Listening to the pundits, you may think that there is a huge movement against the Democratic Party, but when you look at the incumbents who lost primaries, it turns out to be something different indeed. Look at the list:
Senate incumbents who lost primaries:
Arlen Specter (D, previous R)
Bob Bennett (R)
Lisa Murkowski (R)
Challenged incumbent Senators who won primaries:
Blanche Lincoln (D)
Michael Bennet (D)
David Vitter (R)
Further teabag challenge:
Mike Castle (R)
House incumbents who lost primaries:
Bob Inglis (R)
Alan Mollohan (D)
Parker Griffith (R)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D)
Notice a pattern?
The overwhelming majority of losers were Republicans challenged from the right. When you look at the House incumbents who lost, Mollohan had massive ethics problems and a history of ignoring his constituency. Kilpatrick is the mother of the currently incarcerated ex-mayor of Detroit. Those challenges, and the one from Adam Clayton Powell IV against Charlie Rangel are less philosophical and more, um, personal.
Arlen Specter's challenge also had less to do with philosophy and more to do with being a Republican who switched parties for an attempt at personal gain, and Democratic voters just not buying into it.
The MSM would have you believe that all the primary challenges and the polling for November relates to an electorate pissed as all get out against Obama and incumbent Democrats. They say that we could lose 60 seats in the House, and potentially the Senate. And while I agree that it's certainly possible, I see something else.
I see an activist Republican electorate completely co-opted by the teabaggers. And yes, I consider them sheeple, as well as intellectually limited and morally bankrupt. I also see a progressive Democratic electorate that has decided to stay home. Not working, not donating money, and possibly not voting in November.
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stay silent.
And so again, if we lose in November - they didn't win, we stayed home.
Michael Steele has said he won't step down over his comments on Afghanistan. I'm not at all surprised. He didn't step down after the hip hop comment, the fried chicken comment, the mis-spending issues...there was no reason to expect that he would now. And let's face it, we Democrats couldn't ask for more in an IIE Chair. Really. It's hard to find people who say things like:
My view on politics is much more grassroots oriented, it's not old boy network oriented, so I tend to, you know, come at it a little bit stronger, a little bit more street-wise, if you will. That's rubbed some feathers the wrong way.
For the record, Mike's a street-wise grassroots type in the same way that I am a sportscaster with actual knowledge of sports.
The important thing here is that his tenure is up at the end of the year, and there will be another RNC election. It probably won't be as much fun as the last one, since it will be hard to beat the "Barack the Magic Negro" CD, but these are the Republicans, so you never know. And in all seriousness, it will be a battle between mainstream and teabagger types, and will have political import. But Steele, or any chair of the RNC or the DNC is not really an issue for most people. My guess is that there aren't 10 voters nationwide who choose a single candidate in any November election based on who chairs the party. I'm not convinced you could find 10 non-political junkies who could name the chair of the RNC, or the DNC.
At the other end of the IIE spectrum, we have the Lower Merion (Pennsylvania) GOP. Yes, a local COMMITTEE. The people who elect the county GOP reps, who elect the state GOP reps, who will participate in the RNC chair election in half a year.
If you've ever served on a local political committee, you know there's not much to it. You don't get paid: in fact it usually costs you money. There's the filing fee to get on the ballot, and often dues. You go to a meeting once a month. If yours is a legitimately active committee, you put out a newsletter, knock doors and work election day at the polls. You also have access to mailing lists. Also donor lists. None of this is really a big deal. It's public information, just packaged.
Jill Govberg was a member of the Lower Merion Executive Committee for many years. Until May of this year, she was Vice-Chair, but didn't get the nod in the May elections. She has lists. She's considering running for County Commissioner next year, and the committee doesn't think she should have access to the lists. They've sued her. I love how they revel in eating their young.
The Kentucky Senate, reacting to a divisive comment by Republican Rand Paul, has adopted a resolution declaring any form of discrimination to be inconsistent with American values.
Louisville Democratic Sen. Gerald Neal introduced the resolution Friday during a special session on the state budget. It was adopted without objection in the predominantly Republican chamber.
What comes to my mind as fitting for Rand Paul is the scene in NYPD Blue where Arthur Fancy takes Andy Spiowicz out to dinner at a rib joint.
On to California and education. The State Senate passed, 25-5, a piece of legislation that I cannot imagine will have a problem in the State Assembly, nor getting Ah-nold's signature. It's SB 1451, and you can read it here. Best part:
This bill would require the state board, upon completion of the social content review, to inform the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Education, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education, and the Secretary of Education of content that it interprets to be as a result of a specified action by the Texas Board of Education. The bill would also require the state board, upon the next adoption of the History-Social Science Curriculum Framework, to ensure that the framework is constituent with specified standards governing instructional materials.
The biggest problem with the Texas changes to text books is that they buy so many that often publishers cater to Texas, and then other states are somewhat forced into that group of books. However, California buys a similar amount of text books, and now, Texas can stand alone in the evangelical wilderness.
Which brings us to health care and Vermont. In the Health Care legislation enacted by the Feds, states are allowed to set up their own systems. Vermont is going to try to take them up on it. Note: they are going to get sued by every insurance company, drug company, medical device company and related types doing business in the state, but Vermont has made its stand. Full legislation here. Note that the governor opposed it, but allowed it to pass without his signature.
First paragraph, first page:
Subject: Health care, universal access, reform; department organization
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to establish the goal of universal access to essential health care services in Vermont through a publicly financed, integrated, regional health care delivery system, provide mechanisms for cost containment in the system, and provide a framework, schedule, and process to achieve that goal.
The original bill was sent to committee, and the next 43 pages were x-ed out. But just look at where they picked up:
(1) It is the policy of the state of Vermont to ensure universal access to, and coverage for, essential health services for all Vermonters. All Vermonters must have access to comprehensive, quality health care. Systemic barriers must not prevent people from accessing necessary health care. All Vermonters must receive affordable and appropriate health care at the appropriate time, in the appropriate setting, and health care costs must be contained over time.
(2) The health care system must be transparent in design, efficient in operation, and accountable to the people it serves. The state must ensure public participation in the design implementation, evaluation and accountability mechanisms in the health care system.
I'm a fan. It seems from my reading of the legislation that they're going to be putting the details together with a lot of input and help. My plan is to find out how one becomes part of that process. I'm willing to move to Vermont. And once the plan is in place, like many others who retired from medicine still young enough to pick another career, I'd gladly go back to practice. Back to a patient-centric practice where I could provide care without spending half of every day fighting insurance companies. PURE BLISS!
Earlier this year, the Republicans had a large (19 point) lead in enthusiasm. And as we all know, the more enthused the people, the more likely they will vote. Well, Gallup indicates the gap is narrowing:
That's right, the IIE enthusiasm gap has been cut almost in half.
Later in the same study, Gallup notes that the generic Congressional ballot is split at 45/45 for the second week in a row.
As Gallup notes, this will make turnout key in November if these numbers hold. (Then again, perhaps it's a trend....)
Face it, this election season is looking tough because of all the good people that are choosing to retire (David Obey being just the latest), the targeted freshmen reps, a certain ennui and battle fatigue amoung many activists, progressive disappointment over health care and other issues, and the historical trend for both chambers in the first midterm after a party retakes the White House.
But maybe it's possible that this year will be different because ALL of that in the paragraph above gets trumped by the Republicans basically eating their young. That is, the polls don't show it yet, but it's possible that a lot of moderate Republicans are/end up so embarrassed by their radical teabag fringe that they just stay home in November.
Yeah, yeah, maybe that's a pipe dream, but it is also an opportunity for us: get involved now in the primaries in your state, and once they're over, start working for your candidates. Remember the lesson that many Democrats learned for the first time in 2008: boots on the ground matter. Grassroots action matters. Being involved pays off on election day.
Don't be a bystander: take the falling Republican enthusiasm and stand up and say "I'm enthused - I'm a Democrat and I'm going to vote....come join me."
To many of you, this is preaching to the choir. In case you don't know, there's a reason for preaching to the choir: it's how you get them to sing. For others of you, your interest in politics is an observer: make this the year you change. IMAGINE if we find a way to not only beat expectations, but hold the House and the Senate in November!
Want to dip a foot in the water? Run a voter registration drive. It's easy and it's fun. It's also empowering for all who participate. If anyone wants to know how, drop me a note, and I'll send you all the details.
When I decided to call the Republican Party "IIE" for Idiots in Exile, it was early last year. Mike Steele had just been elected head of the RNC, and was looking for urban-suburban hip-hop Republicans. I was so very glad for that continual source of humour. (Remember his fried chicken and watermelon picnic?) The IIE had been firmly trounced in the 2008 elections, and everything looked rosy for their implosion.
Well, it's a year and a few months later, and the Republicans have certainly collapsed, but in ways we never expected. We had all known that there was a schism between the far right and the moderates, but did we really think that what became the tea baggers would win? In my heart, I'd believed that the moderates would at least continue to hold some power. But no. What have you heard in the past year about the issues of the day: health care, DADT, DOMA, Gitmo, TARP II, climate change, and now immigration from either of the George Bushes, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal? Either nothing, or support for the tea baggers.
It appears that the remaining Republican moderates are either so frightened that they stay silent, or they side with obstruction just to be able to talk amoungst themselves in private. When people do speak out, like Charlie Crist, they are vilified by their own. It's likely that Charlie will be an independent candidate by tonight, by the way. You can see this most clearly in this week's hot topic: financial reform. The IIE kept saying no, and holding firm, right up until it became obvious that they were going to be required to actually filibuster in public: recipe books, cots, and C-SPAN.
While the party is still on the ballots this year, they have traded potential short term gains for long range disaster. Any Republican who wins this year, especially newly elected to a position, will be tagged with being a racist for support of the Arizona bill, and the fallout from it. We are certainly against the bill: while we, the Democrats want immigration reform, it would never occur to us to allow the government to act like fascists or Nazis. The economic impacts to the state will be severe, even prior to implementation, and the payback from voting Hispanics will be incredible. Take Florida: even while the majority of Florida Hispanics are legal Cubans with their special dry feet status, can you imagine them voting for Rubio if he says anything positive about the Arizona law? And yet, as an ostensible tea bagger (he's not one, but he's going with what's playing to the base) he'll face pressure from outside the state to support it.
The tea baggers largest problem with the immigration bill, by the way, is that it runs counter to their published aim of smaller government. While the law allows for local police to stop people because of the colour of their skin, there are huge costs involved in housing them, clothing them, feeding them, running the checks, sending them out of the country. To fully implement will strain both local and the Arizona state budgets: how does that jibe with "smaller government" and "fewer taxes"? That against a backdrop of ever growing numbers of cities, states, organizations, and just plain people boycotting economic ties to the state.
Health Care? While I have been very vocal in my opposition to a law with massive implementation problems that does not go far enough, we did manage to pass SOMETHING in an incredibly difficult political environment. Despite protests, threats of violence, incredible stupidity, we stood firm. When the House members walked past a nasty crowd yelling "faggot" and "n****r" with heads held high, on their way to vote, it was an incredibly strong message that despite our own internal problems, we hung tough to do the very best we could. A very, VERY, proud day.
And that picture, of lots of Democrats behind Nancy Pelosi and the giant mallet says it all: elected officials outside in the sunshine, standing up for what we believe. As opposed to cowering Republican moderates: truly the meaning of IIE. Nothing but fungus and mold survive well in the darkness.
As we enter May, with its 10 primaries and 3 special elections, we'll see a lot of what gets reaped. June, too, with more than 20 primaries. Will turnout be huge? Will the IIE attempt intimidation at the polls, or hold off on that until November? Will the Democrats come out for the progressive wing of the party? Will the set of slates across the country support the tea bag IIE or the remaining moderates? And most importantly, will the electorate care enough to push turnout over 20%, or could it fall to 5%?
I know what I'll be doing: I'll be at the polls on 18 May for the Pennsylvania primary, standing firm at my local polling place supporting the candidate of my choice. Listening to the arriving voters tell others that they're only there because they're afraid to face me Wednesday had they not voted. I'll be canvassing this weekend, and doing more as we get closer. What about you? Will you be standing with the side of truth and light? If you don't have a primary in your state, you can always help make calls from home, and OFA is always running phone banks, too.
Earlier this year, I had my issues with the party. But I am reminded of my nephew who was 4 the last time there was a baseball strike. (For what it's worth, he was born a Mets fan, go figure....) Anyway, at a family function in March, he said that the strike would end by 1 April, because that was opening day, and it would be time to throw out the first ball. It was that simple to him. It's the same here: I might have my issues, but it's about to be an election, and while the IIE may stand silent, I cannot. It's time for an election, and I'll be at my post. The more silent the IIE, the more the tea baggers can pull ahead. But I don't care what they do in this case: voting matters, elections matter, and I've got work to do.
I had the joyous occasion to speak with my uncle last night. He is my favourite person with whom to discuss politics for two reasons. First, while a lot of 20th century American politics is history to me, to him, it's people he's known a lifetime. Second, I hope to someday know half of what he's forgotten.
So we started in Florida. We discussed Kendrick Meek's chances if Charlie Crist doesn't announce as an independent. While we both believe Charlie would prevail in a three-man race, his take on Meek was something I hadn't considered. And it fed into last night's learning experience on the whole primary system.
Kendrick Meek, my uncle pointed out to me, was the first person in the history of Florida to get on the ballot for high office by having petitions signed. It takes A LOT to run a successful petition drive in this era: therefore everyone else just cuts a check. For Congress in 2010 in Florida, that would be a $10,000 check. To get the petitions required organization, money, manpower and above all boots on the ground. My uncle believes that the petition drive will pay off big for Meek in a two-man race.
This was what segued into the possibility that primaries were killing the parties. My uncle got involved in politics as a teenager in New York in the 1940's. Back when the party ruled. The party set the candidate slate, provided the boots and the money. It was the organization. And it worked. Think: The Democratic Party in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, on and on.
For the party, this paid off in terms of adherence to platform and the wishes of the party "high command", but it also ensured that people learned. You didn't run for Governor, say, as a first shot. Candidates worked their way up via local government and effective NGOs and civic projects, then to the city/county level, then the state level, and some rose to the Federal level. This meant that elected officials understood politics, working with people, systems. It meant that the players were known all the way around, and working with the other side was more possible as everyone understood that it all came back to the electorate.
Since the growth of primaries, what it takes to win is money. Part of what has fed into this is how common and cheap airplane travel has become. At the Federal level, it means that Congressmen and Senators can shoot home every weekend, no matter how far away they live. It's one of the reasons that cycles have become as long as they have. Another factor is the growth of instantaneous media: do it now, it's viral in an hour.
But the real upshot, to my uncle, is that you don't need a party to run as a candidate for that party. All you need is the ability to raise enough money to get the job done. Forget walking before you crawl, you can fly. Thus, the people who run, and sometimes win, as Democrats or Republicans need not have any allegiance whatsoever to the party and its principles. Nor do they need the knowledge that comes from understanding the system by having worked hard, for years, within it.
For years, I've been screaming about the platform, the ethos, the core beliefs, and people keep telling me it doesn't matter. It wasn't until last night that I understood why that was right: the parties have been co-opted not just because individual elected officials are beholden to special interests and lobbyists, but because the parties themselves have ceased to have any pull or oversight at most levels.
I'm thinking back to 2008, where McCain took party money, and Obama did not. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Obama won, and I gave both time and money (and blood) to his campaign. The Democratic Party now belongs to OFA, it's run out of Chicago, and it is what the Obama contingent has molded it into. But if someone can come up with enough money, the Obama-Democratic organization can be displaced. Certainly Obama was an exception, and it's unlikely we'll ever again in our lifetimes see a juggernaut like his campaign: but buying the party on a local or state level is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, especially with the FEC SCOTUS decision.
There's good and bad in this, but I think it's important we understand that without the primary process that allowed "outsiders" to run and win against the party there are upsides and unintended consequences.
In a fit of pique, Republican Senators decided to block all committee hearings this afternoon. That included one that would have heard from the Commander of the US Pacific Command, the Commander of the US Strategic Command, and the Commander of the US Forces in Korea.
"We have three commanders scheduled to testify this afternoon. They've been scheduled for a long time. they've come a long, long distance. One of the has come from Korea. One of them has come from Hawaii," said Levin. -AFP
"If we fractionalize the Republican Party, we are going to see more liberals elected."
This person went on to blame the 2008 election of Jeff Merkley over Gordon Smith on the candidacy of David Brownlow, a Constitutionalist who would likely be a Teabagger this year. I had followed that race closely and thought it had to do with Smith's legal and moral problems related to the physical maltreatment of workers at his chicken processing plant, but hey....
Give up? None other than Orrin Hatch.
Yes, that Orrin Hatch.
Since we first started looking at the fractionalization of the IIE about a year ago, we always wondered which sect would end up with the "soul" of the IIE. We talked about the old GOP rift between the Goldwater and Rockefeller camps in 1964. The rise of the evangelicals since the time of Ronnie Reagan. The fiscal conservatives, the neocons, the wingnuts.
Orrin Hatch is a conservative. See here. The kind of person we'd put IN the tea bag camp. Then again, he's a seasoned pol, and knows what it takes to stay in office. For him to talk about the need to do away with "extreme conservatives" (it's in the link above) is a little unsettling.
Here's where I'm going with this: is it possible that we have become so polarized that even the far edges of both sides are about to yell "enough"? Is it possible that we could lose the middle of our entire political structure, much in the way that entire middle class is disappearing? I mention those two seemingly disparate things because I think they may well be connected.
When I went to college, and took a political economics course, the subject matter related to class battles and their influence on revolt and political change. Political change would, in large ways, be affected by economic changes. For example, the French Revolution. Or the issue of slavery and the US Civil War. The first revisionist book I ever read was The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South by Kenneth Stampp. He contended that slavery was a dying institution due to the invention of the cotton mill, which made it more fiscally feasible to hire workers and pay them, compared to the costs of housing and feeding slaves. That the Civil War was more about land than the "morality" (or lack thereof) of slavery per se.
At the time I went to college, there was the upper class, the upper middle class, the middle class, and the impoverished. It was possible to support a family on a single salary. Women worked, but most generally as teachers, nurses, librarians and secretaries. Political affiliation was closely aligned with social strata, economic standing, and educational level.
No more.
I believe that the diminishing numbers of people considered "middle class" has a lot to do with driving the tea baggers: these people are overwhelmingly white, middle-aged to elderly, and quickly losing their hold on being "middle class." the cling tenaciously to a political movement which seems to promise a return to a world more understandable, more stable, and "better." I doubt that most teabaggers give much thought to their elected officials beyond the fact that they are in power, and are not delivering what the constituency wants. They believe that "fiscal conservatism" with an overlay of G-d, will solve all problems.
They could not be more wrong.
On the other hand, you have the elected pols who understand the eccentricities and nuances of the political structure. They understand that most change is incremental, and there are firm limits to what a single branch of government can do without causing other branches to pop-up in retaliation. (Think potential Congressional and Executive action relative to the SCOTUS decision on money and political campaigns.) You also have the political junkies who do understand the system, and make considered decisions.
But back to Orrin. He knows, as do all entrenched elected Republicans, that "fiscal moderation" to the extent the teabaggers want, is not possible given the size of the debt, and the current obligations of the government to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military budget. Ceasing to make payments on the debt, or cutting the other programs back to nothing would cause huge problems. So he'll move as far to the middle as he can.
If Orrin and his minions fail, they will be replaced with tea bag candidates who don't understand the system, and can't come up with legislation that can work, or with an even larger Democratic majority. From our perspective, we need to determine whether running Democratic moderates or more liberal Democrats would be more effective both electorally and in terms of legislative priorities.
Greetings from snow central. The DC portion of the Federal government is closed today.
Spunky was the keynote speaker at the Tea Bag Convention on Saturday night. She put crib notes on her palm. My question is who did the actual writing? And thinking. But I digress.
It appears that she wants to run as a Republican AND a Teabagger. I understand easily that running as a Republican gives her ballot access, while running on a non-party would be difficult in many states. But it begs the question if Teabaggers are anti-government, how will they feel about voting Republican? OR if Spunky is able to BE the voice, face, and soul of the Republican Party, where do the remaining 12 Republican moderates and 37 AA Republicans go?
And what about Todd? The new email release shows that he passed proprietary data from his employer to the Alaskan government, "helped" make and break nominations and other hiring and firing decisions, and truly was a "shadow governor". And that's just what we've seen so far, much has been redacted, and more is coming.
While married couples certainly share information, do the teabaggers want Todd to have the launch codes? Maybe they don't care.
But the thing I'm really thinking about relates to the teabag supporters. I understand that people don't like paying taxes. I'm not one of those people because I believe in paying taxes. I want to pay taxes, because I believe in government services. I like roads, schools, libraries, a court system, and all the rest. I want some of the money I earn to go to services for people who need them. While I have a strict no-kill policy and therefore detest that a single dime of my money has ever gone for war, I am glad that some of my hard earned dollars have fed the hungry and provided medical care for the poor and helped to keep seniors solvent. But still, I understand the teabag rage against taxes. I understand that there is waste in government: I think we all realize it's part of the system that could use some improvement.
But the teabaggers have no implementable ideas. They seem unable to say where they would cut if they did decrease income from taxes. Do they want to do away with compulsory education? Do they feel libraries are superfluous because if you have a bible you don't need any other books? How will they pay for the wars they love so much? What will they do when children start starving to death? Have they forgotten what the world was like in the age of Upton Sinclair?
I don't think that Sarah Palin is electable for national office. Certainly not president. If she were able to capture the Republican nomination, it would be lightening rod for all of the progressives, moderates, non-voters, and anyone else who can read to rally to re-elect President Obama in 2012. But the fact that she has so much pull is indicative that we really are becoming, as my brother calls it, the United States of Entertainment. That being cute and dumb as a board plays well with far too many people.
You may remember the proposed legislation in Uganda that would kill people for being gay, and imprison people who knew that someone was gay and did not turn him/her in to the authorities. You may also remember that help for the development of this legislation came from the folks over at The Family.
Hold that thought.
Every year, there is a National Prayer Breakfast attended by the sitting US President and various domestic and foreign dignitaries and politicians. This year, the breakfast and The Family are colliding.
Usually, the annual event passes with little notice. But this year, an ethics group in Washington has asked President Obama and Congressional leaders to stay away from the breakfast, on Thursday. Religious and gay rights groups have organized competing prayer events in 17 cities, and protesters are picketing in Washington and Boston. [...]
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group, sent a letter this week to the president and Congressional leaders urging them to skip the prayer breakfast. They have also called on C-Span not to televise it this year. [...]
The Family has no identifiable Internet site, no office number and no official spokesman. J. Robert Hunter, a member who has spoken publicly about the group, said that it was unfair to blame the Family for the anti-gay legislation introduced by David Bahati. Mr. Hunter said that about 30 Family members, all Americans, active in Africa recently conveyed their dismay about the legislation to Ugandan politicians, including Mr. Bahati.
Likely the breakfast will go on, and will be attended by the president. Which is too bad, because appeasement of the evangelicals is just as bad as appeasement of the insurance industry in dealing with health reform.
In the past several days, I've seen a lot of news items wherein the Republican leadership has been proven to have their facts wrong. Massively wrong. Here's an example: the underwear bomber became radicalized because of the Bush administration, but cooperated with the Obama administration, and provided current, legitimate intelligence, because his family was convinced that this administration would follow the rule of law. They then convinced the bomber. No torture. When you listen to the IIE leadership, they seem to have their facts backwards.
They seem, in discussing budgets and finance, to conveniently forget the deficit growth due to the Bush administration, which dwarfed everything else. They deny anything and everything that does not fit into what they want their view of the world to be.
My question is whether this is an actual belief system on the part of the IIE and the minions who follow them, or perhaps they actually are that stupid. I don't know. And I want to understand.
I have a 7-year-old niece who recently tried to convince me that I could leave her alone at the house while I picked up her younger sister at day care because "mommy and daddy let me use the oven when they're gone, and I can bake cookies for all of us." Now, I know she wanted cookies, and I give her credit for taking the shot, but what I was unable to figure out was whether or not she actually BELIEVED that she was capable of using the oven or whether she believed she could convince me. I know the actual truth, which is that the stove is question is some specially-designed electronic marvel which has a magnetic knob on the top. When you remove the knob (and put it, say, on top of the fridge where 7-year-olds cannot find it) the stove and oven cannot turn on. It's a child safety device. Even if you don't know my brother, you can see that the objective truth is that parents do not buy stoves with that level of child-proofing if they'll leave a little kid (not tall enough to clear the cook top) alone with a hot oven.
It's not that different with the GOP/IIE - do they actually believe that torture is a better idea, or have they just reached the point of trying to convince the rest of us because they think it will help them win elections?
And what of the minions who actually believe the )*#@&^@$) being fed them by the GOP? Do they believe that the KSM trial would be an aberration in NY after the 20+ civil trials of other terrorists which occurred without incident over the past 25 years? Go all the way back to 1993 and the first World Trade Center bombing: those people were arrested, tried in NY civil court, convicted and are now still in jail.
How do so many Republicans and tea baggers believe that Medicare is good, but extending it as far down as age 62 would ruin the country?
Why do they believe that Obama is not American? Still?
Even in 2008, when someone would say "I know Obama says X and McCain says Y" it was possible to pull up their campaign materials and show the voter what the truth was.
But now, more and more, I hear something akin to religion.
"The priest Mitch McConnell told me so, therefore it must be true. A priest McConnell wouldn't lie."
THAT level of blind adherence.
How do you get people to see and hear the truth, when they have been brainwashed? Can you? Do people believe the Republicans because they hate us so much that they'll cling to anything that is not the Democratic Party? Or are they really that they have lost the ability to hear/read two sides of something and intellectually determine what is true and what is false? Are the people like my niece, who wants cookies SO VERY BADLY that she'll believe her own lies?
You may think this is an abstract intelligencic ramble, but it's not: this is a real consideration. This election year, it won't just be promoting a candidate and countering a lie against said candidate, it will be trying to explain (kindly, gently) to Kool-Aid drinkers that they've been brainwashed. Or maybe they haven't been brainwashed: it's that our country has become so dumbed down that most people will believe anything that strikes their fancy on a given day.
I don't know. I honestly don't. But "stupid or brainwashed" is a bad multiple choice answer set for the question "Which word best describes the electorate in 2010?"
It's been a busy week for those wascally wepublicans. As an aside, since I get mail, if you're new "IIE" is my pet name for them: it stands for Idiots in Exile.
As you know, the House Republicans went to Baltimore. But did you know that the RNC went to Hawaii? Yup, the annual committee meeting. So much for financial responsibility. One of their actions there was to consider the Loyalty Oath 61% of you were so opposed to the last time we polled it. They didn't actually approve a loyalty oath, rather a "Platform Test". It's not a straight litmus test, but "recommends" that the RNC only provide funding to those candidates who align with the party platform.
It came from member Bill Crocker (no relation to Betty) who said:
No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please.
The idea is to bar any funding to anyone considered not right enough. It was adopted over the more stringent 7 of 10 policy platforms which was opposed by Mike Steele and the others less, um, far right wacko than others.
At least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort.
The organizational details of the group, expected to be called the American Action Network, are still being worked out, but it is expected to contain both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 component. In simpler terms, a 501(c)3 can advocate on policy matters while a 501(c)4 is an election arm.
Republican leaders expected to be affiliated with the group include former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, and Republican donor Fred Malek.
A House leadership aide told Washington Wire today that Rob Collins, a political operative and senior aide to House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, is leaving Capitol Hill to be the executive director of the 501(c)4.
But that's not the end of the internecine warfare. Nope - remember that Tuesday election in Illinois? You've certainly heard that Mark Kirk is the front runner in the GOP Senatorial primary. Well, it appears that he lacks appeal to one sect of the GOP: that's right, Tea Party Nation is urging their members to vote against him. They're calling him a RINO with a consistently liberal voting record.
Remember, the Tea Bag Convention kicks off on Thursday. We've heard that they can't fill the seats, but the party is contending there is a waiting list. I have a sense of which is true, and if you want to check that there are still empty seats, have your pay pal account ready so your money can go into the direct account of the wife of the founder. Yummers! Wasn't this something Jim and Tammy Faye Baker did, or do I have my evangelicals confused? It's so hard between the extortion, the money laundering and the philandering.
Last week, two major players said things they should not have said. On the Democratic side, we have Harry Reid, In Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's book Game Change, he is quoted as describing the president as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".
He apologized, and said apology was immediately accepted by the President. I believe there is not one of us who has never said anything we should not have said. Not one. The president knows this...in fact, can you think of a sentence using the words "bitter" and "religion" said by a candidate.....in San Fransisco? About a month before the Pennsylvania primary? At a theoretically closed-press meeting? You get the idea.
I doubt Harry Reid will take a huge hit for this. That doesn't mean he'll keep his seat this year, but if he loses the election, it won't be because of his comment about Obama. His numbers stink. His approval rating is under 50, and here are the latest match-ups:
Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.
Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid's 41 percent.
Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide -- 42 percent don't know her.
That's all health care, housing prices and economics.
On the Republican side, we have Michael Steele, who said many, many things he shouldn't have. In fact, he wrote a book he shouldn't have, and then went on a press tour. Probably the biggest misstep was saying that the GOP can't win the House back this year. the Chair of the RNC is supposed to be a cheerleader for his party. He's supposed to at least TRY to find a path to victory, not just give up the first month of an election year. What he said has a 99.9% chance of being true, but he still should not have said it.
He also said that Harry Reid should resign over the Obama comment. This makes me chuckle. I'm lying, it made me laugh out loud. Harry Reid was an Obama supporter. He has carried water since Day 1 of Obama's presidency in all matters legislative. While you can fault him for a lack of spine, often that was what the administration wanted. He has walked a tough line in his dual roles as Senator representing Nevada and Senate Majority Leader (and without having an affair -- how is it that Ensign pays no price for that.....) And Mike Steele thinks he should resign for being a racist????
Mike Steele - chair of the party who brought you "Barack the Magic Negro" sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon." Mike, who believes that being gay is a choice and that black people would riot if a Starbucks closed in a black neighborhood. I told you I loved this guy as RNC chair - back when he was searching for urban-suburban hip-hop types and one-armed midgets. It was in large part because of him that I renamed the GOP the IIE for "Idiots in Exile" - and now, he AGREES -- exiled to the point that they have no shot at retaking the House.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the GOP to retake the House (nor the Senate, nor the White House, nor ANY elected position unless Edward Brooke runs for office.) But talk about things you shouldn't say....
We all make choices every day. Not just in what we say, but in how we live our lives: for good or not. I'm pleased that Scott is planning on working the Coakley election, and is asking other moderate Democrats to join him. It's a good choice. I saw this, and it really struck me. It's all a choice. Harry and Mike could have made better ones, but we all get a second chance every day.
Yesterday I met a young man who has never registered to vote. Nice guy. Decided against registering when the table was set up in high school, now a few years later, he sees no reason to vote. NO REASON TO VOTE! You might think this is a standard "I don't want to register because then I can be called to jury duty" story, but it's not.
The man has issues with which he is concerned, specifically DOMA, DADT and gay marriage. He knew about the Prop 1 vote in Maine, and said he was disappointed that the people didn't see the need for marriage equality. I explained that if he had lived in Maine and wasn't registered, that would have been a potential vote lost. That if similar legislation ended up on the ballot here in Pennsylvania, and all the people who were in favour were unregistered, the cretins could vote it down. Epiphany.
He said the real reason he never registered was that politicians promised things, and then went back on them. He said that no one seemed to stand for anything,
I thought about that while reading an article about the RNC "Purity" Resolution. It's basically a loyalty oath which will probably be voted on at the January RNC meeting.
Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.
Two basic things: notice that they chose the word "purity" in lieu of "loyalty". I hear Germany in the '30's in that term, but maybe that's just me. The other thing is that the overwhelming drive of the list involves the word "opposing". The list is after the jump, so you can see what I mean. The list has no ideas, just things to oppose.
I have such mixed feelings about this that I don't even know where to begin.
On the one hand, the list represents everything I dedicate my life to fighting against. On the other hand, I actually believe there is a benefit in people reading the party platform, and then sticking with it. On some third hand, I wonder if this brings the Republican Party closer to implosion by forcing moderates out. I wonder if the Democratic Party had a loyalty oath dedicated to positive action on the part of government, would that make us stronger or weaker? If there are loyalty oaths, does that bring us closer to leaving the two-party system and moving to a set of multiple parties with different issue thrusts, and the potentiality of needing to form coalition governments on specific issues?
I wonder if we had a "loyalty oath" on the issue of health care reform, would we already have a bill ready to implement in January 2010, or fewer members? And which would be better?
Certainly I understand that it's generally a good idea to have a platform to which one adheres to receive party funding. One of the reasons I don't give money to the party is because it can go to ostensible Democrats who actively work against my interests, my issues, and my philosophy.
As for the party endorsements, in the Democratic Party, these have often led to the "preferred" candidate being a moderate or a conservadem, as opposed to a progressive, dating back to the DLC in the early '90's.
And finally, how much easier for my young friend, and many others like him, if it were possible to know where candidates stood, and to be certain that, if elected, they would remain with those positions?
Guess who said 
Last week, two major players said things they should not have said. On the Democratic side, we have Harry Reid, In Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's book Game Change, he is quoted as describing the president as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one".
