All e-mail received by The Seventh Sense is considered intended for publication. Please don't send attachments.
Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments.
URL's within the body of the comment must be in html format or they will be deleted as they skew the site.
At a press conference, two dozen Tea Party activists presented their proposals — I’m sorry, their “demands” — for the new state legislative session. Among them are sweeping changes to school materials. Like this:
The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”
Um.... okay. But the founders DID, uh, "intrude" on the Indians (to say the least), and they DID own slaves, while at the same time signing (or writing) documents that "all men are created equal".
* Britney Spears - who used to be famous - is engaged. Uh, to be married. Uh, again. She's 16 years old still.
* Naughty Republicans -- the mayor of Grandaven, Mississippi for 14 years -- a guy named Greg Davis -- re-ran for mayor in 2008 on a family values platform. You know where this is going, right? He's in trouble now for using thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on liquor, expensive dinners at a local restaurant, and a visit to an adult store catering to gay men. The latter revelation forced him to admit that he is gay.
* Naughty Tebaggers -- Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler was taken into custody Thursday morning after he tried to check in for a Delta flight to Detroit with a locked gun box containing a Glock pistol and 19 cartridges of ammunition, Queens prosecutors said. [CBS News]
* The Florida Family Association can suck it. Seriously. The new show on TLC, called American Muslim, portrays Muslims in America as normal everyday Americans with normal everyday American problems. The Florida Family Association objects to the show... because it portrays Muslims in America as normal everyday Americans with normal everyday American problems. Apparently, you can now protest stuff because it ain't bigotted enough for you. Oh, and screw you Loew's.
* Every once in a while, Congress will do something good -- like ban traditional incandescent light bulbs (which are inefficient and hurt the environment). Unfortunately, the good die young.
Fun infographic (click to enlarge). I think it oversimplifies both movements, and adds to the notion that they are competing movements (in my view, the two movements overlap in many important respects), but it's still interesting:
And when you factor in disfavorability, the Occupy Wall Street folks have a huge net positive, compared to the tea party.
Oddly, there are reports that Tea Party organizations are trying to distance themselves from the Occupy Wall Street movement:
“The left is trying to create a counter force to the tea party, but it’s almost laughable that anyone is comparing the two, because they’re totally different,” said Sal Russo, chief strategist for the Tea Party Express.
But the two movements are not opposite:
“We’re both populist movements, but this is not an answer to the tea party,” asserted Kevin Zeese, an organizer of an anti-war group that has affiliated itself with the Occupy D.C. protests. “This has nothing to do with the tea party. We welcome them to come participate if they share our anger about economic insecurity.”
Meanwhile, Reuters has a new story that breathlessly concludes that George Soros is behind the entire #OccupyWallStreet venture because - wait for it - some kid saw a poster in a cafe criticizing Wall Street, the poster was made by a small group of arch-liberals in Canada, the arch-liberals in Canada receive a small amount of their funding (less than 5%) from the Tides foundation, and the Tides foundation receives some of their funding from George Soros.
Seriously, read the Reuters article. The "connection" between Soros and OWS is that tenuous.
A lot of comparisons are being made between these two movements. And if one were to watch the media, it certainly looks like the fault lines are drawn, i.e.,:
Tea Party = loved by Fox News = conservative Occupy Wall Street = treated with disdain by Fox News = liberal
But some are noting that the OSW movement really isn't hippies in a drum circle with union guys giving speeches. It seems to hae drawn libertarians as well.
But why?
Here's why:
What’s wrong's with the country? The unity of government and corporate power against people’s freedom and prosperity.
That's a message that both movements can rally behind.
Is It Serious?: The worst in Texas history. The wildfires, which can now be observed from space, move incredibly fast, as this video from the Texas Park & Wildlife people shows:
Have these fires been around for a while? Oh yes, this is wildfire season - it's been going on for months.
(Reuters) - Texas lawmakers are set to slash funding for the agency responsible for fighting wildfires in the midst of a historic wildfire season in which some 2.5 million acres have burned.
The Texas Forest Service faces almost $34 million in budget cuts over the next two years, roughly a third of the agency's total budget. The cuts are in both the House and Senate versions of the proposed state budget.
The Forest Service has about 200 firefighters and offers assistance grants to volunteer fire departments. Assistance grants are likely to take the biggest hit.
I swear to God... these people are so anti-government they're all going to end up dead.
As for Obama's speech next Thursday, your absence will mean there's just one less "Deadbeat Dad" in the joint session of Congress. I think Obama will muddle through without you.
You see, tea party people... it's not enough just to be angry. You actually have to DO things once you are in a position of power. This guy found out the hard way.
CONCORD, N.H. - Embattled New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Jack Kimball resigned last night, ending a bitter internal battle that pitted Tea Party activists against long-time Republicans.
“I have come to the conclusion that even during a vote if I were to win, and I know the odds are against that, it would be next to impossible for me to fulfill my obligations as chairman moving forward given what’s been against me,’’ Kimball said before the Republican Party’s Executive Committee’s scheduled vote on whether to oust him.
Kimball continued: “Tonight, sadly, very sadly because I’m not sure this is helping our party, I’m not going to become an obstacle in our party. I am tendering my resignation as state committee chairman of New Hampshire.’’
***
Kimball, a businessman and former Tea Party organizer, ran for governor in 2010 but lost the Republican primary. He was elected party chairman in January, beating a candidate favored by the party establishment.
Since then, Republicans have blamed Kimball for lackluster fund-raising and several special-election defeats.
Kimball fired the party’s executive director and had not yet set a budget for the party. Some activists say Kimball has not reached out to advisers beyond a small cadre of conservatives, though Kimball has said that he has tried to unify the party.
New Hampshire’s leading Republicans - US Representatives Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta, US Senator Kelly Ayotte, state Senate President Peter Bragdon, and state House Speaker William O’Brien - had called on Kimball to resign.
Kimball was far removed from the Judd Greggs and Sununus of the regular GOP (who themselves are pretty far removed from traditional Yankee republicanism). Oh, well. Don't let the door....., etc.
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
It's a ransom. Republicans threatened to crash the economy, on purpose, unless a series of radical demands were met. And for the most part, those demands were met. The White House fact sheet is pretty detailed and worth reviewing, but here’s the long and the short of it:
According to officials in both parties, the deal would raise the debt limit in two stages. The first increase would total $900 billion, with the Treasury gaining access to $400 billion in additional borrowing authority immediately. The other $500 billion would come later this fall — unless two-thirds of the members of both chambers of Congress objected — permitting the Treasury to pay the bills through early next year.
The second increase would raise the debt limit by at least $1.2 trillion, also subject to a resolution of congressional disapproval. That process would place the entire burden for a debt-limit increase on the White House, because Congress is likely to vote to disapprove the request, forcing Obama to veto it. But the process virtually guarantees that the debt limit will rise, because Republicans lack the votes in the Senate to override Obama’s veto.
The agreement would also cut agency spending by roughly $900 billion over the next decade and create a new legislative committee to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in additional savings by the end of this year.
To clarify an important point, the debt ceiling increases that cover us through the end of next year will occur in phases, but there will only be one vote.
That said, there are a few noteworthy angles: (1) if the trigger kicks in, Medicaid and Social Security would be walled off and protected, and while the domestic cuts could affect Medicare, the cuts would be limited to Medicare providers, not beneficiaries; (2) triggered cuts for the 2012 fiscal year are practically non-existent, so it won’t hurt the economy in the short term; (3) a surprising amount of the overall deal targets the bloated Pentagon budget, which makes more painful domestic cuts less necessary; (4) there won’t be another debt-ceiling fight until 2013, giving the GOP one fewer hostages to grab for a while.
And most importantly, everyone lives to fight another day.
See anything in there about tex revenues? Of course not. Yet there is not a single serious economist who sees it as possible to continue with the incredibly low taxes we have. And there’s nothing in this deal to promote economic growth and nothing to create jobs.
The Wall Street Journal may call it "a Tea Party triumph", but I think the entire process we have seen over the past week only shows the extent to which our government is dysfunctional.
Just because a drag race doesn't end with someone getting killed, it doesn't mean that drag racing is a safe thing to do.
Even though it looks like Congress will raise the debt ceiling, this is no way to run a government.
Many pundits have pointed to the crisis over the debt ceiling as further evidence that Washington is dysfunctional. They say the inability of President Obama and congressional Democrats and Republicans to reach a deal is another example of how partisan polarization, political incivility and 24-hour media have left our nation's leaders unable to make deals. In their minds, we should not be surprised about what has happened. This was virtually inevitable.
While placing battles in historical perspective, it is also important to recognize when we are seeing something new. The "Washington is dysfunctional" argument has confused chronic institutional problems with the partisan strategy that has been used by the GOP.
The trigger to this crisis, which threatens the health of the nation's economy, was an aggressive move by tea party Republicans -- hesitantly supported by the House leadership -- to hold routine debt ceiling legislation hostage until they received exactly the spending cuts they demanded. Lacking the votes they need for a clean vote on them through the budget process, they have instead forced everyone's hand. Obama has little leverage to do anything but agree to their cuts.
***
What we are seeing with tea party Republicans is something even more dramatic. The new Republicans have been the driving force behind the decision to prevent a routine vote on the debt ceiling -- a routine vote with potentially devastating financial consequences -- to obtain massive cuts in federal spending.
When Obama and many Democrats moved toward their position, they were also unwilling to compromise on how to reduce the deficit. When the president proposed that revenue-raising measures should be part of the package, they refused to budge. House Speaker John Boehner barely received the number of votes he needed for his legislation late last week.
To be sure, this is not the first time the political parties have used the debt ceiling to make a point. In 1966, for example, every House Republican but one (former Speaker Joseph Martin) voted against raising the debt ceiling because, they charged, President Lyndon Johnson was lying about the size of the deficit.
"I think the president probably in a couple of months will come up and say that to win the war in Vietnam, we need a tax increase," warned Missouri Republican Thomas Curtis. "I would much prefer to increase taxes to place a further burden on the national debt." More recently, some Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, spoke against raising the debt ceiling to protest President George W. Bush's policies.
The difference is that this time around, tea party Republicans have been willing to follow through on the threat, and they have control of the House. This is what has made the situation so dangerous. Previous opposition to raising the debt ceiling has been primarily symbolic.
Usually, the politicians making the argument knew the vote would happen anyway, or they were prepared to change their mind in the end. Tea party Republicans are not kidding. They forced their own leadership to bring the nation to the brink of disaster. They are not doing this through the normal budget process, and they are taking no prisoners.
More than ever, it is incumbent on the Republican leadership to push back against its own members who use these tactics. Even Boehner has seemed to be aware of the economic and political dangers that loom. One can see throughout this debate that he was at pains trying to contain the right wing of his party.
The consequences of default would be potentially disastrous for all Americans, red and blue, and recovery would take a long time. There are other ways Republicans can push for their objectives. In the future, they must do so.
House Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling plan doesn't have the votes to pass, but let's remember (because it will be distorted in the future), that he doesn't have REPUBLICAN votes. It's the Tea Party people he can't bring on board. Remember that when Democrats get blamed.
RELATED: Country about to go belly-up, still high unemployment, etc., but fear not American... the SMURFS are on Wall Street.
Grownups, please.
RELATED: As if to preface what I say, here's Time's Joe Klein yesterday, before last night's breakdown in the House.
[S]o, here we are. Our nation's economy and international reputation as the world's presiding grownup has already been badly damaged. It is a self-inflicted wound of monumental stupidity. I am usually willing to acknowledge that Democrats can be as silly, and hidebound, as Republicans-but not this time. There is zero equivalence here. The vast majority of Democrats have been more than reasonable, more than willing to accept cuts in some of their most valued programs. [...]
The Republicans have been willing to concede nothing. Their stand means higher interest rates, fewer jobs created and more destroyed, a general weakening of this country's standing in the world. Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive, could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.
That last line was of particular interest, because it echoes a recent point from Nick Kristof. Indeed, the NYTcolumnist recently argued that Republicans represent a kind of domestic threat, possibly undermining the nation's interests from within: "[L]et's remember not only the national security risks posed by Iran and Al Qaeda. Let's also focus on the risks, however unintentional, from domestic zealots."
“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!”
-- Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois), a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility
Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh... owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.
I see. He's not GIVING his kids debt; he's just PUTTING his kids IN debt.
Walsh’s attorney conceded that the congressman owes unpaid child support, but added Walsh has “had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”
The "average guy" isn't a deadbeat dad.
I think maybe our friend Joe ought not lecture Obama on fiscal responsibility... or ANY kind of responsibility for that matter. Which brings us to the quote of the day:
“You know how bad pundits and annoying politicians like to pretend the Federal government is like a household when they talk about how we need to balance our books? If we take that flawed analogy seriously, it does not really make a lot of sense to trust the budget to someone Joe Walsh, a private sector failure who is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, whose condo was foreclosed on, and who is unable to make his child support payments. On a six-figure salary!”
No, I don't care for Bristol either, and no, she isn't a better dancer than Brandy (who was kicked off last week despite having near perfect scores, while Bristol consistently has the lowest cores).... but I keep it in check. Unlike this guy in Wisconsin:
Allegedly set off by Bristol Palin’s appearance on “Dancing with the Stars,” a rural Black Earth man kept police at bay outside his home for 15 hours Monday and Tuesday before he surrendered to police.
Steven N. Cowan, 66, railed at the television as the daughter of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared on the ABC program, his wife told police Monday after she fled from the town of Vermont house, according to a criminal complaint filed in Dane County Circuit Court.
Cowan had also been under stress because of a financial situation and was receiving care for a mental health problem, the complaint states. Cowan’s wife, Janice, told police that her husband had been drinking, but she did not think he was intoxicated.
The complaint charged Cowan with second-degree reckless endangerment.
According to the complaint, Cowan and his wife were watching “Dancing with the Stars” when Cowan jumped up and swore as Bristol Palin appeared, saying something about “the (expletive) politics.” Cowan was upset that a political figure’s daughter was on the show when he didn’t think she was a good dancer, the complaint states.
According to the complaint:
Cowan went upstairs for about 20 minutes and returned, demanding his pistols, which had been taken by his daughter about a month ago for safety reasons. He was carrying a single-shot shotgun, which he loaded and fired into the television.
Cowan continued to yell, demanding his pistols. He re-loaded the shotgun and pointed it toward his wife. She left the house and drove to Black Earth, where she called 911. She told police she was afraid for her safety.
Cowan kept sheriff’s deputies at bay outside his home until 11 a.m. Tuesday, when he surrendered without incident, sheriff’s spokeswoman Elise Schaffer said.
On Tuesday night's results show of "Dancing with the Stars," Bristol Palin advanced to next week's finals of the competition.
During the premiere of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” Sunday night — a boy named Tre who went to school with the Palin kids wrote a status update that read, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska, is failing so hard right now.”
The thing to do, if you're a Palin, is ignore this, but Willow Palin -- the unmarried child who hasn't had a baby yet -- is just a teenager:
The comment sparked an intense response from Willow — who replied on the boy’s wall, “Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I’ve seen pictures of, your disgusting … My sister had a kid and is still hot.”
Willow followed up that comment with another that read, “Tre stfu. Your such a f**got.”
Bristol Palin took the Twinkie out of her mouth to join in:
Bristol Palin also got in on the smacktalk — writing a message to Tre saying, “You’re running your mouth just to talk sh*t.”
Eventually, a message board war erupted — and Bristol took aim at another person named Jon — saying, “You’ll be as successful as my baby daddy, And actually I do work my ass off. I’ve been a single mom for the last two years.”
Yes, she actually said “baby daddy”.
And “work my ass off”? Suuuure. Bristol, you're probably the only person in the history of Dancing With The Stars who actually gains double-digit weight during the run of the show.
Then the class war began:
After more users began to gang up on the Palins, Willow dropped another message that read, “Sorry that you guys are all jealous of my families success and you guys aren’t goin to go anywhere with your lives.”
Sarah Palin, earlier this week, complaining that the Fed's monetary policy will drive up inflation::
All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher."
Yeah, um, except the truth is that Sarah Palin obviously hasn't gone out shopping for groceries anytime recently because inflation is basically non-existent.
But far from "rising significantly," overall prices have moved at historically low rates in recent months -- just 1.1 percent in the past year. The Wall Street Journal's Sudeep Reddy dug deeper into the numbers and found there was even less evidence to back up Palin's specific groceries claim -- inflation for food and beverages was less than .6 percent for the first nine months of the year. That's the slowest rate of price increases for food and drinks since the Labor Department began keeping track in 1968.
About an hour after Palin's post, I made this point in a few sentences and posted them on Palin's Facebook page in the space allotted for readers to participate in the conversations she starts. I wanted to see if any of the other participants would respond, as they sometimes do. They didn't—because within two minutes, my post had been deleted from the steady stream of acclaim from Palin fans congratulating her for tweaking the media and urging her to run for president. It's the first time I've been kicked out of a place of worship.
As far-right ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) arrived for the candidates' final debate, Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org tried to give him a satirical "employee of the month award" from Republicorp, a pseudo-entity created by MoveOn to draw attention to the merger of the GOP and corporate interests.
But before Valle could reach the candidate, Paul supporters grabbed her, forced her to the ground, and at one point, literally stomped on her head as she lay helpless on the curb.
There was apparently some talk from Paul backers that the woman simply fell. The video shows otherwise.
Valle did not initially appear to be seriously injured in the attack -- she spoke to reporters after having been assaulted, complaining of headaches -- but last night, Valle was in a local hospital. Her condition has not yet been reported this morning. We also do not yet know who stomped on her head, though local police are investigating.
I think O'Donnell may have put the final nail in the coffin that is her Senate campaign. With this:
David Brody: How do you see God’s role in all of this because you’ve had some ups and you’ve had some downs. Where is God in all of this? How do you see all of that?
Christine O’Donnell: God is the reason that I’m running. If I didn’t believe that there were a cause greater than myself worth fighting for, if I didn’t believe that it takes a complete dying of self to make things right in this Election cycle I would not be running and when you die to yourself you rely on a power greater than yourself so prayer is what’s gotten us all through. The day that we saw a spike in the polls was a day that some people had a prayer meeting for me that morning for this campaign so I believe that prayer plays a direct role in this campaign and I always ask please pray for the campaign; please pray for our staff; please pray specifically that the eyes of the voters be opened.
I think it is fine for politicians to invoke their faith. It's fine if their belief in God is what is causing them to run for office. That's all fine by me.
But O'Donnell is saying - literally and unequivocally - that God created a spike in the polls the other day.
Um, really?
What does that mean if she loses? That people didn't pray hard enough?
UPDATE -- Also Chris Coons latest ad really makes O'Donnell look, well, kinda nutty:
Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment almost derailed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ high court nomination, has no plans to apologize for the charges she made nearly two decades ago.
The response from Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, comes after a message left for her over the weekend by Thomas’ wife, Virginia, who requested an apology.
Charles Radin, the Brandeis director of news and communications, said Hill received the voicemail message and turned it over to the campus Department of Public Safety, which then turned it over to the FBI….
…In a statement to CNN, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas said: “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”
Ok. What was the message?
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.”
That's not a good way to extend an olive branch: "Hey, I'm giving you a chance to apologize for complaining that my husband sexually harassed you".
P.S. Filing under "Tea Party" because Ginni is one of those, and I mean a fringe-y one of those.
This is another one of those stories about people taking their anti-government ideology so far that they really reveal themselves as idiots.
But there's a bit of a back story.
It takes place in or near Concord, New Hampshire, where I grew up. The story involves Johnathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor, a young redneck couple in Epsom, New Hampshire. On October 6, Stephanie Taylor gave birth to the couple's first child, a daughter. On October 7, the New Hampshire child services people came in and took the newborn daughter under protective custody, based in part on an affidavit from law enforcement.
The affidavit pointed out that Johnathon Irish had a long record of violence and abuse, i.e., that he had abused Taylor, as well as Taylor's two other children from another marriage. Also, Irish failed to complete a domestic violence course as ordered previously by the state.
Mom was no prize either: a hearing was held last month to terminate Taylor's parental rights over her two older children.
Also, Irish and Taylor stockpiled lost of guns and ammunition.
So, all things considered, a judge decided that the child services people ought to get in there and look after the newborn baby.
Oh, but another thing the affidavit mentioned? It mentioned, in passing, that Irish was a member of the Oath Keepers.
The Oath Keepers is a Las Vegas-based group that describes itself as an affiliation of current and retired military and law enforcement officials who promise to fight government tyranny. Members of the Oath Keepers swear to uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution. Members also pledge 10 specific vows, including, "We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps."
In other words, the Oath Keepers are paranoid kooks, so it comes as no surprise that they all assumed that social workers took Irish's child because and solely because he was a member of the Oath Keepers. You can imagine all the back-and-forth on the fringe Internet boards.
So, these past couple weeks, the Oath Keepers and other libertarians have been rallying at the Concord Hospital or various courthouses, decrying the Irish incident and how it foretells that Obama is coming to steal their babies or some such nonsense.
I'll let the Concord Monitor pick it up from here, because this is how we get to the stupid quote of the day:
The internet played a big role in rallying support for the couple. A Facebook page dedicated to the couple spurred the 20 or so protesters at the hospital yesterday. Many held signs, and conversational references to the Nazis and Stalin-era Russia were common. Someone brought poster board and markers for sign-making; one man held a sign that read "Infant Political Prisoner."
A woman who only identified herself as Tiffany held a sign that read "I am an Oathkeeper. Are you gonna take my kids too?"
Tiffany said she had joined the group only yesterday morning, after hearing of Irish's story.
"This is supposed to be America, not Nazi Germany," said Tiffany. "You can't have your children stolen."
Amanda Biondolillo, a Concord woman who came with her young daughter, said she didn't think the state should get involved in family issues at all, even if there is reason to suspect abuse.
"The family should be left to resolve it on their own," Biondolillo said. "Or private enterprise - private companies can contact the family and say, 'We heard you were hitting your kids. Can you stop that?' "
Now, I understand anti-government sentiment, and I don't think that government is always the answer.
But as a matter of social policy, does anyone think that issues of domestic abuse should be left to the family? Doesn't that make about as much sense as letting arsonists run the fire department?
And Amanda's alternative suggestion -- let private enterprise handle it -- is even stupider. How exactly would that business work?
*Knock, knock*
"Yes?"
"Hi, Mr. Irish. I'm from Stop Beating Your Wife and Kids, Inc. Here's my card."
"What do you want?"
"We heard you were hitting your kids. Could you stop that?" [That's a direct quote from Amanda Biondolillo]
"What?"
"You should stop beating your wife and kids."
"Um, okay."
"Thanks. Here's my bill."
These people don't even stop to think about what their political beliefs are before they start opening their mouths to demonstrate their ignorance.
Bonus crackpot quote (from the same article):
"We've got Nazis in our airports," said David Oliver, an Exeter man. "They're restricting our movement, trying to chill everybody by stealing babies."
The Tea Party crowd sure does bring an odd assortment of politicians to the forefront. You know what I mean -- politicians who are people "just like you and me".
Which is true. I know I'm always having to disavow being a witch.
But in the race to crazy, the winner has to be Ohio Congressional candidate Rich Iott.
Iott likes to dress up like a Nazi.
Yes, it is a rather unusual hobby of his... dressing up as a member of the 5th SS Wiking Panzer Division, a unit in the German army during World War II. And now Iott has to go on teevee and explain why he belongs to a group that honors German soldiers.
I can't make out the small print on these pictures, but the Globe says it contains this snippet:
"When taxes are too high, the high tax takes away jobs and freedom. In 1773 we had a Tea Party and this led to freedom from high taxes. Today we are having another Tea Party and this will lead to freedom from high taxes again! Ask grandma and grandpa what this means. Ask you friends what this means. Are you going to have your own Tea Party?" The text runs above and below a cartoon of a woman (the president? hmmm, wonder who that is) preparing to sign a tax code.
I love the picture on the front page, especially the fact that the tea party kids are from every race and culture imaginable. So much like the real Tea Party, yes?
In Sterling, VA, House Republicans this morning will unveil their governing blueprint if they win back the majority in November. It’s called “A Pledge to America,” but it really isn’t a call to revolutionize the way Congress does business like the GOP’s “Contract with America” did in 1994. Rather, the “Pledge” is a laundry list of priorities.
The 21-page document contains five plans: on jobs and the economy (make the Bush tax cuts permanent, give small businesses a tax deduction, require congressional approval of new federal regulations that cost $100 million or more); on government spending (cut government spending to its 2008 level, cap new discretionary spending, cut Congress’ budget, freeze the hiring of non-security federal workers; hold WEEKLY spending cut votes); on health care (repeal the health-care law, enact medical malpractice reform, ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions); on reforming Congress (post the text of any legislation online at least three days before coming up for a vote, end the practice of attaching non-germane bills to must-pass legislation; provide in EVERY bill the specific Constitutional provision); and on national security (fully fund missile defense, require tough sanctions against Iran, and enforce the border).
But the GOP’s blueprint also contains obvious contradictions. How can the GOP claim to have new ideas when its first policy proposal is making the Bush tax cuts permanent? How does it reduce the deficit if you make those tax cuts permanent? Why work to ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions if you repeal a law that already does that? Why push for tax cuts for small businesses when your party has opposed similar cuts that Democrats have offered? (Indeed, will House Republicans today vote for that Democratic measure?) And then there’s this: The document makes absolutely no mention about what to do regarding the war in Afghanistan. (It does talk about Iran and lumps immigration in their national security section). It also ignores what to do about Social Security and Medicare. And how do you truly address cutting government spending if you ignore Social Security and Medicare?
The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft of proposals that would sharply increase it. It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican Party will commit itself to "greater liberty" and then, in the next, that it will protect "traditional marriage." It says that "small business must have certainty that the rules won't change every few months" and then promises to change all the rules that the Obama administration has passed in recent months. It is a document with a clear theory of what has gone wrong -- debt, policy uncertainty, and too much government -- and a solid promise to make most of it worse.
It's not exactly bold or new, and some conservatives are panning it:
These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.
***
Yes, yes, it is full of mom tested, kid approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.
It is dreck — dreck with some stuff I like, but like Brussels sprouts in butter. I like the butter, not the Brussels sprouts. Overall, this grand illusion of an agenda that will never happen is best spoken of today and then never again as if it did not happen. It is best forgotten.
The pledge begins by lamenting “an arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites” issuing “mandates”, then proceeds to demand health care mandates on insurance companies that will drive up the costs of health care for ordinary Americans.
The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.
There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.
There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.
The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.
This document proves the GOP is more focused on the acquisition of power than the advocacy of long term sound public policy. All the good stuff in it is stuff we expect them to do. What is not in it is more than a little telling that the House GOP has not learned much of anything from 2006.
Ouch.
It doesn't help that the Pledge was apparently put together under the auspices of one Brian Wild “a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation’s most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.”
Christine O'Donnell, the anti-masturbation anti-condom Tea Party candidate who was vaulted into the national spotlight when she ousted moderate Republican Mike Castle for the bid for Delaware's U.S. Senate seat, says she merely "dabbled" in witchcraft, and besides, it was in high school and it served as a learning experience for her.
Which, I suppose, is better than admitting it wasn't a learning experience for her.
Mark your calendars. The Rally to Restore Sanity and the March to Keep Fear Alive will be held on Oct. 30 on the National Mall in Washington, DC.
And we’re pretty sure Glenn Beck has not been invited.
Last night, Comedy Central faux journalists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each made a “big announcement.”
First up to the plate was Jon Stewart.
In response to “the loud folks,” such as the Hitler-sign making folks, Stewart asks, “Why don’t we hear from the 70-80 percenters?” – the majority of Americans who don’t have extreme political views.
Enter the Rally to Restore Sanity.
“A million moderate march…a clarion call for rationality!” Stewart exclaimed.
With the motto of “Take it down a notch for America,” Stewart is offering to provide signs with the “appropriate” level of political emotion, such as “I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler.”
You could also go with “I am not afraid of Muslims/Tea Partiers/Socialists/Immigrants/Gun Owners/Gay…but I am scared of Spiders.”
To counter Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and to restore “truthiness,” Stephen Colbert announced his own rally: The March the Keep Fear Alive.
Calling Stewart’s announcement “disturbing,” Colbert says he will “not take it down a notch,” saying that “Now is the time for all good men to freak out for freedom!”
And, “Need I point out that ‘reason’ is one letter away from ‘treason?’” Colbert asks.
Well, it may seem counterintuitive that Democrats are cheering the victory of Tea Party-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell as the GOP candidate as US Senator for Delaware, but that's what they are doing.
Christine O'Donnell, a perennial candidate running on a platform of fiscal conservatism (despite having had tons of personal financing problems) defeated incumbent GOP senator Mike Castle, in a victory which stunned politicians and pundits alike. Tea Partiers rejoiced. But not as much as Democrats rejoiced.
The problem is that O'Donnell is so fringe that she's not likely to get the vote of independents in the general election. In fact, she's not likely to get a lot of Republican votes. Which means that Democratic candidate might be able to take the Senate seat away from the Republicans, something you won't find happening much in this upcoming election.
How fringe is O'Donnell? Here she is on MTV in the 1990's, doing what she does:
I really like that last line of hers. This is why she doesn't like masturbation:
If he already knows what pleases him and can please himself, then why am I in the picture?
Because, apparently, her only purpose in the relationship is to provide a little friction, and the only way she can improve on her man's experience is by keeping him ignorant. So yes, why is she in the picture?
The following year, while representing SALT on C-SPAN, O'Donnell argued that people with AIDS didn't deserve to be called "victims." A guy called in to say that he had a hard time feeling sorry for people with AIDS because their disease was their own fault. In his opinion, feeling sorry people with AIDS was like feeling sorry for "bank robbers who get shot in the head" while they're robbing banks. "He makes an excellent point," O'Donnell replied.
She's also argued against coed college dorms, insisting that they could lead to "orgy rooms" and "menage a trois rooms."
But that's the tip of the iceberg. In 1998, while O’Donnell was a guest on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, she espoused the virtues of telling the truth. Very commendable, until comedian Eddie Izzard pressed her on just how far she would take her anti-lying beliefs. Izzard asked O’Donnell whether or not she would lie to Nazis who showed up at her door during WWII and demanded to know if she were hiding any Jewish people in her house. O’Donnell refused to even entertain the notion of concealing the truth from Nazis in that scenario because “you never have to practice deception”:
O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.
MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.
IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, ‘do you have any Jewish people in your house?’ and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.
O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!
MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.
O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.
Nice. At the end of the show, O’Donnell also proclaimed that “we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we’re having weekly shootings practically." Right. That's why.
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that [than evolution].
Oooookay.
Fun quotes about HBO series while on Hardball on June 20, 2003:
"[T]he thing that attracts people to The Sopranos is the family element. It shows that America still has a longing for that traditional upbringing."
She added, regarding Sex and the City, "It's not taking into the account the physical destruction of going from one man to the other, spreading disease, spreading AIDS. It doesn't take into account your emotions."
And it doesn't look like the GOP is going to unify behind the Tea Party. Loser Mike Castle has said he won't endorse O'Connell. Heck, even Karl Rove can't support her.
Benen's take on the Frankenstein's monster created by the GOP:
These voters have been told by their party not to compromise or settle for partial victories. There's just too much at stake, they're told. Evil forces are trying to take your country away.
Easily misled and manipulated people bought into this rhetoric. They've come to believe it's their responsibility to elect radical ideologues who'll save us from impending doom. Sensible people with last names like Castle, Crist, Specter, Bennett, Murkowski, and Inglis were insufficiently right-wing, so they were cast aside.
These activists have been fed red meat that's been tainted without their knowledge -- and now those who did the tainting are frustrated when the activists end up sick.
There's a limit to this, of course. Republicans are still poised to have an exceptionally good election cycle, and many of the lunatic candidates who've won primaries without the party's backing are very likely to win anyway.
But stepping back, even with the GOP's expected gains in mind, Republicans' carefully-executed strategy will leave them with (a) fewer wins than they would have had; (b) a smaller, more extreme party; (c) a base that's been taught to reject any and all compromises; and (d) a party incapable of governing effectively.
RELATED: It's not just Delaware. Last night, New York’s Republicans picked Carl Paladino to run for governor against Andrew Cuomo. Carl’s the guy who sent around hardcore pornographic and racist emails on a teabagger mailing list.
"This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies," Palin said to cheers from the crowd.
WTF?
The French gave us the statue in the 18th century to warn us against becoming socialist? I mean, is there any evidence of this at all, seeing as how most people had never even heard of "socialism" at the time?
I just love how these teabaggers write their own history.
MOVEMENTS ARE ABOUT SOMETHING REAL…. I tried to keep up on today's festivities at the Lincoln Memorial, but as the dust settles, I find myself confused.
For a year and a half, we've seen rallies and town-hall shouting and attack ads and Fox News special reports. But I still haven't the foggiest idea what these folks actually want, other than to see like-minded Republicans winning elections. To be sure, I admire their passion, and I applaud their willingness to get involved in public affairs. If more Americans chose to take a more active role in the political process, the country would be better off and our democracy would be more vibrant.
But that doesn't actually tell us what these throngs of Americans are fighting for, exactly. I'm not oblivious to their cries; I'm at a loss to appreciate those cries on anything more than a superficial level.
This is about "freedom."
Well, I'm certainly pro-freedom, and as far as I can tell, the anti-freedom crowd struggles to win votes on Election Day. But can they be a little more specific? How about the freedom for same-sex couples to get married? No, we're told, not that kind of freedom.
This is about a fight for American "liberties."
That sounds great, too. Who's against American "liberties"? But I'm still looking for some details. Might this include law-abiding American Muslims exercising their liberties and converting a closed-down clothing store into a community center? No, we're told, not those kinds of liberties.
This is about giving Americans who work hard and play by the rules more opportunities.
I'm all for that, too. But would these opportunities include the chance for hard-working Americans to bring their kids to the doctor if they get sick, even if the family can't afford insurance? No, we're told, not those kinds of opportunities.
This is about the values of the Founding Fathers.
I'm a big fan of the framers' generation, who created an extraordinary nation. But if we're honoring their values, would this include their steadfast commitment to the separation of church and state? No, we're told, not those values.
This is about patriotic Americans willing to make sacrifices for the good of their country.
That sounds reasonable; sacrifices can be honorable. But if we're talking about patriots willing to sacrifice, does that mean millionaires and billionaires can go back to paying '90s-era tax rates (you know, when the economy was strong)? No, we're told, not those kinds of sacrifices.
This is about a public that, at long last, wants to hear the truth from those who speak in their name.
What a great idea. Maybe that means we can hear the truth about global warming? About the fact that health care reform wasn't a socialized government takeover? About Social Security not going bankrupt? About how every court ruling conservatives don't like doesn't necessarily constitute "liberal judicial activism"? No, we're told, not those truths.
Movements -- real movements that make a difference and stand the test of time -- are about more than buzz words, television personalities, and self-aggrandizement. Change -- transformational change that sets nations on new courses -- is more than vague, shallow promises about "freedom."
Labor unions created a movement. Women's suffrage was a movement. The fight for civil rights is a movement. The ongoing struggle for equality for gays and lesbians is a movement. In each case, the grievance was as clear as the solution. There was no mystery as to what these patriots were fighting for. Their struggles and successes made the nation stronger, better, and more perfect.
The folks who gathered in D.C. today were awfully excited about something. The fact that it's not altogether obvious what that might be probably isn't a good sign.
One of my particular objections is to the whole Glenn Beck/Tea Party phenom -- which Benen's pieces suggests although he doesn't say it -- is the underlying and unspoken premise that only Becksters and Tea Partiers have these particular goals in mind -- you know, "freedom", "civil rights", etc. As if the rest of us don't?
Anyway, here's something related....
Also related.... a fun juxtaposition:
(1) Glenn Beck, speaking on Friday at the Kennedy Center prior to the Beckfest: "We are 12 hours away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
(2) Sarah Palin, speaking at the Beckfest: "We must not fundamentally transform America, as some would want."
Wheeeeee!
Also... David Cross....
A FINAL THOUGHT... the huge Beckfest was entitled "Restoring Honor". Now, I can see how that slogan would have made sense to conservatives in 1999, when we had the Clinton sex scandals. But my question to tea partiers is this: Even if you oppose -- strongly oppose Obama's policies, what has Obama done to bring DIShonor?
My conclusion is that the only thing a person could find "dishonorable" about an Obama presidency is the very fact that a black man is occupying a position typically held by white men. And that says more about the person holding that view, than it does about Obama.
(2) You won't see a lot of non-white faces there in the crowd. I should note that the Tea Party groups going to the event are giving out "advice" about how to deal with the multi-cultural DC residents, as evidenced by this, from the website of a Tea Party group in Maine:
Safety and Mores
DC's population includes refugees from every country, as the families of embassy staffs of third world countries tend to stay in DC whenever a revolution in their homeland means that anyone in their family would be in danger if they went back. Most taxi drivers and many waiters/waitresses (especially in local coffee shops like the Bread and Chocolate chain) are immigrants, frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African Americans and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions. It's rare to meet anyone who gets really offended, but you can still be aware of the issue.
Many parts of DC are safe beyond the areas I will list here, but why chance it if you don't know where you are?
(3) Because it will take place at the Lincoln Memorial, on the anniversary of MLK's March on Washington, both Lincoln and MLK's name will be evoked often from the podium. The crowd will react with a tepid response.
(4) Many of the attendees will use the socialist Washington DC Transit system to get around, completely incognizant of the irony.
(5) Honor will definitely NOT be restored.
UPDATE: By the way, Beck isn't being very humble about this:
Beck: I think this is an opportunity to gather God's people together and wake people up. And I just have this feeling that this is the beginning of something gigantic in this country, that it is spiritual awakening.
What's going to happen there will raise the hair on your arms. What;s going to happen there you will never, ever forget and I promise you, then next day when you read about it - if the press covers it - you will say "oh my gosh, I wish I would have been there." This will go into the history book.
This is Divine Providence. This is the Lord's hand at work. This is a miracle.
Don't tell me the anti-mosque crusade isn't about bigotry and racism. Sure, the anti-mosque-eteers might give some lip to service to their notion that a "mosque" "at" Ground Zero offends the 9/11 families, but it doesn't take much to see that what's going on is more sinister: they don't want the mosque because they just don't like olive-skinned people. Read this excerpt all the way through [source]:
Sunday's crowd included representatives of the conservative Tea Party movement, some of them wearing anti-tax T-shirts that had nothing to do with Ground Zero, Islam or terrorism.
"We must take a stand and we must say no," shouted rally organizer Pamela Geller as the crowd roared approval. Moments later, another keynote speaker, Robert Spencer, sparked more cheers when he asked, "Are you tired of being lied to?"
Spencer, however, did not explain precisely what lies he was referring to.
Many protesters held American flags. Many carried signs.
"A Mosque at Ground Zero Spits on the Graves of 9/11," one placard proclaimed. Another sign depicted a toilet, with this message: "This is a Mosque. Do You Want it Built at Ground Zero?"
At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.
"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.
"Get out," others shouted.
In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.
"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.
But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.
"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.
So Andrew Breitbart, the rightwinger who released the edited Shirley Sherrod video in order to paint her as "racist", came up with a great idea to show that he and the Tea Party movement isn't racist.
He held a Uni-Tea rally in Philadelphia over the weekend to highlight how diverse the Tea Party is, lining up some black speakers to rally the "diverse" Tea Party crowd. He found 10 non-white speakers (out of 18 who spoke).
Unfortunately, numerousmediaoutlets reported that the event attracted few people (only 300 or so).... and only a “handful” of minorities. And so the message was apparently changed from "we are diverse" to "we don't have to be diverse", as TPM reports:
Among those who did make it, for most of the time the numbers of non-white faces could be counted on two hands, and maybe a foot. [...]
David Webb, an African American top official with Tea Party Federation and the man who shamed Mark Williams and the Tea Party Express for being racist a couple weeks ago, emceed the event and told the tea party crowd that it didn’t matter if only a few minorities joined the cause.
“I didn’t realize that any movement everywhere had a minimum daily requirement of black people to be legitimate,” he said.
"I hope it has taken away any idea that the tea party is racist," Terry Adams of the Independence Hall Tea Party, a co-sponsor of the event, said. "The crowd today was more diverse than I've seen at a tea party rally."
I'm seeing this a lot lately. Conservative pundit David Klinghoffer in the L.A. Times:
Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions — like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website, Breitbart.com, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.
What has become of conservatism? We have reached a point at which nothing could be more important than to stop and recall what brought us here, to the right, in the first place.
Buckley's National Review, where I was the literary editor through the 1990s, remains as vital and interesting as ever. But more characteristic of conservative leadership are figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of "neocons" versus "paleocons." Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons...
He's just noticing this. So is conservative law professor Steven Bainbridge:
It's getting to be embarrassing to be a conservative
These days it's getting increasingly embarrassing to publicly identify oneself as a conservative. It was bad enough when George Bush 43, the K Street Gang, and the neo-cons were running up spending, fighting an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq, incurring massive deficits, expanding entitlements, and all the rest of the nonsense I cataloged over the years in posts like Bush 43 has been a disaster for conservatives.
These days, however, the most prominent so-called conservatives are increasingly fit only to be cast for the next Dumb and Dumber sequel. They're dumb and crazy. ***
Let's tick off ten things that make this conservative embarrassed by the modern conservative movement:
A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012 Presidential nomination.
Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual assertion that pursuing liberal policies--however misguided--is an impeachable offense is just nuts.
Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column was, as Doug Marconis observed, "a wildly exaggerated attack on President Obama’s record in office." Actually, it's more foaming at the mouth.
As Doug also observed, "The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine." Indeed, "when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in 2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create “compassionate conservatism” won our over any semblance of fiscal conservatism. Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal Government’s role in education, and two wars. That’s not fiscal conservatism it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity." Yet, today's GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal conservatism.
Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to out=st Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.
Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.
Birthers.
Nativists.
The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan?
In a strange way, I find it to be somewhat reassuring to know the discomfort actually exists within the conservative movement.
That prompted Mark Williams, the leader of the Tea Party Express, to pen a"satirical" response -- a made-up letter from "colored persons" to Abraham Lincoln saying they had changed their minds about emancipation. The letter received immediate and widespread criticism, and Williams eventually withdrew it from publication.
The National Tea Party Federation, an organization that seeks to represent the Tea Party political movement around the country, has expelled Williams and his Tea Party Express organization because of the inflammatory blog post Williams wrote last week, federation spokesman David Webb said Sunday.
Which prompted this response today from Williams and the Tea Party Express:
"The Tea Party Express with over 400,000 members is by far larger than the Tea Party Federation’s entire membership. Most rank-and-file tea party activists think we’re talking about Star Trek when we try to explain who the “Federation” is. Given the absurdity of the actions by the "Federation," this is quite fitting, since their conduct is alien to our membership.
"Groups trying to say who can or can't be 'expelled' from the tea party movement is arrogant and preposterous. Perhaps this explains why so many tea party groups have left the "Federation" during the past few months. Whatever the reason, most tea party activists are focused on taking back their country and the upcoming 2010 elections and not silly power games being played by individuals such as those in the "Federation."
"To add to the absurdity of the "Federation" they have also informed us that our members can't participate in something called their "basecamp" communication network, which makes us think that the individuals involved in the "Federation" spend a bit too much time watching science fiction movies and cartoons. We here at the Tea Party Express prefer a focus that is more grounded in the Constitution and electing tea party conservatives to offices of import in these 2010 elections.The "Federation" has enabled and empowered the NAACP's racist attacks on the tea party movement, and they should be ashamed of themselves."Circular firing squads of groups within the tea party movement attacking one another accomplish nothing, and on this issue the Tea Party Federation is wrong, and has both enabled and empowered the NAACP’s racist attacks on the tea party movement. Which is something they'll realize when they beam themselves back from basecamp.
Which prompts me to post this: UPDATE: The Tea Party Nation has weighed in: they agree with the Tea Party Federation's expulsion of the Tea Party Express.
Rep. Bob Inglis, defeated in South Carolina's Republican primary last month, told the AP that the GOP is succumbing to "demagoguery" and talk-show personalities, blasted Sarah Palin's "death panels" comments, and compared American partisans to "Sunni and Shia."
While not naming names, 12-year incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis suggested in interviews with The Associated Press that tea party favorites such as former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts like Glenn Beck are the culprits.
He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.
"There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery," said Inglis, one of three Republican incumbents who have lost their seats in Congress to primary and state party convention challengers this year.
Inglis said voters eventually will discover that you're "preying on their fears" and turn away.
"I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading," he said. "What it takes to lead is to say, 'You know, that's just not right.'"
Inglis said the rhetoric also distracts from the real problems that politicians should be trying to resolve, such as budget deficits and energy security.
"It's a real concern, because I think what we're doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni," he said, referring to the two predominant Islamic denominations that have feuded for centuries. "It's very difficult to come together to find solutions."
Inglis also expressed sympathy for fellow Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.), who accused tea partiers of repeatedly shouting racial epithets at him during a protest of the health-care vote. He said racism is part of what is motivating opposition to President Obama:
Inglis said he was too far away during the jeering incident to hear whether the protesters shouted racial epithets, as Lewis and other black lawmakers have claimed. But Inglis said the behavior was threatening and abusive.
"I caught him at the door and said, 'John, I guess you've been here before,'" Inglis said.
Inglis, 50, who calls himself a Jack Kemp disciple because he has emphasized outreach to minorities as the late Republican congressman did, thinks racism is a part of the vitriol directed at President Barack Obama.
"I love the South. I'm a Southerner. But I can feel it," he said.
There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene.
You think?!?
*********
TEA PARTY BY THE NUMBERS
Who they are
Seven demographic characteristics of Tea Party supporters:
78% are Republicans or independents who lean Republican.
77% are non-Hispanic whites.
69% are conservatives.
62% are married.
56% are men.
47% are 55 or older.
23% are under 35.
What they believe
Seven defining attitudes of Tea Party supporters:
92% believe the federal government debt is a very serious/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
90% believe terrorism is a very/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
90% are dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country.
87% disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing.
85% believe the size and power of the federal government are a very/extremely serious threat to the nation's future well-being.
83% say most members of Congress don't deserve re-election.
83% say President Obama doesn't deserve re-election.
Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Polls taken May 24-25 and June 11-13 of 697 Tea Party supporters. Margin of error +/-5 percentage points. Analysis by Jim Norman.
As you may know, many on the right are upset that a mosque is being built within a couple of blocks of Ground Zero in downtown Manhattan. The thinking goes that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11, therefore all of the religion of Islam is bad and evil, therefore mosques are evil.
With such stupid logic as that, it's not hard to understand that it might go one step further, and that the mosque-opposers (largely of the Tea Party movement) would let their racial and ignorant side show through. Which it did, at a recent Ground Zero protest of the porposed mosque:
At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.
"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.
"Get out," others shouted.
In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.
"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.
But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.
"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.
The incident underscores how contentious — and, perhaps, how irrational — the debate over the mosque has become.
All over the country, the Republican Party is running up against far-right "tea party" candidates, often to hilarious results. As I have pointed out, the GOP/Tea Party rift tends to divide the right side of the political spectrum, all to the benefit of the Left/Democrats.
It's no different here in North Carolina. The GOP is attacking the tea party's man who (if the GOP is correct) is kind of a loon:
North Carolina Republicans are circulating court documents that suggest a far-right Tea-Party-backed congressional candidate claimed to be the Messiah, tried to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland, and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona.
Tim D'Annunzio also has written that he wants to abolish several key government departments, including the IRS. But there's more going on here than just another wacky conservative politician. The effort by GOP leaders to stop D'Annunzio at all costs offers an intriguing test case of their ability to keep control of the party in the face of challenges from the Tea Party wing. Or as D'Annunzio himself has put it: "The power brokers in Raleigh and in Washington are willing to go to any length and use any unscrupulous tactic to try to destroy somebody. They think that they're losing their control over the Republican party."
D'Annunzio is seeking the GOP nomination to take on Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.) this fall. He was the leader in a primary earlier this month, but didn't win enough of the vote to avoid a runoff in June. The state and national party is backing his opponent, former T.V. sportscaster Harold Johnson. And how.
"I consider Mr. D'Annunzio unfit for public office at any level," Tom Fetzer, the North Carolina GOP chair, told reporters recently. "What he could do to the party as our nominee is secondary in my view to what he could do to the country if he got elected." And a spokesman for the NRCC said: "The issue is, do we give Democrats a candidate that they can absolutely tear apart in the general election? I don't think most Republicans want to see that happen."
To undermine D'Annunzio, the state GOP has been circulating records from his 1995 divorce and from a 1998 child support judgment. In the latter, as the Charlotte Observerreported Sunday, the judge called D'Annunzio "a self-described religious zealot," and wrote that D'Annunzio had "described the government as the 'Antichrist'."
In the divorce case, Anne D'Annunzio said her husband had told her that "God was going to drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid" on Greenland, and also that he had found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona, among other unusual beliefs.
In addition, a doctor wrote in the custody proceedings that D'Annunzio told him he had once received treatment for heroin dependence, and was jailed three times for offenses that included burglary and assaulting a police officer.
D'Annunzio says his personal problems are in all in the past. But the Born Again candidate still has some pretty extreme political ideas. On a blog he writes, entitled "Christ's War," D'Annunzio declared earlier this year that he wanted to "abolish the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Transportation, Treasury, and Home Land Security," and the IRS, as well as "any appellate court that has shown an anti Constitutional activism." He also advocated giving control of Social Security and Medicare to the states.
I would love it if D'Annunzio won the GOP nomination. Sadly, I don't think it will happen.
Bruce Bartlett may have said it best when he wrote that Paul suffers from foolish consistency syndrome:
I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only--freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate. I believe that Rand should admit that he was wrong as quickly as possible.
For his part, Rand Paul has spent the last 24 hours backtracking very fast. Originally he had problems with parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; now he claims he would have voted for it, even the parts he didn't like (i.e., the part which compelled businesses not to discriminate).
Some conservatives -- and even Paul himself -- have tried to dismiss the whoe Civil-Rights-gate issue as a gotcha game, based on an historic event which has no bearing on the present. But wiser people (like me) understand that the issue isn't civil rights, but Paul's adherence to a hands-off government. That has real world applications to current events.
And this morning shows why. In an interview on ABC News’ Good Morning America today, host George Stephanopoulos pressed GOP Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul on “how far” he would “push” his anti-government views. Playing a clip of Paul telling Fox Business that he wants to “get rid of regulation” and “get the EPA out of our coal business down,” Stephanopoulos asked if Paul believed “the EPA should not be allowed to tell oil companies they can’t use certain chemicals to enforce safety regulations on that rig out there?” “No,” replied Paul, saying that he was referring to the EPA’s effort to regulate carbon emissions.
When Stephanopoulos followed up with a question about getting “rid of the EPA,” Paul defended BP’s response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill last month and attacked the Obama administration’s crackdown on the oil giant as “really un-American“:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you don’t want to get rid of the EPA?
PAUL: No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we’re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident that was very tragic and I’ve met a lot of these miners and their families. They’re very brave people to do a dangerous job. But then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.
Really, Rand? Coming out in favor of BP? It's un-American to come down hard on British Petroleum?
Great timing. And great way to change the subject....
As the day progresses, Rand Paul is clarifying his position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, assuring the voters that he will not try to repeal it. This afternoon, a spokesman for the Paul campaign told Greg Sargent, "Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the Federal government the right to insure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."
It's nice that Paul doesn't want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, but it still skirts the issue. Because clearly, if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were to come about now, Rand would be against it.
In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."...
"The Daily News ignores," wrote Paul, "as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not."
In language similar to the language he's used talking about the Civil Rights Act, Paul criticized racism while defending the right of businesses to discriminate.
"A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination," wrote Paul, "even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities."
So even though Paul won't try to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he's still in favor of allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. Not in favor of it morally (he insists), but in favor of allowing businesses to get away with it.
Much as Rand Paul would like, this issue really isn't about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His worldview applies to discrimination today. What are his views on the Lilly Ledbetter Act, or a law against discriminatory housing against gays? I think we know where he stands. It's where he would have stood back in 1964.
The "tea" in the Tea Party movement stands for "Taxed Enough Already". It's a bad time for this kind of movement, and here's why:
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.
Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
***
Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.
Granted, a lot of the reason taxes are at their lowest level is because of the stimulus package, which will expire in 2010. But still, why are people complaining?
A group of Knox County conservatives succeeded Saturday in tossing the state Republican Party's proposed platform and adopting an entirely new one, an event that threatened to overshadow the seven gubernatorial candidates seeking to make an impression at the state GOP convention.
The new platform reaffirms a pledge to the U.S. Constitution and the Maine Constitution — not any specific political party — and addresses criticism that the old one was too general, said Steve Dyer of Rockland.
It was created by 12 Republican activists from Knox County. Some of them also attend tea party events and there were tea partiers on the floor of the convention who cheered their effort.
Now, you may think "So what?"... but when you read the actual platform, it's pure wingnut stuff. In fact, it's so wingnut that Dan Billings, who has served as an attorney for the Maine GOP, had called it "wack job pablum" and "nutcase stuff."
You can read the test of the platform here, but the document:
calls for the elimination of the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve
demands an investigation of "collusion between government and industry in the global warming myth"
suggests the adoption of "Austrian Economics"
declares that "'Freedom of Religion' does not mean 'freedom from religion'" (which I guess makes atheism illegal)
insists that "healthcare is not a right"
calls for the abrogation of the "UN Treaty on Rights of the Child" and the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" and
declares that we must resist "efforts to create a one world government."
... plus the usual claptrap about keeping your guns and no gay marriages and the "unborn" are entitled to human rights even if the "unborn" is a two-celled zygote.
I really enjoy these videos from New Left Media (who I have written about before). They certainly can't be accused of bias -- after all, all they do is let the Tea Party people speak for themselves.
And speaking of polls, Digby has a nice summary of the VERY comprehensive poll of teabaggers conducted by the New York Times and CBS, both of whom have excellent write-ups of their own (with graphics, etc.). The bottom line is that they are pretty much what you think they are -- Republicans, except they're a bit angrier and a bit more racist and a bit more to the right. CBS:
Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.
They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
More than one in three (36 percent) hails from the South, far more than any other region. Twenty-five percent come from the West, 22 percent from the Midwest, and 18 percent from the northeast.
***
Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or usually vote Republican. Forty percent say the United States needs a third party, while 52 percent say it does not.
And....
Nothing too surprising in any of that so far.
But a couple of things stand out.
They love their guns. More than half -- 58 percent -- keep a gun in the household.
They're ego-centric:
Regardless of your overall opinion, do you think the views of the people in the tea party movement generally reflect the views of most Americans?
84% of the self-identified teabaggers said yes. Only 25% of the general public agreed.
Of course, they live in a self-imposed bubble (aided by Fox news), so it's not surprising.
What's more, they are ill-informed:
Where are they getting their information? 63% of them get their TV news from FOX. 53% believe that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are news shows.
And many of them don't even think about the things they think about. Writes the New York Times:
And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.
But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”
Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
Okay, well get back to us when you figure out what you want.
Another example of how they don't think about what they think about?
Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him.
Riiight. Because they can't say "skin color" and they know it.
UPDATE: Steven Benen notes more contradictions, writing:
If you were to make a Venn Diagram of the issues Tea Party members care about, and the issues Tea Party members are confused about, you'd only see one circle.
These folks claim to be motivated by concerns over taxes, but Tea Partiers tend not to know anything about the subject. They claim to be angry about the Affordable Care Act, but they don't know what's in it. They claim to hate expensive government programs, except for all the expensive government programs that benefit them and their families.
It's inherently challenging to create a lasting, successful political movement predicated on literally nothing more than ignorance and rage. In the case of Tea Partiers, we're talking about a reasonably large group of people who seem to revel in their own ignorance, but nevertheless seek an active role in the process.
According to a new poll from CBS and the New York Times, 92% of tea partiers are scared that America is moving towards socialism -- but in a strange twist, most of them seem to like it.
Despite the fear that socialism is coming to America, 62% of tea party supporters also support Social Security and Medicare. In fact, nearly half of them either benefit from Social Security or Medicare or have somebody in their immediate family who does. And about one-third are directly beneficiaries at least one of the programs, compared to about one-fifth of the population at large.
And CBS News notes that the majority of Tea Party supporters (18% of Americans are Tea Party supporters, according to the poll) say "their taxes are fair". Now that's really odd, considering that the "Tea" in "Tea Party" stands for "Taxed Enough Already".
The Tea Party Patriots took a poll of their rank-and-file to see what the top ten "action items" for the movement are. They are:
1. Protect the Constitution 2. Reject Cap & Trade 3. Demand a Balanced Budget 4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington 6. End Runaway Government Spending 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care 8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy 9. Stop the Pork 10. Stop the Tax Hikes
Tomorrow is April 15, which is Tax Day, but also the day when the teabaggers load their misspelled signs and fat asses into rusty Ford pickups, and congregate with other teabaggers to denounce the black secret Muslim who stole the presidency by lying about his birthplace as part of a grand scheme to turn this country into a socialist and/or marxist and/or fascist utopia.
All the cable networks will cover the festivities, and Fox News, of course, will do all but sponsor it in their unique "fair and balanced" way. (Topic: "Does Obama merely suck, or does he hugely suck? Experts disagree")
Speakers at these rallies will tell people that the Bush tax cuts are going to disappear, and the unwashed masses will hold their corndogs between their teeth so that can applaud and boo appropriately, totally ignorant of the fact that the Bush tax cuts primarily went to the wealthy and not to them. (The truth is that 98 percent of Americans are getting a tax cut this year thanks to Democratic legislation opposed by every single Republican. The teabaggers will still be upset, of course, since this is somehow more evidence of "socialism". They are distraught that the richest 2 percent aren't getting their taxes cut as well.)
Palin will be deified, with calls for her to run to President, noting that she deserves the position because she's not educated about the issues, unlike all the elitist smartypants in D.C. who don't speak common sense, yabetcha, and who, let's face it, aren't as gosh-darn cute as Palin.
For all appearances, it will look as if prizes are to be awarded for clever use of the president's name. "Nobama", "Obamacare" that sort of thing. Rest assured, however, there will not be one single clever use of the president's name.
Locally, the big event will be at Wake Forest University on Davis Field beginning at 5:30pm, if you're a Winston-Salem person. Or, at the same time, at Governmental Plaza, Downtown Greensboro, if you're a Greensboro person.
It'll be a real barnburner, kind of like this video last year when a bunch of (very very white) teabaggers in Raleigh gave the what-for to Obama's passing motorcade:
Withering. It's hard to believe that Obama bounced back from such merciless criticism.
If you can't attend a local event, you can help the cause by buying a T-shirt here. The T-shirt contains this logo on the front:
and this one on the back:
In other words, you can always get a T-shirt with a lot of snakes on them. Because that's what the Founding Fathers would have wanted you to do.
P.S. If you really want to have fun and/or get killed, distribute this.
It's like the "Contract with America" from the 1990's, but without anything of substance.
Yup, the GOP likes to sign little manifestos committing themselves to the conservative values that (they believe) the Founding Fathers had (never mind the fact that the true conservatives in the Coloniel era sided with the British).
Today's monumental screed is called "The Mount Vernon Statement", and it contains the typical pablum of conservatives wrapped up in nonsensical (and somewhat inaccurate) evocations of 1776. Yup, a bunch of 'em are signing the thing at the homestead of George Washington (slaveowner until he died, but whatever), wrapping themselves in the American flag, and heading off to some posh D.C. nightspot for gin and tonics.
The MVS has no details, and makes no attempt to resolve the conflicting interests of social conservatives, economic conservatives, hawks, and libertarians. It's just a blanket statement that somehow these groups all have the exact same interests (do thay?), and all of them agree with a very generalized vision of the Constitution, specifically, a call for "constitutional conservatism", which it defines in broad meaningless statements:
* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
All nice, but what would "constituional conservatism" say about a small tax increase as part of a larger plan to pay down the national debt? Does that violate the principles of limited government and market solutions, or is it actually a step towards the greater conservative good of solvency and fiscal responsibility? If conservatives are to "prudently consider what we can and should do" to end tyranny, where does waterboarding fit in to that matrix? (Libertarians and many conservatives oppose it; many conservatives support it -- does this document resolve that issue? No.)
There's a lot more to be said about "The Mount Vernon Statement" but Daniel Larison of American Conservatve Magazine (yup, a conservative) seems to have hit upon a major point of conservative hypocrisy:
I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the President cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.
Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle from the would-be constitutional conservatives of this Mount Vernon meeting, we should assume that this is little more than a new ruse designed to rile up activists and donors during a Democratic administration in order to breathe new life into a moribund and bankrupt movement.
Family Research Council's Tony Perkins said on Fox News this morning:
"I think over the years the conservative movement has become too aligned with the Republican Party."
Why do I love it?
Nothing like inter-party wrangling to help the Democrats stave off total disaster in 2010.
Which prompts me to ask a question: with the Teabaggers putting their own candidates up for election, are they in the Tea Party Party or just the Tea Party?
If you read one article today, spend 15 minutes with this report from the NYT re: the so-called “Tea Party” and (loosely) associated groups.
Though fueled by the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and others, many members of this movement do not articulate their gripes within a Democrat v. Republican matrix. The article contends that the most radical elements within the movement express not only ire for our current President but strong suspicions of the immediately prior President. In some quarters, they’re as upset with the Patriot Act as they are with efforts to reform health care …
In New Mexico, Mary Johnson, recording secretary of the Las Cruces Tea Party steering committee, described why she fears the government. She pointed out how much easier it is since Sept. 11 for the government to tap telephones and scour e-mail, bank accounts and library records. “Twenty years ago that would have been a paranoid statement,” Ms. Johnson said. “It’s not anymore.”
Maybe the article is an over-reaction. Maybe I’m over-reacting to an over-reaction. Regardless, it seems you’d have to be more-than-slightly medicated to not find lines like these, from the article’s conclusion, chilling …
Mrs. Stout said she has begun to contemplate the possibility of “another civil war.” It is her deepest fear, she said. Yet she believes the stakes are that high. Basic freedoms are threatened, she said. Economic collapse, food shortages and civil unrest all seem imminent.
“I don’t see us being the ones to start it, but I would give up my life for my country,” Mrs. Stout said.
She paused, considering her next words.
“Peaceful means,” she continued, “are the best way of going about it. But sometimes you are not given a choice.”
Music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and book by Burt Shevelove and Larry Gelbart
May 4-6 & 10-13, 2012
Shows are Thursday-Saturday at 8pm and Sundays at 2pm
Perhaps Broadway’s greatest farce, this show is light, fast-paced, witty, irreverent and one of the funniest musicals ever written. It provides the perfect escape from life's troubles. The result is a non-stop laugh-fest in which a crafty slave tries to gain his freedom as a reward for his struggles to win the hand of a beautiful but slow-witted courtesan for his young master.
CAST OF CHARACTERS
Pseudolus - Ken Ashford
Hysterium - Gray Smith
Senex - Miles Stanley
Domina - Christine Gorelick
Hero - Charlie Kluttz
Philia - Gracey Falk
Erronius - Lee McKusick
Miles Glorisosus - Mike Orsillo
Marcus Lycus - Neil Shepherd
Proteans - Justin Bulla, Josh Gerry, Bradley Phillis, Jacob Weinberg
Courtesans - Angela Brady, Ashley Howe, Sarah Jenkins, Natalie Juran, Scarlet Van Loon, Mary Lea Williams
Much Ado About Nothing
by William Shakespeare
FREE at MILLER PARK AMPHITHEATRE May 19, 20, 26, 27 and June 2, 3 at 1:00 and 4:00 pm (no 4:00 pm on June 3)
Onje of Shakespeare's most-cherished comedies. Benedick and Beatrice are engaged in a very "merry war"; they both talk a mile a minute and proclaim their scorn for love, marriage, and each other. In contrast, Claudio and Hero are sweet young people who are rendered practically speechless by their love for one another. By means of "noting" (which sounds the same as "nothing," and which is gossip, rumour, and overhearing), Benedick and Beatrice are tricked into confessing their love for each other, and Claudio is tricked into rejecting Hero at the altar. However, Dogberry, a Constable who is a master of malapropisms, discovers the evil trickery of the villain, Don John.
CAST OF CHARACTERS
Benedick - Chad Edwards
Beatrice - Sally Meehan
Don Pedro - Mark March
Claudio - Carlos Luis Nieto
Hero - Devon Currie
Leonato - John Shea
Don J - Annie Weir
Margaret - Robyn Shute
Antonio - Lee Willard
Balthasar - Suzanne Vaughan
Borachio - Ken Ashford
Conrade - Rob Taylor
Friar Frances - Linda Minney
Dogberry - April Marshall
Verges - Sarah Jenkins
Sexton - Andrea Rivers
Messenger - Ryan Ball
Boy - Ben Taylor
Watch - True Jones and others TBA
Recent Comments