it, and, if so, one of the express conditions should be that he not engage in any more of this sneaky, lizard-like crap.So someone should report him to the court where he is (hopefully) on probation. If the judge agrees that he's in violation, he could be sent to jail for quite awhile without even having a trial.
(3) At a minimum, there is absolutely no reason why the DNC or George Soros or someone like that couldn't hire private investigators to watch this slime ball around the clock.
That way, they could well catch him as he engages in criminal conduct in which case they will probably be able to hand the local prosecutor a ready made case to prosecute on a silver platter.
And secondarily, if PIs are tailing this putz around the clock, the least they should be able to accomplish is to spot, and then warn, his next intended victim before more left leaning companies go out of business and more employees of those companies lose their jobs and see their lives ruined.
This asshole is exceedingly dangerous, and I fail to see how the Democrats can possibly neglect to take every necessary step to catch this guy and put him out of business once and for all.
Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way about just how docile the Democrats, led by our President, have been for a long time. But this time, hopefully the courage of those Wisconsinites and the Wisconsin 14 will rub off enough to convince them to display a little backbone. The very existence of the party and of liberalism in this country might well be at stake. This time, the Democrats simply cannot afford to be docile and capitulate preemptively.
Again.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
My Response to a Discussion About People's Favorite MSNBC Commentators and Whether They Miss Keith
I know it's more interesting to have right wing guests once in awhile to stir up the pot and make the shows more interesting, but Ann Coulter? Ann F--king Coulter?
I'm sorry, but Lawrence went down a couple of notches in my book when I turned on the show one night 2 or 3 weeks ago, and his guest was ... Ann F--king Coulter!
Sorry for the repetition, but I just can't quite get over it. Ann Coulter, the same creature who referred to the 9/11 widows as greedy charlatans or something like that?
I'm surprised that she hasn't joined the Westboro Baptist Church. (She hasn't, has she?)
There's also one thing about Keith that no one has mentioned. Were it not for Keith, MSNBC wouldn't have either Rachel or Lawrence as commentators. It might well not have Ed or Cenk either because they only arrived after Keith had singlehandedly converted MSNBC into a bastion of liberalism. (Remember when one of their daily hosts was Michael Savage?)
I prefer Cenk now for the purely selfish reason that I happen to agree with virtually everything he says, particularly when he gets pissed off at the administration and congressional Democrats (which he does every day) for being such spineless capitulators to the fanatical right wing mendacity machine.
I completely agree with whoever wrote that Rachel is great when she's serious, but she can really be annoying when she tries to be cutesy.
I'm also a huge fan of Chris' because I had the privilege of meeting him once, and he was very friendly, genuine, and easy to talk to. No phony airs about him at all, although, needless to say, I did not survive the conversation without getting interrupted.
But I really do miss Keith a lot. He is so clever, and the show was so well produced, and the worst persons segment was absolutely hilarious.
So that's my take, FWIW.
Ann F--king Coulter??? ...
I'm sorry, but Lawrence went down a couple of notches in my book when I turned on the show one night 2 or 3 weeks ago, and his guest was ... Ann F--king Coulter!
Sorry for the repetition, but I just can't quite get over it. Ann Coulter, the same creature who referred to the 9/11 widows as greedy charlatans or something like that?
I'm surprised that she hasn't joined the Westboro Baptist Church. (She hasn't, has she?)
There's also one thing about Keith that no one has mentioned. Were it not for Keith, MSNBC wouldn't have either Rachel or Lawrence as commentators. It might well not have Ed or Cenk either because they only arrived after Keith had singlehandedly converted MSNBC into a bastion of liberalism. (Remember when one of their daily hosts was Michael Savage?)
I prefer Cenk now for the purely selfish reason that I happen to agree with virtually everything he says, particularly when he gets pissed off at the administration and congressional Democrats (which he does every day) for being such spineless capitulators to the fanatical right wing mendacity machine.
I completely agree with whoever wrote that Rachel is great when she's serious, but she can really be annoying when she tries to be cutesy.
I'm also a huge fan of Chris' because I had the privilege of meeting him once, and he was very friendly, genuine, and easy to talk to. No phony airs about him at all, although, needless to say, I did not survive the conversation without getting interrupted.
But I really do miss Keith a lot. He is so clever, and the show was so well produced, and the worst persons segment was absolutely hilarious.
So that's my take, FWIW.
Ann F--king Coulter??? ...
Wisconsin Statutes Governing Recall Elections
No home should be without a set of these ...
"9.10
9.10 Recall .
9.10(1) (1) Right to recall ; petition signatures.
9.10(1)(a) (a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.
9.10(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled.
9.10(1)(c)
(c) If no statistics are available to calculate the required number of signatures on a petition for recall of an officer, the number of signatures shall be determined as follows:
9.10(1)(c)1.
1. The area of the district in square miles shall be divided by the area of the municipality in square miles in which it lies.
9.10(1)(c)2.
2. The vote for governor at the last general election in the municipality within which the district lies shall be multiplied by 25% of the quotient determined under subd. 1. to determine the required number of signatures.
9.10(1)(c)3.
3. If a district is in more than one municipality, the method of determination under subds. 1. and 2. shall be used for each part of the district which constitutes only a fractional part of any area for which election statistics are kept.
9.10(1)(d)
(d) The official or agency with whom declarations of candidacy are filed for each office shall determine and certify to any interested person the number of signatures required on a recall petition for that office.
9.10(2)
(2) Petition requirements.
9.10(2)(a)
(a) Every recall petition shall have on the face at the top in bold print the words "RECALL PETITION". Other requirements as to preparation and form of the petition shall be governed by s. 8.40.
9.10(2)(b)
(b) A recall petition for a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district office shall contain a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought.
9.10(2)(c)
(c) A petition requesting the recall of each elected officer shall be prepared and filed separately.
9.10(2)(d)
(d) No petition may be offered for filing for the recall of an officer unless the petitioner first files a registration statement under s. 11.05 (1) or (2) with the filing officer with whom the petition is filed. The petitioner shall append to the registration a statement indicating his or her intent to circulate a recall petition, the name of the officer for whom recall is sought and, in the case of a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district officer, a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought. No petitioner may circulate a petition for the recall of an officer prior to completing registration. The last date that a petition for the recall of an officer may be offered for filing is 5 p.m. on the 60th day commencing after registration. After the recall petition has been offered for filing, no name may be added or removed. No signature may be counted unless the date of the signature is within the period provided in this paragraph.
9.10(2)(e)
(e) An individual signature on a petition sheet may not be counted if:
9.10(2)(e)1.
1. The signature is not dated.
9.10(2)(e)2.
2. The signature is dated outside the circulation period.
9.10(2)(e)3.
3. The signature is dated after the date of the certification contained on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(e)4.
4. The residency of the signer of the petition sheet cannot be determined by the address given.
9.10(2)(e)5.
5. The signature is that of an individual who is not a resident of the jurisdiction or district from which the elective official being recalled is elected.
9.10(2)(e)6.
6. The signer has been adjudicated not to be a qualified elector on grounds of incompetency or limited incompetency as provided in s. 6.03 (3).
9.10(2)(e)7.
7. The signer is not a qualified elector by reason of age.
9.10(2)(e)8.
8. The circulator knew or should have known that the signer, for any other reason, was not a qualified elector.
9.10(2)(em)
(em) No signature on a petition sheet may be counted if:
9.10(2)(em)1.
1. The circulator fails to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(em)2.
2. The circulator is not a qualified circulator.
9.10(2)(f)
(f) The filing officer or agency shall review a verified challenge to a recall petition if it is made prior to certification.
9.10(2)(g)
(g) The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.
9.10(2)(h)
(h) Any challenge to the validity of signatures on the petition shall be presented by affidavit or other supporting evidence demonstrating a failure to comply with statutory requirements.
9.10(2)(i)
(i) If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted.
9.10(2)(j)
(j) If a challenger demonstrates that someone other than the elector signed for the elector, the signature may not be counted, unless the elector is unable to sign due to physical disability and authorized another individual to sign in his or her behalf.
9.10(2)(k)
(k) If a challenger demonstrates that the date of a signature is altered and the alteration changes the validity of the signature, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(L)
(L) If a challenger establishes that an individual is ineligible to sign the petition, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(m)
(m) No signature may be stricken on the basis that the elector was not aware of the purpose of the petition, unless the purpose was misrepresented by the circulator.
9.10(2)(n)
(n) No signature may be stricken if the circulator fails to date the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(p)
(p) If a signature on a petition sheet is crossed out by the petitioner before the sheet is offered for filing, the elimination of the signature does not affect the validity of other signatures on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(q)
(q) Challenges are not limited to the categories set forth in pars. (i) to (L).
9.10(2)(r)
(r) A petitioner may file affidavits or other proof correcting insufficiencies, including but not limited to:
9.10(2)(r)4.
4. Failure of the circulator to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(r)5.
5. Failure of the circulator to include all necessary information.
9.10(2)(s)
(s) No petition for recall of an officer may be offered for filing prior to the expiration of one year after commencement of the term of office for which the officer is elected.
9.10(3)
(3) State, county, congressional, legislative and judicial offices.
9.10(3)(a)
(a) This subsection applies to the recall of all elective officials other than city, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials. City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials are recalled under sub. (4).
9.10(3)(b)
(b) Within 10 days after the petition is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the official, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the official within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the official shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the official with whom the petition is offered for filing shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient and so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the official finds that the amended petition is sufficient, the official shall file the petition and call a recall election to be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date of filing of the petition. If Tuesday is a legal holiday, the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday. If the official finds that the petition is insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 5 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the official with whom the petition is filed shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach a certificate stating the findings. Upon showing of good cause, the circuit court for the county in which the petition is offered for filing may grant an extension of any of the time periods provided in this paragraph.
9.10(3)(bm)
(bm) Within 7 days after an official makes a final determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of a recall petition under par. (b), the petitioner or the officer against whom the recall petition is filed may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the circuit court for the county where the recall petition is offered for filing. Upon filing of such a petition, the only matter before the court shall be whether the recall petition is sufficient. The court may stay the effect of the official's order while the petition is under advisement and may order the official to revise the election schedule contained in the order if a revised schedule is necessitated by judicial review. Whenever the recall petitioner files a petition under this paragraph, the officer against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a party to the proceeding. The court shall give the matter precedence over other matters not accorded similar precedence by law.
9.10(3)(c)
(c) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(3)(d)
(d) If more than 2 persons compete for a nonpartisan office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(3)(e)
(e) For any partisan office, a recall primary shall be held for each political party which is entitled to a separate ballot under s. 5.62 (1) (b) or (2) and from which more than one candidate competes for the party's nomination in the recall election. The primary ballot shall be prepared in accordance with s. 5.62, insofar as applicable. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary for each political party shall be that party's candidate in the recall election. Independent candidates shall be shown on the ballot for the recall election only.
9.10(3)(f)
(f) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (b) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)
(4) City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district offices.
9.10(4)(a)
(a) Within 10 days after a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district official, is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners or school district clerk with whom it is filed, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the clerk or board of election commissioners within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall determine by careful examination of the face of the petition whether the petition is sufficient and shall so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the petition is found to be insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 2 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach to the petition a certificate stating the findings. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, except in cities over 500,000 population, the municipal clerk or school district clerk shall transmit the petition to the governing body or to the school board. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, in cities over 500,000 population, the board of election commissioners shall file the petition in its office.
9.10(4)(d)
(d) Promptly upon receipt of a certificate under par. (a), the governing body, school board, or board of election commissioners shall call a recall election. The recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date on which the certificate is filed, except that if Tuesday is a legal holiday the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(e)
(e) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the date of the certificate. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers or declarations of candidacy not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(4)(f)
(f) If more than 2 persons compete for an office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(4)(g)
(g) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (d) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(h)
(h) All candidates for any village, town, and town sanitary district office, other than the official against whom the recall petition is filed, shall file nomination papers, regardless of the method of nomination of candidates for town or village office under s. 8.05.
9.10(5)
(5) Voting method; election results.
9.10(5)(a)
(a) The recall primary or election of more than one official may be held on the same day. If more than one official of the same office designation elected at large for the same term from the same district or territory is the subject of a recall petition, there shall be a separate election contest for the position held by each official. Candidates shall designate which position they are seeking on their nomination papers. Instructions shall appear on the ballot to electors to vote for each position separately.
9.10(5)(b)
(b) The official against whom a recall petition has been filed shall continue to perform the duties of his or her office until a certificate of election is issued to his or her successor. The person receiving a plurality of votes at the recall election or a majority of votes at a primary when authorized under sub. (3) (d) or (4) (f) shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. If the incumbent receives the required number of votes he or she shall continue in office. Except as provided in sub. (4) (f), if another person receives the required number of votes that person shall succeed the incumbent if he or she qualifies within 10 days after receiving a certificate of election.
9.10(6)
(6) Limitation on recall elections. After one recall petition and recall election, no further recall petition may be filed against the same official during the term for which he or she was elected.
9.10(7)
(7) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the operation of article XIII, section 12, of the constitution and to extend the same rights to electors of cities, villages, towns, town sanitary districts, and school districts."
"9.10
9.10 Recall .
9.10(1) (1) Right to recall ; petition signatures.
9.10(1)(a) (a) The qualified electors of the state, of any county, city, village, or town, of any congressional, legislative, judicial, town sanitary, or school district, or of any prosecutorial unit may petition for the recall of any incumbent elective official by filing a petition with the same official or agency with whom nomination papers or declarations of candidacy for the office are filed demanding the recall of the officeholder.
9.10(1)(b)
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), a petition for recall of an officer shall be signed by electors equal to at least 25% of the vote cast for the office of governor at the last election within the same district or territory as that of the officeholder being recalled.
9.10(1)(c)
(c) If no statistics are available to calculate the required number of signatures on a petition for recall of an officer, the number of signatures shall be determined as follows:
9.10(1)(c)1.
1. The area of the district in square miles shall be divided by the area of the municipality in square miles in which it lies.
9.10(1)(c)2.
2. The vote for governor at the last general election in the municipality within which the district lies shall be multiplied by 25% of the quotient determined under subd. 1. to determine the required number of signatures.
9.10(1)(c)3.
3. If a district is in more than one municipality, the method of determination under subds. 1. and 2. shall be used for each part of the district which constitutes only a fractional part of any area for which election statistics are kept.
9.10(1)(d)
(d) The official or agency with whom declarations of candidacy are filed for each office shall determine and certify to any interested person the number of signatures required on a recall petition for that office.
9.10(2)
(2) Petition requirements.
9.10(2)(a)
(a) Every recall petition shall have on the face at the top in bold print the words "RECALL PETITION". Other requirements as to preparation and form of the petition shall be governed by s. 8.40.
9.10(2)(b)
(b) A recall petition for a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district office shall contain a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought.
9.10(2)(c)
(c) A petition requesting the recall of each elected officer shall be prepared and filed separately.
9.10(2)(d)
(d) No petition may be offered for filing for the recall of an officer unless the petitioner first files a registration statement under s. 11.05 (1) or (2) with the filing officer with whom the petition is filed. The petitioner shall append to the registration a statement indicating his or her intent to circulate a recall petition, the name of the officer for whom recall is sought and, in the case of a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district officer, a statement of a reason for the recall which is related to the official responsibilities of the official for whom removal is sought. No petitioner may circulate a petition for the recall of an officer prior to completing registration. The last date that a petition for the recall of an officer may be offered for filing is 5 p.m. on the 60th day commencing after registration. After the recall petition has been offered for filing, no name may be added or removed. No signature may be counted unless the date of the signature is within the period provided in this paragraph.
9.10(2)(e)
(e) An individual signature on a petition sheet may not be counted if:
9.10(2)(e)1.
1. The signature is not dated.
9.10(2)(e)2.
2. The signature is dated outside the circulation period.
9.10(2)(e)3.
3. The signature is dated after the date of the certification contained on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(e)4.
4. The residency of the signer of the petition sheet cannot be determined by the address given.
9.10(2)(e)5.
5. The signature is that of an individual who is not a resident of the jurisdiction or district from which the elective official being recalled is elected.
9.10(2)(e)6.
6. The signer has been adjudicated not to be a qualified elector on grounds of incompetency or limited incompetency as provided in s. 6.03 (3).
9.10(2)(e)7.
7. The signer is not a qualified elector by reason of age.
9.10(2)(e)8.
8. The circulator knew or should have known that the signer, for any other reason, was not a qualified elector.
9.10(2)(em)
(em) No signature on a petition sheet may be counted if:
9.10(2)(em)1.
1. The circulator fails to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(em)2.
2. The circulator is not a qualified circulator.
9.10(2)(f)
(f) The filing officer or agency shall review a verified challenge to a recall petition if it is made prior to certification.
9.10(2)(g)
(g) The burden of proof for any challenge rests with the individual bringing the challenge.
9.10(2)(h)
(h) Any challenge to the validity of signatures on the petition shall be presented by affidavit or other supporting evidence demonstrating a failure to comply with statutory requirements.
9.10(2)(i)
(i) If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted.
9.10(2)(j)
(j) If a challenger demonstrates that someone other than the elector signed for the elector, the signature may not be counted, unless the elector is unable to sign due to physical disability and authorized another individual to sign in his or her behalf.
9.10(2)(k)
(k) If a challenger demonstrates that the date of a signature is altered and the alteration changes the validity of the signature, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(L)
(L) If a challenger establishes that an individual is ineligible to sign the petition, the signature may not be counted.
9.10(2)(m)
(m) No signature may be stricken on the basis that the elector was not aware of the purpose of the petition, unless the purpose was misrepresented by the circulator.
9.10(2)(n)
(n) No signature may be stricken if the circulator fails to date the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(p)
(p) If a signature on a petition sheet is crossed out by the petitioner before the sheet is offered for filing, the elimination of the signature does not affect the validity of other signatures on the petition sheet.
9.10(2)(q)
(q) Challenges are not limited to the categories set forth in pars. (i) to (L).
9.10(2)(r)
(r) A petitioner may file affidavits or other proof correcting insufficiencies, including but not limited to:
9.10(2)(r)4.
4. Failure of the circulator to sign the certification of circulator.
9.10(2)(r)5.
5. Failure of the circulator to include all necessary information.
9.10(2)(s)
(s) No petition for recall of an officer may be offered for filing prior to the expiration of one year after commencement of the term of office for which the officer is elected.
9.10(3)
(3) State, county, congressional, legislative and judicial offices.
9.10(3)(a)
(a) This subsection applies to the recall of all elective officials other than city, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials. City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district officials are recalled under sub. (4).
9.10(3)(b)
(b) Within 10 days after the petition is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the official, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the official within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the official shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the official with whom the petition is offered for filing shall determine by careful examination whether the petition on its face is sufficient and so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the official finds that the amended petition is sufficient, the official shall file the petition and call a recall election to be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date of filing of the petition. If Tuesday is a legal holiday, the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday. If the official finds that the petition is insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 5 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the official with whom the petition is filed shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach a certificate stating the findings. Upon showing of good cause, the circuit court for the county in which the petition is offered for filing may grant an extension of any of the time periods provided in this paragraph.
9.10(3)(bm)
(bm) Within 7 days after an official makes a final determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of a recall petition under par. (b), the petitioner or the officer against whom the recall petition is filed may file a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the circuit court for the county where the recall petition is offered for filing. Upon filing of such a petition, the only matter before the court shall be whether the recall petition is sufficient. The court may stay the effect of the official's order while the petition is under advisement and may order the official to revise the election schedule contained in the order if a revised schedule is necessitated by judicial review. Whenever the recall petitioner files a petition under this paragraph, the officer against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a party to the proceeding. The court shall give the matter precedence over other matters not accorded similar precedence by law.
9.10(3)(c)
(c) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the original filing of the petition. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(3)(d)
(d) If more than 2 persons compete for a nonpartisan office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(3)(e)
(e) For any partisan office, a recall primary shall be held for each political party which is entitled to a separate ballot under s. 5.62 (1) (b) or (2) and from which more than one candidate competes for the party's nomination in the recall election. The primary ballot shall be prepared in accordance with s. 5.62, insofar as applicable. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary for each political party shall be that party's candidate in the recall election. Independent candidates shall be shown on the ballot for the recall election only.
9.10(3)(f)
(f) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (b) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)
(4) City, village, town, town sanitary district, and school district offices.
9.10(4)(a)
(a) Within 10 days after a petition for the recall of a city, village, town, town sanitary district, or school district official, is offered for filing, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a written challenge with the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners or school district clerk with whom it is filed, specifying any alleged insufficiency. If a challenge is filed, the petitioner may file a written rebuttal to the challenge with the clerk or board of election commissioners within 5 days after the challenge is filed. If a rebuttal is filed, the officer against whom the petition is filed may file a reply to any new matter raised in the rebuttal within 2 days after the rebuttal is filed. Within 14 days after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a reply to a rebuttal, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall file the certificate or an amended certificate. Within 31 days after the petition is offered for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall determine by careful examination of the face of the petition whether the petition is sufficient and shall so state in a certificate attached to the petition. If the petition is found to be insufficient, the certificate shall state the particulars creating the insufficiency. The petition may be amended to correct any insufficiency within 5 days following the affixing of the original certificate. Within 2 days after the offering of the amended petition for filing, the clerk or board of election commissioners shall again carefully examine the face of the petition to determine sufficiency and shall attach to the petition a certificate stating the findings. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, except in cities over 500,000 population, the municipal clerk or school district clerk shall transmit the petition to the governing body or to the school board. Immediately upon finding an original or amended petition sufficient, in cities over 500,000 population, the board of election commissioners shall file the petition in its office.
9.10(4)(d)
(d) Promptly upon receipt of a certificate under par. (a), the governing body, school board, or board of election commissioners shall call a recall election. The recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 6th week commencing after the date on which the certificate is filed, except that if Tuesday is a legal holiday the recall election shall be held on the first day after Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(e)
(e) The official against whom the recall petition is filed shall be a candidate at the recall election without nomination unless the official resigns within 10 days after the date of the certificate. Candidates for the office may be nominated under the usual procedure of nomination for a special election by filing nomination papers or declarations of candidacy not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Tuesday preceding the election and have their names placed on the ballot at the recall election.
9.10(4)(f)
(f) If more than 2 persons compete for an office, a recall primary shall be held. The names of the 2 persons receiving the highest number of votes in the recall primary shall be certified to appear on the ballot in the recall election, but if any person receives a majority of the total number of votes cast in the recall primary, a recall election shall not be held. If the incumbent receives a majority of the votes cast, the incumbent shall be retained in office for the remainder of the term. If another candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, that candidate shall be elected to serve for the residue of the unexpired term of the incumbent. Write-in votes are permitted only at a recall primary or at a recall election in which no primary is held.
9.10(4)(g)
(g) If a recall primary is required, the date specified under par. (d) shall be the date of the recall primary and the recall election shall be held on the Tuesday of the 4th week commencing after the recall primary or, if that Tuesday is a legal holiday, on the first day after that Tuesday which is not a legal holiday.
9.10(4)(h)
(h) All candidates for any village, town, and town sanitary district office, other than the official against whom the recall petition is filed, shall file nomination papers, regardless of the method of nomination of candidates for town or village office under s. 8.05.
9.10(5)
(5) Voting method; election results.
9.10(5)(a)
(a) The recall primary or election of more than one official may be held on the same day. If more than one official of the same office designation elected at large for the same term from the same district or territory is the subject of a recall petition, there shall be a separate election contest for the position held by each official. Candidates shall designate which position they are seeking on their nomination papers. Instructions shall appear on the ballot to electors to vote for each position separately.
9.10(5)(b)
(b) The official against whom a recall petition has been filed shall continue to perform the duties of his or her office until a certificate of election is issued to his or her successor. The person receiving a plurality of votes at the recall election or a majority of votes at a primary when authorized under sub. (3) (d) or (4) (f) shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. If the incumbent receives the required number of votes he or she shall continue in office. Except as provided in sub. (4) (f), if another person receives the required number of votes that person shall succeed the incumbent if he or she qualifies within 10 days after receiving a certificate of election.
9.10(6)
(6) Limitation on recall elections. After one recall petition and recall election, no further recall petition may be filed against the same official during the term for which he or she was elected.
9.10(7)
(7) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to facilitate the operation of article XIII, section 12, of the constitution and to extend the same rights to electors of cities, villages, towns, town sanitary districts, and school districts."
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
FLOP of the Month Contest Rules
From now on, this blog will be giving out an award for the lowest Form of Life On the Planet at the end of each month. Here are the basic rules of the contest as well as descriptions of some recent award winners:
Rules:
(1) Anyone can nominate their "favorite" candidate(s) for each month's award. Nominations may be made by posting the candidate's name either on this blog or on my Facebook page.
(2) There is a limit of five (5) nominations per person per month.
(3) The deadline for posting a nomination is 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the last day of each month.
(4) Candidates should be unusually awful human beings. Some of the characteristics which tend to qualify "worthy" candidates include, but are not limited to: (1) Hypocrisy; (2) Dishonesty; (3) Corruption; (4) Greed; (5) Selfishness, (6) Cruelty, (7) Dismissiveness of Others, (8) Remarkable Stupidity and/or Ignorance, and (9) General Douche Baggery.
(5) Notwithstanding the logical inferences to be drawn from the above listed characteristics, contestants need not be members of the Republican Party in order to qualify for the award (although membership in the GOP will certainly not hinder an applicant's chances).
(6) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will not be eligible for the award in any month for the following reason: In view of her steadfast refusal to release readily available and relatively minimal funds to pay for what would be lifesaving operations for 96 desperate Arizonans who are currently on the waiting list for organ transplants (there were 98, but Governor Brewer has already murdered two of them), she would "win" the award by acclamation every month. Therefore, Governor Brewer has been granted senior, emeritus status as the lowest Form of Life On the Planet for the entire 21st Century. Consequently, if she were regarded as an eligible candidate, the outcome of east month's contest would be preordained.
(7) Four contestants are such uniquely qualified douche bags that they will automatically be eligible for each month's contest even if they do not receive a specific nomination that month. This rarefied group includes the following:
A. Unapologetic Racist; Mean-Spirited Purveyor of Slander; Despicable Bully; Daily Spouter of Unfunny Attempts at Humor; and Self Appointed Vanguard of the Far Right, who wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to him and introduced itself, Rush Limbaugh;
B. Unvarnished Idiot and Proud Displayer of Shocking Ignorance ("The Founding Fathers Eradicated Slavery??"), an I.Q. Beneath the Speed Limit (in school zones); and Unparalleled Delusions of Grandeur (when she has so much to be humble about), Michele Bachmann;
C. Escaped Mental Patient, Delusional Conspiracy Theorist, Notorious Caliphate Enthusiast, and Internationally Renowned Nazi Memorabilia Expert, Glenn Beck; and
D. Pied Piper of Ignorance, Russian Foreign Policy Wonk, Country of Africa Expert, Reader of All Magazines, Unapologetic Gratuitous Violence Advocate, Possessor of Insatiable Greed, Quitter Emeritus, and Megalomaniac Extraordinaire, Sarah Palin.
(8) With the exception of these four uniquely qualified candidates, only those persons who are expressly nominated during a given month will be considered for that month’s award.
(9) Each nomination should be accompanied by a brief description of the candidate’s statement(s) or conduct that is alleged to qualify them for consideration as that month's lowest form of life on the planet (FLOP).
Recent Examples:
The following are representative examples from previous contests:
A. Our maiden FLOP of the year (2009) Award went to Republican Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis who opposed subsidizing school lunches for low income children during summer months with this remarkable comment: "HUNGER CAN BE A POSITIVE MOTIVATOR."
(The following link contains an unforgettable salute to her by Stephen Colbert) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/colbert-tells-viewers-to_n_224628.html
B. We began the FLOP of the Month contest last November with Jan Brewer as our inaugural recipient for obvious reasons previously stated (before she attained senior status).
C. At December's end, we gave out our Second Annual FLOP of the Year Award to a rare non-political contestant: an Ohio woman by the name of Jennifer Petkov who taunted a 7-year-old neighbor girl suffering from a terminal illness by posting pictures on Facebook of the child with a skull and crossbones and of the child's mother (who had recently died from the same disease) hugging the grim reaper, and who also parked a homemade coffin in front of their home.
Lovely.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/10/jennifer_lyn_petkov_taunts_7-y.php
D. Our January, 2011, FLOP of the Month Award went to Sarah Palin, not because of her "cross hairs" post which arguably set the tone of politically violent and vitriolic rhetoric shortly before the tragedy in Tucson that claimed the lives of six people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
No, Palin was the recipient of January's award because of her reaction to the horrific incident in which she ignored the actual victims of the gunman's rampage and tried to make the entire discussion about herself.
She also made that ghastly "blood libel" remark. But, worst of all, within seconds of complaining that Democrats were unfairly trying to lay some of the blame for the tragedy at her feet, Palin actually said that the gunman appeared to be "apolitical OR PERHAPS EVEN LEFT-LEANING!"
http://www.thewrap.com/television/column-post/hannity-palin-defends-blood-libel-remark-says-suspect-apolitical-or-perhaps-e
Okay. I hope the rules and qualifications for the contest have been adequately explained. The next post will contain a list of February’s contestants followed by the award "winner."
Rules:
(1) Anyone can nominate their "favorite" candidate(s) for each month's award. Nominations may be made by posting the candidate's name either on this blog or on my Facebook page.
(2) There is a limit of five (5) nominations per person per month.
(3) The deadline for posting a nomination is 12:00 midnight Pacific Standard Time on the last day of each month.
(4) Candidates should be unusually awful human beings. Some of the characteristics which tend to qualify "worthy" candidates include, but are not limited to: (1) Hypocrisy; (2) Dishonesty; (3) Corruption; (4) Greed; (5) Selfishness, (6) Cruelty, (7) Dismissiveness of Others, (8) Remarkable Stupidity and/or Ignorance, and (9) General Douche Baggery.
(5) Notwithstanding the logical inferences to be drawn from the above listed characteristics, contestants need not be members of the Republican Party in order to qualify for the award (although membership in the GOP will certainly not hinder an applicant's chances).
(6) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will not be eligible for the award in any month for the following reason: In view of her steadfast refusal to release readily available and relatively minimal funds to pay for what would be lifesaving operations for 96 desperate Arizonans who are currently on the waiting list for organ transplants (there were 98, but Governor Brewer has already murdered two of them), she would "win" the award by acclamation every month. Therefore, Governor Brewer has been granted senior, emeritus status as the lowest Form of Life On the Planet for the entire 21st Century. Consequently, if she were regarded as an eligible candidate, the outcome of east month's contest would be preordained.
(7) Four contestants are such uniquely qualified douche bags that they will automatically be eligible for each month's contest even if they do not receive a specific nomination that month. This rarefied group includes the following:
A. Unapologetic Racist; Mean-Spirited Purveyor of Slander; Despicable Bully; Daily Spouter of Unfunny Attempts at Humor; and Self Appointed Vanguard of the Far Right, who wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up to him and introduced itself, Rush Limbaugh;
B. Unvarnished Idiot and Proud Displayer of Shocking Ignorance ("The Founding Fathers Eradicated Slavery??"), an I.Q. Beneath the Speed Limit (in school zones); and Unparalleled Delusions of Grandeur (when she has so much to be humble about), Michele Bachmann;
C. Escaped Mental Patient, Delusional Conspiracy Theorist, Notorious Caliphate Enthusiast, and Internationally Renowned Nazi Memorabilia Expert, Glenn Beck; and
D. Pied Piper of Ignorance, Russian Foreign Policy Wonk, Country of Africa Expert, Reader of All Magazines, Unapologetic Gratuitous Violence Advocate, Possessor of Insatiable Greed, Quitter Emeritus, and Megalomaniac Extraordinaire, Sarah Palin.
(8) With the exception of these four uniquely qualified candidates, only those persons who are expressly nominated during a given month will be considered for that month’s award.
(9) Each nomination should be accompanied by a brief description of the candidate’s statement(s) or conduct that is alleged to qualify them for consideration as that month's lowest form of life on the planet (FLOP).
Recent Examples:
The following are representative examples from previous contests:
A. Our maiden FLOP of the year (2009) Award went to Republican Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis who opposed subsidizing school lunches for low income children during summer months with this remarkable comment: "HUNGER CAN BE A POSITIVE MOTIVATOR."
(The following link contains an unforgettable salute to her by Stephen Colbert) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/colbert-tells-viewers-to_n_224628.html
B. We began the FLOP of the Month contest last November with Jan Brewer as our inaugural recipient for obvious reasons previously stated (before she attained senior status).
C. At December's end, we gave out our Second Annual FLOP of the Year Award to a rare non-political contestant: an Ohio woman by the name of Jennifer Petkov who taunted a 7-year-old neighbor girl suffering from a terminal illness by posting pictures on Facebook of the child with a skull and crossbones and of the child's mother (who had recently died from the same disease) hugging the grim reaper, and who also parked a homemade coffin in front of their home.
Lovely.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/10/jennifer_lyn_petkov_taunts_7-y.php
D. Our January, 2011, FLOP of the Month Award went to Sarah Palin, not because of her "cross hairs" post which arguably set the tone of politically violent and vitriolic rhetoric shortly before the tragedy in Tucson that claimed the lives of six people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).
No, Palin was the recipient of January's award because of her reaction to the horrific incident in which she ignored the actual victims of the gunman's rampage and tried to make the entire discussion about herself.
She also made that ghastly "blood libel" remark. But, worst of all, within seconds of complaining that Democrats were unfairly trying to lay some of the blame for the tragedy at her feet, Palin actually said that the gunman appeared to be "apolitical OR PERHAPS EVEN LEFT-LEANING!"
http://www.thewrap.com/television/column-post/hannity-palin-defends-blood-libel-remark-says-suspect-apolitical-or-perhaps-e
Okay. I hope the rules and qualifications for the contest have been adequately explained. The next post will contain a list of February’s contestants followed by the award "winner."
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Barack Obama: Friend or Foe?
Below are some of the highlights from an incredible conversation between Tavis Smiley, John Heilemann, and Bill Maher on Reel Time tonight, February 18, 2011.
All three agreed that President Obama is NOT adopting virtually any of the positions that his base wants him to. Smiley and Maher attributed this problem to the President's being a lousy negotiator who gives away the store before negotiations begin.
But Heilemann articulated a very different theory, one that I heard Professor Jonathan Turley insinuate several months ago and one that sent a Rushbo size chill up my spine. Heilemann believes that the President simply is not nearly as liberal as his base, not anywhere close to being as liberal as the people who elected him, and that the positions of his that infuriate his base the most are not the result of poor negotiating skills at all. Rather they are strictly a function of the President's beliefs being much closer to those of the Republican Party than to his base.
[Ed Note - in other words, we may have been had!]
On a second, albeit interrelated, topic, Heilemann explained that the events in Wisconsin have absolutely nothing to do with a purported state budget shortfall. Rather they are part of a well orchestrated effort by the national Republican Party to destroy the labor unions once and for all and thereby separate the Democrats from their most ardent, reliable, and indispensable supporters. Without the money and the foot soldiers that the unions provide during election season, the Democratic Party will be defenseless against the unlimited Citizens United funds that will assuredly cascade in to Republican coffers.
Which makes Obama's customary conciliatory, split-the-baby approach to the situation in Madison that much more baffling, frustrating, and primarily infuriating.
Anyway, here are the actual salient excerpts from the discussion on Reel Time:
Tavis Smiley: “Budgets are moral documents, and when we see what you put on the table, then we know what you really believe. And I think for the last couple of years the Obama administration has been serenading Wall Street with that Stevie Wonder classic, ‘Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours,’ and all the rest of us have been getting the Sam and Dave classic, ‘Hold On, I’m Coming.’ But the American people can only hold on for so long. And when the President puts his budget on the table and wants to balance it on the backs of the poor, that’s unacceptable.
This is our President whom many of us voted for in December who went along ... not just compromised, but quite frankly capitulated on these Bush era tax cuts. Obama did that. This is Obama’s budget that wants to give another 22 billion to the military."
Bill Maher: “Why is [Obama] such a bad negotiator?"
Tavis Smiley: “He gives them everything up front.”
Bill Maher: "[Obama’s budget] was another desperate attempt to make Republicans like him. A budget is merely a starting negotiating point. So why did he start from where they already are? Let’s fuck the poor. We have to tighten belts. So let’s do it with kids, poor people, and the planet. This guy has got to learn how to haggle.”
John Heilemann: “I’ve got to break this to you, Bill. It’s not that [Obama] is a bad negotiator. He just doesn’t believe the same things you believe. He doesn’t want the same things you want. He agrees with Republicans more than you agree with Republicans.”
Bill Maher: “Why isn’t he more forceful right now on the side of these workers in Wisconsin?”
John Heilemann: “Here’s what’s going on in Wisconsin: Simply put, the union movement in America right now is the last actual muscle that the Democratic Party has nationally. If you look at campaign spending across the country, it's the only thing that stands between Democrats being routed across the country and having some credibility running elections. This is an assault waged not just by the Governor of Wisconsin but by the entire Republican establishment, the conservative establishment, on the ability of Democrats to compete in elections, not just in Wisconsin, but across the country going forward. And it is a purely political thing. If they can strip collective bargaining from the unions in Wisconsin, they will try to do it in every state in the country and destroy the union movement as a POLITICAL force, not just as an economic force. That’s what this is all about.”
Tavis Smiley: “If it’s all that, and I agree with you that it is, if that’s what’s at stake, shouldn’t the President get involved in this? Shouldn't he be more forceful standing behind these unions in Wisconsin?”
No one tried to answer.
All three agreed that President Obama is NOT adopting virtually any of the positions that his base wants him to. Smiley and Maher attributed this problem to the President's being a lousy negotiator who gives away the store before negotiations begin.
But Heilemann articulated a very different theory, one that I heard Professor Jonathan Turley insinuate several months ago and one that sent a Rushbo size chill up my spine. Heilemann believes that the President simply is not nearly as liberal as his base, not anywhere close to being as liberal as the people who elected him, and that the positions of his that infuriate his base the most are not the result of poor negotiating skills at all. Rather they are strictly a function of the President's beliefs being much closer to those of the Republican Party than to his base.
[Ed Note - in other words, we may have been had!]
On a second, albeit interrelated, topic, Heilemann explained that the events in Wisconsin have absolutely nothing to do with a purported state budget shortfall. Rather they are part of a well orchestrated effort by the national Republican Party to destroy the labor unions once and for all and thereby separate the Democrats from their most ardent, reliable, and indispensable supporters. Without the money and the foot soldiers that the unions provide during election season, the Democratic Party will be defenseless against the unlimited Citizens United funds that will assuredly cascade in to Republican coffers.
Which makes Obama's customary conciliatory, split-the-baby approach to the situation in Madison that much more baffling, frustrating, and primarily infuriating.
Anyway, here are the actual salient excerpts from the discussion on Reel Time:
Tavis Smiley: “Budgets are moral documents, and when we see what you put on the table, then we know what you really believe. And I think for the last couple of years the Obama administration has been serenading Wall Street with that Stevie Wonder classic, ‘Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours,’ and all the rest of us have been getting the Sam and Dave classic, ‘Hold On, I’m Coming.’ But the American people can only hold on for so long. And when the President puts his budget on the table and wants to balance it on the backs of the poor, that’s unacceptable.
This is our President whom many of us voted for in December who went along ... not just compromised, but quite frankly capitulated on these Bush era tax cuts. Obama did that. This is Obama’s budget that wants to give another 22 billion to the military."
Bill Maher: “Why is [Obama] such a bad negotiator?"
Tavis Smiley: “He gives them everything up front.”
Bill Maher: "[Obama’s budget] was another desperate attempt to make Republicans like him. A budget is merely a starting negotiating point. So why did he start from where they already are? Let’s fuck the poor. We have to tighten belts. So let’s do it with kids, poor people, and the planet. This guy has got to learn how to haggle.”
John Heilemann: “I’ve got to break this to you, Bill. It’s not that [Obama] is a bad negotiator. He just doesn’t believe the same things you believe. He doesn’t want the same things you want. He agrees with Republicans more than you agree with Republicans.”
Bill Maher: “Why isn’t he more forceful right now on the side of these workers in Wisconsin?”
John Heilemann: “Here’s what’s going on in Wisconsin: Simply put, the union movement in America right now is the last actual muscle that the Democratic Party has nationally. If you look at campaign spending across the country, it's the only thing that stands between Democrats being routed across the country and having some credibility running elections. This is an assault waged not just by the Governor of Wisconsin but by the entire Republican establishment, the conservative establishment, on the ability of Democrats to compete in elections, not just in Wisconsin, but across the country going forward. And it is a purely political thing. If they can strip collective bargaining from the unions in Wisconsin, they will try to do it in every state in the country and destroy the union movement as a POLITICAL force, not just as an economic force. That’s what this is all about.”
Tavis Smiley: “If it’s all that, and I agree with you that it is, if that’s what’s at stake, shouldn’t the President get involved in this? Shouldn't he be more forceful standing behind these unions in Wisconsin?”
No one tried to answer.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Hurricane Katrina Levels the White House
Katrina Vanden Heuvel was brilliant in her emotion-laden criticism of the President on Cenk Uygur’s show today:
“We’ve seen this time and time again: A president preemptively making concessions that abet his opponents and demoralize his supporters. Compromise is demanded in politics, but leadership can not be defined by compromise.
This president was dealt a good hand in many ways, but his preemptive concessions took away that good hand. And he had public opinion on his side, but you can’t just let that sit there. You have to mobilize public opinion with your leadership.
Our system is rigged in many ways through the power of establishment money and through the lobbyists who swamp Washington D.C. every day. But you can provide leadership that lays out a different narrative.
We’re having this debate about the budget in the completely wrong framework. Our priorities are skewed. A budget is not just a set of numbers. It’s a moral document. It is also a reflection of a nation’s values and aspirations.
And, if we’re a nation that’s going to balance the budget on the backs of the working class and low income Americans, to the benefit of the richest and the multinational corporations that out-source jobs, then we are a nation in dire need of our own pro-democracy movement to take back this country for the people who built it and made it strong, and to take it away from those who brought us the financial crisis that robbed trillions of dollars from people who have worked so hard for decades.
We need to understand what we’re going to do outside of the White House, outside of Washington D.C. It’s late for that. We need independent organizing in this country to change the balance of forces, to change the nature of political power, and to find a way to have a different debate because, with all due respect, this president is not going to lead us to the promised land. We have a blueprint of cruelty in the GOP plan. Let us not forget that they never had a mandate to do what they’re doing. It was a lousy economy and joblessness, not a desire for big spending cuts, that got them elected in 2010.
But this president is seeking reelection. This president is charting his own course, a course that sadly has demobilized the base that elected him.
It’s insanity that military spending constitutes 58% of the discretionary spending budget. We have, in inflation-adjusted terms, a military budget that’s larger than it was during the Bush years or the Cold War. That’s insanity. And two wars costing about 120 billion dollars a year.
We can do better. But it’s going to require people outside of Washington working with allies inside Congress. And we can say to them, ‘Enough.' There’s a disconnect between what’s going on in Washington and what this country needs. "
“We’ve seen this time and time again: A president preemptively making concessions that abet his opponents and demoralize his supporters. Compromise is demanded in politics, but leadership can not be defined by compromise.
This president was dealt a good hand in many ways, but his preemptive concessions took away that good hand. And he had public opinion on his side, but you can’t just let that sit there. You have to mobilize public opinion with your leadership.
Our system is rigged in many ways through the power of establishment money and through the lobbyists who swamp Washington D.C. every day. But you can provide leadership that lays out a different narrative.
We’re having this debate about the budget in the completely wrong framework. Our priorities are skewed. A budget is not just a set of numbers. It’s a moral document. It is also a reflection of a nation’s values and aspirations.
And, if we’re a nation that’s going to balance the budget on the backs of the working class and low income Americans, to the benefit of the richest and the multinational corporations that out-source jobs, then we are a nation in dire need of our own pro-democracy movement to take back this country for the people who built it and made it strong, and to take it away from those who brought us the financial crisis that robbed trillions of dollars from people who have worked so hard for decades.
We need to understand what we’re going to do outside of the White House, outside of Washington D.C. It’s late for that. We need independent organizing in this country to change the balance of forces, to change the nature of political power, and to find a way to have a different debate because, with all due respect, this president is not going to lead us to the promised land. We have a blueprint of cruelty in the GOP plan. Let us not forget that they never had a mandate to do what they’re doing. It was a lousy economy and joblessness, not a desire for big spending cuts, that got them elected in 2010.
But this president is seeking reelection. This president is charting his own course, a course that sadly has demobilized the base that elected him.
It’s insanity that military spending constitutes 58% of the discretionary spending budget. We have, in inflation-adjusted terms, a military budget that’s larger than it was during the Bush years or the Cold War. That’s insanity. And two wars costing about 120 billion dollars a year.
We can do better. But it’s going to require people outside of Washington working with allies inside Congress. And we can say to them, ‘Enough.' There’s a disconnect between what’s going on in Washington and what this country needs. "
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The President's Chronic Capitulation Syndrome II
The link below goes to an incisive L.A. Times article from December about how the President's penchant for appeasement is driving some of the largest Democratic donors away from the party.
Or. as one of them said, "He's got many great qualities, but he is not a fighter. I've met with many donors, and the level of disappointment is extreme."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/09/nation/la-na-dem-donors-20101210
Or, to quote Jim Hightower, "President Obama suffers from a debilitating disease: Chronic Capitulation Syndrome." And, quoting George Soros: "I don't mind losing a fight. But I do mind losing without a fight."
I know that President Obama regards himself as the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan (which might well be a significant part of the problem in and of itself) in that he thinks he's capable of forging alliances with even the most strident forces on the other side of the aisle. But he forgets two primary differences between now and then:
(1) When the extremely conservative Reagan "compromised" with the Democrats of his day, he was dealing with an essentially reasonable opposition party. By contrast, there is nothing "reasonable" about today's incarnation of the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell said it all when he essentially described his understanding of "compromise" as getting everything he wants while relinquishing nothing. Doesn't quite sound like a penultimate "negotiating partner" to me.
(2) If President Obama were writing on a clean slate, compromise might not be such a bad thing. But he's not. His presidency was preceded by eight years of unimpeded, unvarnished far right wing policies and enactments. So, by seeking and achieving only "compromise" legislation, all Obama is doing is holding serve. He is not making any effort to overcome the lead his opponent previously amassed, which is, as a result, becoming insurmountable.
Even worse, when it comes to civil liberties, Obama has not only failed to abolish George W. Bush's abhorrent, medieval policies, but, in most instances, he has enthusiastically followed them and, in some, he has actually made them worse!
But that will be the subject of a later post(s).
Or. as one of them said, "He's got many great qualities, but he is not a fighter. I've met with many donors, and the level of disappointment is extreme."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/09/nation/la-na-dem-donors-20101210
Or, to quote Jim Hightower, "President Obama suffers from a debilitating disease: Chronic Capitulation Syndrome." And, quoting George Soros: "I don't mind losing a fight. But I do mind losing without a fight."
I know that President Obama regards himself as the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan (which might well be a significant part of the problem in and of itself) in that he thinks he's capable of forging alliances with even the most strident forces on the other side of the aisle. But he forgets two primary differences between now and then:
(1) When the extremely conservative Reagan "compromised" with the Democrats of his day, he was dealing with an essentially reasonable opposition party. By contrast, there is nothing "reasonable" about today's incarnation of the Republican Party. Mitch McConnell said it all when he essentially described his understanding of "compromise" as getting everything he wants while relinquishing nothing. Doesn't quite sound like a penultimate "negotiating partner" to me.
(2) If President Obama were writing on a clean slate, compromise might not be such a bad thing. But he's not. His presidency was preceded by eight years of unimpeded, unvarnished far right wing policies and enactments. So, by seeking and achieving only "compromise" legislation, all Obama is doing is holding serve. He is not making any effort to overcome the lead his opponent previously amassed, which is, as a result, becoming insurmountable.
Even worse, when it comes to civil liberties, Obama has not only failed to abolish George W. Bush's abhorrent, medieval policies, but, in most instances, he has enthusiastically followed them and, in some, he has actually made them worse!
But that will be the subject of a later post(s).
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Obama's Malady: CHRONIC CAPITULATION SYNDROME
"That seems to be the problem for a group in Washington called Obama and the Plunkers. They don't know how to handle the tough pieces of political music. Not that they lack the talent, but they lack the courage, the drive, and (let's admit it) the audacity. Rather than stretching the limits and reaching for greatness, they stick with conventional, middle-of-the-road stuff that has a nice beat, but fails to excite, much less satisfy.
"After two years of watching Obama in action, we can now see him for who he is: Bill Clinton. Yet another corporate Democrat who refuses to rock the boat. Obama is willing to push big issues onto the national table, and that's a major positive. But then he immediately removes from the table the big solutions needed to deal with those issues: Medicare for all? We can't even consider that. Restructure and decentralize Wall Street? No, no, we'll just write new regulations for the big banks. And so forth.
"Granted he is faced with a gang of congressional Republicans who are nothing but disgusting political saboteurs. They've gone all out to kill even his most modest reforms. But at some point (months ago), he needed to stop extending his hand to these political thugs, clench it into an FDR-sized fist, and pop them right in the snout. Unfortunately, it appears that Obama suffers from a debilitating governing malady: CHRONIC CAPITULATION SYNDROME." -
Jim Hightower from "The Hightower Lowdown"
"After two years of watching Obama in action, we can now see him for who he is: Bill Clinton. Yet another corporate Democrat who refuses to rock the boat. Obama is willing to push big issues onto the national table, and that's a major positive. But then he immediately removes from the table the big solutions needed to deal with those issues: Medicare for all? We can't even consider that. Restructure and decentralize Wall Street? No, no, we'll just write new regulations for the big banks. And so forth.
"Granted he is faced with a gang of congressional Republicans who are nothing but disgusting political saboteurs. They've gone all out to kill even his most modest reforms. But at some point (months ago), he needed to stop extending his hand to these political thugs, clench it into an FDR-sized fist, and pop them right in the snout. Unfortunately, it appears that Obama suffers from a debilitating governing malady: CHRONIC CAPITULATION SYNDROME." -
Jim Hightower from "The Hightower Lowdown"
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tribute to Keith
Okay, I admit it. It's only been two days, and I'm already Jonesing for Keith. Big time. No knock on any of the rest of the MSNBC lineup, but there is simply no one like Keith, and there isn't going to be either. Whatever he winds up doing, he will not have another five-days a week show like "Countdown."
Of all people, a right wing pundit described the uniqueness of Keith perfectly by comparing "The Last Word" with "Countdown":
Lawrence O'Donnell can be every bit as acerbic as Keith, and their politics are pretty similar, but there is one major difference between the two shows: In addition to being informative and extremely cathartic, Keith's show was enormously entertaining and magnificently produced.
I absolutely loved "Worst Persons." But, more importantly, try as I might, I can't think of a single policy statement that Keith ever made with which I disagreed.
When he became emotional while describing some injustice (read: The Jan Brewer death panels), I became every bit as angry as he obviously was.
Which reminds me: With Keith gone, who is going to have guests like the Arizonans who will soon die because Brewer won't release readily available funds for lifesaving transplant surgeries? Or that child who was facing a very premature death because his parents' insurance company found a loophole to avoid paying for the medical care that he so desperately needed? Who will give families like these a voice now that Keith is gone?
And then, of course, there were Keith's "Special Comments." I remember thinking on more than one occasion that, if everyone shared Keith's beliefs and values, we would be living in damn close to a perfect world. I've read criticisms of Keith going "over the top" during some of those “Special Comments.” I never thought he did. If he eviscerated somebody, it was invariably an individual who richly deserved it.
Having lost one parent over a cruelly prolonged period of time, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how Keith handled the loss of both of his parents within such a short time of each other with such elegance and grace.
But he did a hell of a lot more than that. By broadcasting on some of his days off from the sidewalk outside the hospital where his Dad was living out his last weeks, and then days, Keith actually made us feel like we were part of his family. And his constant exposition about how he couldn't even imagine going through what he was experiencing with his Dad if he didn't have the financial resources to pay for the best health care available provided daily reminders of the inequities that so many American suffer because of the incomprehensible refusal of our government to heed the life and death necessity of providing universal health care to all Americans.
I know, Keith was supposed to be "difficult to work with." He also had a reputation for being arrogant and condescending, a reputation that he himself acknowledged and poked fun at during a bit in which he "interviewed" himself on adjoining screens.
But, for a guy who supposedly was so difficult to work with, you get the distinct impression that all of his colleagues on MSNBC loved him. (With the exception of Joe Scarborough, I imagine.)
I also know that Keith remains extremely close to Dan Patrick, with whom he shared the mike on Sports Center for years. So, you sort of get the impression that, while Keith might well have been difficult for his superiors to deal with (most probably when they tried to control and/or confine him), when it came to his colleagues, I never heard a single complaint or detected so much as a tinge of animosity toward him.
MSNBC is what it is today strictly because of Keith. He personally brought Rachel and Lawrence on board which turned the station into a liberal network and thereby paved the way for Ed and Cenk to join the party. And, having watched "Hardball" judiciously for ten years, I can say without equivocation that Chris has moved WAY to the left of where he was before Keith arrived on the scene.
Finally, without Keith, who in the world is going to police the Fox Propaganda Channel and their Republican minions? Every time one of Fox's "commentators" told one of their prodigious amount of bald faced lies, i.e. every day, Keith was there at the ready, video in hand, showing the world a clip of the right wing mendacity purveyor directly contradicting himself on camera a few months earlier.
I'm sure we'll see Keith once in awhile; he seems ready made for Hollywood at this stage of his career. But the entertainment we were guaranteed at 5:00 p.m. every day (Pacific Time) is gone forever. However, that's the least of our concerns.
What bothers me most is that, without Keith, who will give"ordinary" Americans a voice on the national stage when they are literally being killed by Republican/Corporate greed, selfishness, and disinterest? And where will our toughest cop be the next time Sean Hannity trots out his latest canard or Glenn Beck escapes from the asylum again?
Keith will be perfectly fine wherever he goes and whatever he does. But each of the rest of us will be somewhat diminished because of his absence. And this country as a whole will be even more mean spirited, unfair, and unkind than it otherwise has been since the election of Ronald Reagan.
Will MSNBC still be the voice of liberalism on basic cable? Of course it will, and the remaining hosts and hostess are all quality commentators with hearts of gold. But, without Keith ... well, let me put it like this:
The 1961 Yankees won an incredible number of baseball games (109). They had a terrific lineup from top to bottom. Players like Roger Maris, Bobby Richardson, Tony Kubek, Elston Howard, Yogi Berra, Moose Skowron, and many others.
But how would they have done without Mickey Mantle hitting cleanup? If you subtract Mantle from the equation, those Yankees would still have had a hell of a lineup and a hell of a team.
But would they have won 109 games or anywhere close to that number?
Not a chance.
Of all people, a right wing pundit described the uniqueness of Keith perfectly by comparing "The Last Word" with "Countdown":
Lawrence O'Donnell can be every bit as acerbic as Keith, and their politics are pretty similar, but there is one major difference between the two shows: In addition to being informative and extremely cathartic, Keith's show was enormously entertaining and magnificently produced.
I absolutely loved "Worst Persons." But, more importantly, try as I might, I can't think of a single policy statement that Keith ever made with which I disagreed.
When he became emotional while describing some injustice (read: The Jan Brewer death panels), I became every bit as angry as he obviously was.
Which reminds me: With Keith gone, who is going to have guests like the Arizonans who will soon die because Brewer won't release readily available funds for lifesaving transplant surgeries? Or that child who was facing a very premature death because his parents' insurance company found a loophole to avoid paying for the medical care that he so desperately needed? Who will give families like these a voice now that Keith is gone?
And then, of course, there were Keith's "Special Comments." I remember thinking on more than one occasion that, if everyone shared Keith's beliefs and values, we would be living in damn close to a perfect world. I've read criticisms of Keith going "over the top" during some of those “Special Comments.” I never thought he did. If he eviscerated somebody, it was invariably an individual who richly deserved it.
Having lost one parent over a cruelly prolonged period of time, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how Keith handled the loss of both of his parents within such a short time of each other with such elegance and grace.
But he did a hell of a lot more than that. By broadcasting on some of his days off from the sidewalk outside the hospital where his Dad was living out his last weeks, and then days, Keith actually made us feel like we were part of his family. And his constant exposition about how he couldn't even imagine going through what he was experiencing with his Dad if he didn't have the financial resources to pay for the best health care available provided daily reminders of the inequities that so many American suffer because of the incomprehensible refusal of our government to heed the life and death necessity of providing universal health care to all Americans.
I know, Keith was supposed to be "difficult to work with." He also had a reputation for being arrogant and condescending, a reputation that he himself acknowledged and poked fun at during a bit in which he "interviewed" himself on adjoining screens.
But, for a guy who supposedly was so difficult to work with, you get the distinct impression that all of his colleagues on MSNBC loved him. (With the exception of Joe Scarborough, I imagine.)
I also know that Keith remains extremely close to Dan Patrick, with whom he shared the mike on Sports Center for years. So, you sort of get the impression that, while Keith might well have been difficult for his superiors to deal with (most probably when they tried to control and/or confine him), when it came to his colleagues, I never heard a single complaint or detected so much as a tinge of animosity toward him.
MSNBC is what it is today strictly because of Keith. He personally brought Rachel and Lawrence on board which turned the station into a liberal network and thereby paved the way for Ed and Cenk to join the party. And, having watched "Hardball" judiciously for ten years, I can say without equivocation that Chris has moved WAY to the left of where he was before Keith arrived on the scene.
Finally, without Keith, who in the world is going to police the Fox Propaganda Channel and their Republican minions? Every time one of Fox's "commentators" told one of their prodigious amount of bald faced lies, i.e. every day, Keith was there at the ready, video in hand, showing the world a clip of the right wing mendacity purveyor directly contradicting himself on camera a few months earlier.
I'm sure we'll see Keith once in awhile; he seems ready made for Hollywood at this stage of his career. But the entertainment we were guaranteed at 5:00 p.m. every day (Pacific Time) is gone forever. However, that's the least of our concerns.
What bothers me most is that, without Keith, who will give"ordinary" Americans a voice on the national stage when they are literally being killed by Republican/Corporate greed, selfishness, and disinterest? And where will our toughest cop be the next time Sean Hannity trots out his latest canard or Glenn Beck escapes from the asylum again?
Keith will be perfectly fine wherever he goes and whatever he does. But each of the rest of us will be somewhat diminished because of his absence. And this country as a whole will be even more mean spirited, unfair, and unkind than it otherwise has been since the election of Ronald Reagan.
Will MSNBC still be the voice of liberalism on basic cable? Of course it will, and the remaining hosts and hostess are all quality commentators with hearts of gold. But, without Keith ... well, let me put it like this:
The 1961 Yankees won an incredible number of baseball games (109). They had a terrific lineup from top to bottom. Players like Roger Maris, Bobby Richardson, Tony Kubek, Elston Howard, Yogi Berra, Moose Skowron, and many others.
But how would they have done without Mickey Mantle hitting cleanup? If you subtract Mantle from the equation, those Yankees would still have had a hell of a lineup and a hell of a team.
But would they have won 109 games or anywhere close to that number?
Not a chance.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Chris Matthews Describes Michele Bachmann as a "Balloon Head" and Observes That "She Just Doesn't Know Anything."
"I have said before that Michele Bachmann has zombie-like qualities. I thought that she was under hypnosis or something, but it turns out that she just doesn't know anything.
This weekend, she said that basically we did not have slavery after the days of the Founding Fathers because they were so great, they managed somehow that we didn't notice to get rid of slavery. That's an incredible statement.
The American people lost 600,000 lives in the civil war, the worst catastrophe in our history, because of slavery continuing well past the mid part of the 19th century, and this person - and you have to use the word, 'balloon-head' - said that slavery was eradicated in the days of the Founding Fathers?
People like this should not be in politics. They didn't go to first grade in history. What is this person doing on the national stage? Go back to grade school. Start around the 3rd grade, and you might be able to catch up with the class.
Anyway, she is going out tonight as the spokesperson for the Tea Parties. They must be really desperate." - Chris Matthews 1/25/2011
This weekend, she said that basically we did not have slavery after the days of the Founding Fathers because they were so great, they managed somehow that we didn't notice to get rid of slavery. That's an incredible statement.
The American people lost 600,000 lives in the civil war, the worst catastrophe in our history, because of slavery continuing well past the mid part of the 19th century, and this person - and you have to use the word, 'balloon-head' - said that slavery was eradicated in the days of the Founding Fathers?
People like this should not be in politics. They didn't go to first grade in history. What is this person doing on the national stage? Go back to grade school. Start around the 3rd grade, and you might be able to catch up with the class.
Anyway, she is going out tonight as the spokesperson for the Tea Parties. They must be really desperate." - Chris Matthews 1/25/2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The "Ominous" Disappearance of Keith Olbermann
By Robert Parry
January 22, 2011
Keith Olbermann’s abrupt departure from MSNBC should be another wake-up call to American progressives about the fragile foothold that liberal-oriented fare now has for only a few hours on one corporate cable network.
Though Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s top-rated news show, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” he disappeared from the network with only the briefest of good-byes. Certainly, the callous treatment of Olbermann by the MSNBC brass would never be replicated by Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Fox News toward its media stars.
At Fox News, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far greater leeway to pitch right-wing ideas and even to organize pro-Republican political events. Last November, Olbermann was suspended for two days for making donations to three Democratic candidates, including Arizona’s Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson.
Now, with Olbermann’s permanent departure on Friday, the remainder of MSNBC’s liberal evening line-up, which also includes Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell (who will fill Olbermann’s 8 p.m. slot), must face the reality that any sustained friction with management could mean the bum’s rush for them, too.
The liberal hosts also must remember that MSNBC experimented with liberal-oriented programming only after all other programming strategies, including trying to out-Fox Fox, had failed – and only after it became clear that President George W. Bush’s popularity was slipping.
In nearly eight years at “Countdown,” Olbermann was the brave soul who charted the course for other mainstream media types to be even mildly critical of Bush. Olbermann modeled his style after legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow, who stood up to excesses by communist-hunting Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, even borrowing Murrow’s close: “Good night, good luck.”
But MSNBC’s parent company, General Electric, never seemed comfortable with Olbermann’s role as critic of the Bush administration, nor with the sniping between Olbermann and his Fox News rival, O’Reilly, who retaliated by attacking corporate GE on his widely watched show.
In 2009, the New York Times reported that GE responded to this pressure by having GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt strike a deal with Murdoch that sought to muzzle Olbermann’s criticism of O’Reilly, in exchange for O’Reilly muting his attacks on GE.
Olbermann later disputed that there ever was a truce and the back-and-forth soon resumed. But it was a reminder that GE, a charter member of the military-industrial complex and a major international conglomerate, had bigger corporate interests at play than the ratings for MSNBC’s evening programming.
So, too, will Comcast, the cable giant that is assuming a majority stake in NBC Universal, which controls MSNBC. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that sources at MSNBC quashed speculation that Olbermann’s departure was connected to the Comcast takeover, which was approved by federal regulators this week.
Media Orphans
The troubling message to progressives is that they remain essentially orphans when it comes to having their political interests addressed by any corporate news outlet. While the Right has built its own vast media infrastructure – reaching from newspapers, magazines and books to radio, TV and the Internet – the Left generally has treated media as a low priority.
Though some on the Left saw hope in the MSNBC evening line-up, the larger reality was that even inside the world of NBC News, the other content ranged from the pro-Establishment centrism of anchor Brian Williams to the center-right views of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to CNBC’s mix of free-market extremism and corporate boosterism.
While gratified to be given a few hours each night on MSNBC, the Left surely had nothing to compare with Murdoch’s News Corporation and its longstanding commitment to a right-wing perspective on Fox News and News Corp.'s many other print and electronic outlets.
As I wrote in an article last November, “Olbermann and the other liberal hosts are essentially on borrowed time, much the way Phil Donahue was before getting axed in the run-up to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, when MSNBC wanted to position itself as a ‘patriotic’ war booster.
“Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.
"For the suits at headquarters, it’s just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.”
Those corporate priorities also were underscored in the pre-Iraq invasion days when MSNBC dumped Donahue, then the network’s biggest draw. But Donahue had allowed on some guests critical of Bush’s planned war.
After the invasion in March 2003, MSNBC’s coverage was barely discernable from that of Fox News, with both networks superimposing American flags on scenes from Iraq and producing pro-war promotional segments showing heroic images of U.S. soldiers being welcomed by happy Iraqis (with no scenes of the war’s carnage). [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Matrix."]
The ongoing significance of America’s media imbalance is that it gives the Right enormous capabilities to control the national debate, not only during election campaigns but year-round. Republicans can deploy what intelligence operatives call “agit-propaganda,” stirring controversies that rile up the public and redound to the GOP’s advantage.
These techniques have proved so effective that not even gifted political speakers, whether the savvy Bill Clinton or the eloquent Barack Obama, have had any consistent success in countering the angry cacophony that the Right can orchestrate.
One week, the Right's theme is “Obamacare’s death panels”; another week, it’s “the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The Democrats are left scrambling to respond – and their responses, in turn, become fodder for critical commentary, as too wimpy or too defensive or too something.
The mainstream media and progressives often join in this criticism, wondering why Obama let himself get blind-sided or why he wasn’t tougher or why he can’t control the message. For the Right and the Republicans, it’s a win-win-win, as the right-wing base is energized, more public doubts are raised about the President, and the Left is further demoralized.
Like Clinton before him, Obama has reacted to this political/media landscape by shifting rightward toward the “center,” further alienating his liberal base. Many on the Left respond by denouncing Obama as a sell-out and deciding to either sit out elections or vote for a third party.
This dynamic has been instrumental to the Right’s political victories over the past three decades even as those policies – from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush – have worsened the lives of middle- and working-class Americans.
The sudden disappearance of Keith Olbermann from television is another ominous omen that this dynamic will continue.
January 22, 2011
Keith Olbermann’s abrupt departure from MSNBC should be another wake-up call to American progressives about the fragile foothold that liberal-oriented fare now has for only a few hours on one corporate cable network.
Though Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s top-rated news show, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” he disappeared from the network with only the briefest of good-byes. Certainly, the callous treatment of Olbermann by the MSNBC brass would never be replicated by Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Fox News toward its media stars.
At Fox News, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far greater leeway to pitch right-wing ideas and even to organize pro-Republican political events. Last November, Olbermann was suspended for two days for making donations to three Democratic candidates, including Arizona’s Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson.
Now, with Olbermann’s permanent departure on Friday, the remainder of MSNBC’s liberal evening line-up, which also includes Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell (who will fill Olbermann’s 8 p.m. slot), must face the reality that any sustained friction with management could mean the bum’s rush for them, too.
The liberal hosts also must remember that MSNBC experimented with liberal-oriented programming only after all other programming strategies, including trying to out-Fox Fox, had failed – and only after it became clear that President George W. Bush’s popularity was slipping.
In nearly eight years at “Countdown,” Olbermann was the brave soul who charted the course for other mainstream media types to be even mildly critical of Bush. Olbermann modeled his style after legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow, who stood up to excesses by communist-hunting Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, even borrowing Murrow’s close: “Good night, good luck.”
But MSNBC’s parent company, General Electric, never seemed comfortable with Olbermann’s role as critic of the Bush administration, nor with the sniping between Olbermann and his Fox News rival, O’Reilly, who retaliated by attacking corporate GE on his widely watched show.
In 2009, the New York Times reported that GE responded to this pressure by having GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt strike a deal with Murdoch that sought to muzzle Olbermann’s criticism of O’Reilly, in exchange for O’Reilly muting his attacks on GE.
Olbermann later disputed that there ever was a truce and the back-and-forth soon resumed. But it was a reminder that GE, a charter member of the military-industrial complex and a major international conglomerate, had bigger corporate interests at play than the ratings for MSNBC’s evening programming.
So, too, will Comcast, the cable giant that is assuming a majority stake in NBC Universal, which controls MSNBC. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that sources at MSNBC quashed speculation that Olbermann’s departure was connected to the Comcast takeover, which was approved by federal regulators this week.
Media Orphans
The troubling message to progressives is that they remain essentially orphans when it comes to having their political interests addressed by any corporate news outlet. While the Right has built its own vast media infrastructure – reaching from newspapers, magazines and books to radio, TV and the Internet – the Left generally has treated media as a low priority.
Though some on the Left saw hope in the MSNBC evening line-up, the larger reality was that even inside the world of NBC News, the other content ranged from the pro-Establishment centrism of anchor Brian Williams to the center-right views of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to CNBC’s mix of free-market extremism and corporate boosterism.
While gratified to be given a few hours each night on MSNBC, the Left surely had nothing to compare with Murdoch’s News Corporation and its longstanding commitment to a right-wing perspective on Fox News and News Corp.'s many other print and electronic outlets.
As I wrote in an article last November, “Olbermann and the other liberal hosts are essentially on borrowed time, much the way Phil Donahue was before getting axed in the run-up to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, when MSNBC wanted to position itself as a ‘patriotic’ war booster.
“Unlike News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, who stands solidly behind the right-wing propaganda on Fox News, the corporate owners of MSNBC have no similar commitment to the work of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz.
"For the suits at headquarters, it’s just a balancing act between the ratings that those shows get and the trouble they cause as Republicans reclaim control of Washington.”
Those corporate priorities also were underscored in the pre-Iraq invasion days when MSNBC dumped Donahue, then the network’s biggest draw. But Donahue had allowed on some guests critical of Bush’s planned war.
After the invasion in March 2003, MSNBC’s coverage was barely discernable from that of Fox News, with both networks superimposing American flags on scenes from Iraq and producing pro-war promotional segments showing heroic images of U.S. soldiers being welcomed by happy Iraqis (with no scenes of the war’s carnage). [See Consortiumnews.com's "America's Matrix."]
The ongoing significance of America’s media imbalance is that it gives the Right enormous capabilities to control the national debate, not only during election campaigns but year-round. Republicans can deploy what intelligence operatives call “agit-propaganda,” stirring controversies that rile up the public and redound to the GOP’s advantage.
These techniques have proved so effective that not even gifted political speakers, whether the savvy Bill Clinton or the eloquent Barack Obama, have had any consistent success in countering the angry cacophony that the Right can orchestrate.
One week, the Right's theme is “Obamacare’s death panels”; another week, it’s “the “Ground Zero Mosque.” The Democrats are left scrambling to respond – and their responses, in turn, become fodder for critical commentary, as too wimpy or too defensive or too something.
The mainstream media and progressives often join in this criticism, wondering why Obama let himself get blind-sided or why he wasn’t tougher or why he can’t control the message. For the Right and the Republicans, it’s a win-win-win, as the right-wing base is energized, more public doubts are raised about the President, and the Left is further demoralized.
Like Clinton before him, Obama has reacted to this political/media landscape by shifting rightward toward the “center,” further alienating his liberal base. Many on the Left respond by denouncing Obama as a sell-out and deciding to either sit out elections or vote for a third party.
This dynamic has been instrumental to the Right’s political victories over the past three decades even as those policies – from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush – have worsened the lives of middle- and working-class Americans.
The sudden disappearance of Keith Olbermann from television is another ominous omen that this dynamic will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)