Month: November 2009

Californication

by digby

This piece by Dave Roberts gets to the nub of our ongoing national problem with governance and it’s a biggie: the Senate and its supermajority rules:

What’s that dysfunction? It’s simple: a supermajority requirement coupled with an extreme, unified minority. Everything else—and I mean pretty much every lamentable feature of American politics —flows out of that. Rich Yeselson puts it in pungent terms: “We are living through the Californiafication of America—a country in which the combination of a determined minority and a procedural supermajority legislative requirement makes it impossible to rationally address public policy challenges.” Yes, this is a discussion about congressional procedure, which conventional wisdom says will bore everyone. But it’s time you got un-bored, and quick, because nothing else you care about is going to improve until this does. read on …

He goes on to show, as we have done many times here, that the Republicans are using the filibuster far, far more often than it ever has in the past. It’s simply astonishing, as these charts show:

This is the result of the full realignment of the parties. The American system has essentially become a two party parliamentary system. (This is why some of us were nearly apoplectic at the idea that Democrats we promising a new era of comity and bipartisanship at a time when the structural foundation of our politics made such a thing nearly impossible.)

Roberts argues for abolishing the filibuster and I’m certainly all for that. I hate all of those anachronistic aristocratic prerogatives of white, male land ownership and I’d be happy to see the electoral college — and the Senate itself, frankly — go right along with it. Our system of government is unwieldy and bizarre and I’d be happy to see us have a real parliamentary system with multiple parties.

Unfortunately, I think we have a far better chance of reverting to full blown feudalism. I doubt very, very seriously the two parties are going to agree to abolish the filibuster. The Democrats may use it less ruthlessly when they are in the minority but they want it in the tool box. As long as Republicans are in the minority they will fight to the death to keep it and as Roberts lays out, it takes some of their votes to change it.

So, I’m skeptical about the prospects of eliminating the filibuster. But there is one thing that can be done: the Democrats can get over this nostalgia for the good old days when Democrats and Republicans all slept together in one big cozy pile and start acting like a real political party.

The argument for abolition of the filibuster falls apart when you see that the Dems have the 60 votes and — it doesn’t make any difference. And that’s because there is always some pampered little prince or princess who thinks he or she should be running everything and they will hold up the process regardless. That 50th Senator for the vote would be as hard to get as the 60th for the filibuster unless the Democratic party starts to require some partisan loyalty.

In the days when legislation was cobbled together on a bipartisan basis, you didn’t want too much discipline or you couldn’t get the other side to cross lines when you needed them. But the realignment has solidified the partisan divide on the basis of ideology, philosophy and region. The Republicans have adapted already and understand that their job is to obstruct when in the minority and steam roll when in the majority. The Democrats are still living in the past.

We are a politically polarized country with very different views of how to govern this country. We have regular elections to determine if people are happy with what the majority party is doing. That system will work just fine if only the politicians will enact their agendas and then let the country ratify it or reject it. I don’t see what’s so wrong with that. It sounds like representative democracy to me.

This fetish for bipartisanship seems more and more like a social construct to allow the ruling class to live happily together. As a citizen, that really isn’t my concern. I think we should expect the parties to fight these issues out on the merits rather than live with gridlock and torpor where the only ones who ever prevail are the lobbyists who grease the palms of the politicians of both parties.

.

From the Department Of WTF

by tristero

Neocons are, first and foremost, assholes. And they go out of their way to be assholes. Case in point.

I started the article because I have a great interest in music manuscripts, and in fact, am avidly reading an excellent book that goes through Beethoven ‘s sketches for the Diabelli Variations in the kind of excruciating detail that, in other circumstances, would merit a psychiatric diagnosis. True, the new documents donated to Juilliard don’t seem particularly important, but anything scribbled by these great composers is inherently interesting. Then, as I was finishing the Times article, I got to this:

[Manuscript donator] Mr. Kovner, in the interview, stressed the importance of making such materials available to scholars and seemed to take particular pride in an online consortium that has begun to form around the collection. Tentatively called the Music Treasures Consortium, it so far involves the Morgan Library & Museum, the Harvard University Library, the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress and the British Library, he said.

“But please don’t say that I invented the Internet,” added Mr. Kovner, who is on the board of the American Enterprise Institute and a backer of other conservative causes, and presumably no fan of Al Gore.

Wha??????

First of all, Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet, as Somerby has documented beyond any conceivable doubt, so there was no reason for the Times to bring up Gore in this context, and once they did, it was more than incumbent on them to expose Kovner’s ignorant, snotty remark for being… that’s right, ignorant and snotty.

Secondly, whatever his numerous faults, Beethoven (if not Mendelssohn) was a profound lover of nature who would certainly have passionately supported Al Gore’s environmental politics. Furthermore, Beethoven, while dependent upon the largess of the aristocracy, was an egalitarian, if not a liberal – the exact antithesis of the kind of elite, pompous, incompetent asses worshipped, and underwritten, by the likes of AEI. There’s a famous story told about Beethoven and Goethe, which gives insight into the composer’s attitude towards the political elites of his time:

Beethoven was 42, Goethe 63, with the publication of the first part of Faust four years behind him. Of this meeting, the following vignette has come down to us. – As Beethoven and Goethe walked, some of the nobility passed with their entourage. Goethe politely stepped aside and bowed deferentially to the nobles – while Beethoven, in a typical gesture, strode almost defiantly right through their midst, with his hands behind his back and without acknowledging the presence of the nobles, who had no alternative but to give him clear passage. When Goethe asked Beethoven how he could so disrespectfully treat these nobles, the composer replied, again characteristically, “There are countless ‘nobles’, but only two of us.”

Third, Kovner’s quip wasn’t funny. Unless, that is, you find neo-conservative discourse, after the disaster they inflicted on Iraq, a laugh riot. I don’t.

Yes, it’s a trivial thing, the Times printing this bozo’s nonsense buried deep in a puff piece about a donation to a music school, yet paradoxically, that’s why it’s important. This kind of bowing and scraping to neocons, especially filthy rich neocons, is so prevalent in the media that we tend to discount its pernicious cumulative effect. Intentionally or not, it keeps conservative lies, myths, and ideologies within the mainstream discourse. And that perpetuates the notion that these people are, in some sense, advocating a sensible mainstream American political philosophy. They aren’t, and the Times shouldn’t give them carte blanche to spread their lies, especially in a story that is presumably far removed from their wacky thinking.

HC Reform For Dummies

by digby

Finally, the long awaited Republican alternative is upon us. And essentially it is “don’t get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.” Imagine that.

A House Republican health-care bill wouldn’t seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance, Minority Leader John Boehner said Monday. Republicans haven’t released full details of the party’s bill, but Mr. Boehner said the legislative proposal would be made public in the next couple of days. The bill would allow insurance firms to sell policies across state lines, permit small businesses to pool together to bring down costs they face, implement changes to medical malpractices, and give state governments more flexibility to pursue rule changes in their states. The absence of a requirement to end the practice of insurers being allowed to deny coverage to people who are already ill or have pre-existing conditions would be a significant difference between Democratic and Republican health-care overhaul proposals directly impacting the insurance industry. Republicans also wouldn’t prevent insurers from ending policies once an individual becomes seriously ill. They would include other proposals included in Democratic legislation, such as removing lifetime and annual bans on the cost of health-care benefits policyholders can receive. Mr. Boehner also said Monday that the Republican plan wouldn’t include tax credits for people who buy insurance individually rather than through their employer. He cited the cost of providing those credits as a reason why they wouldn’t be included.

I fell pretty confident that they could get at least 61 votes in the senate for that and probably well above 225 in the House. What are we waiting for? This is the completely substanceless health care reform that they’ve all been waiting for. It will change absolutely nothing! It’s perfect.

Update: The Wall Street Journal seems to have removed the article from its web site. You can see a screen shot of the whole article here.

.

Must Watch, Must Weep

by digby

From the Vote No on 1 campaign:

Mr. Spooner is an 86-year-old WWII vet who testified in support of marriage equality before the Maine legislature. It’s powerful. It’s moving.

If you live in Maine or know someone who does, vote tomorrow come what may. This isn’t some partisan kabuki dance about undiscernible differences between ruling class clones. This is about whether or not LGBT people are going to be allowed to participate fully in society. It’s simple, it’s real, it’s unambiguously necessary.

Republicans will take their likely wins in NY and Virginia tomorrow as a mandate for more teabaggery even though it’s absurd. And if Corzine loses it’s probably a repudiation of Goldman economics, even though Corzine is about the best ex-Goldman exec out there.

(On that one, as Ken at DWT says:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Anyone who’s considering voting for Chris Christie, in a state that doesn’t have a lieutenant governor, should insist on a clear statement of the gubernatorial succession rules covering all contingencies — for example, if he’s indicted after being elected but before taking office, and whether he’s required to resign as soon as he’s indicted, etc.

But if Maine loses, the forces of evil will really have won. Again. It’s important that the forces of good GOTV tomorrow.

Adam Bink will be on the radio tonight to talk about the latest in the campaign with updates from Maine. Keep your fingers crossed for the good guys.

Oh, and for all of my Washington state friends out there (you know who you are … ) get yourselves to the voting booth in the morning. There is no room for complacency. Losing Referendum 71 would be a huge defeat for the gay rights movement and nothing can be taken for granted.

It’s a big day tomorrow.

.

Uh Oh

by digby

The queen bee’s got her stinger out:

Today:

The sense that the Obamas are flirting with disaster by parading their happy family life was magnified by Michelle’s Marie Antoinette-like appearance this week on the cover of Glamour magazine — at a time when many Americans continue to lose their homes or jobs every month.

In the interview with Glamour, Michelle discussed her fashion choices and appeared to tease her husband: “One thing I’ve learnt about male role models is that they don’t hesitate to invest in themselves.” The timing and content of the piece prompted Sally Quinn, a veteran Washington style-watcher, to suggest that the first lady had been badly advised.

“I’m not sure if I had been her adviser I would have said for her to do the Glamour cover because it might begin to trivialise her and what her role is,” she said.

The enthusiasm for the Obama family has until now obliged most Republicans to bite their tongues when discussing Michelle and the children, but there were mutterings last week that the president might be using his enviable private life as a diversion from awkward political realities — notably the prospect this week of Democratic defeats in elections for state governors in New Jersey and Virginia.

“Funny how every time there’s a crisis we end up reading about Michelle,” noted one Republican insider. “It’s great to see that the first couple have such a wonderful relationship,” added a Times website reader. “Now can the president please get down to solving the country’s problems?”

Yesterday:

According to society sources, Sally invited Hillary to a luncheon when the Clintons came to town in 1993. Sally stocked her guest list with her best buddies and prepared to usher the first lady into the capital’s social whirl. Apparently, Hillary didn’t accept. Miffed, Sally wrote a catty piece in the Post about Mrs. Clinton. Hillary made sure that Quinn rarely made it into the White House dinners or social events.

In return, Sally started talking trash about Hillary to her buddies, and her animus became a staple of the social scene. “There’s just something about her that pisses people off,” Quinn is quoted as saying in a New Yorker article about Hillary.

Quinn’s antipathy to Hillary became the subject of a New York Observer piece in 1996 that turned the spotlight on Sally, now 56. “No longer a journalistic star, Ms. Quinn seems restless and unsatisfied,” wrote Mary Jacoby, “despite her wealth and prominence and her Georgetown mansion with swimming pool and tennis court, not to mention her house in the Hamptons.” Wondering about the roots of Quinn’s spat with Mrs. Clinton, a younger and more powerful woman, Jacoby wondered if Quinn was “frightened” that her good looks were fading and “bitter because she’s no longer on center stage.”

I think we all know where all that led.

Sally and the rest of the village tabbies are very, very hard to please. By Democrats anyway. If it isn’t that they are bringing down the morals of the country with their modern, serious, complicated marriages, they are being a little bit too uppity with their old-fashioned, fun uncomplicated marriages. They prefer something dull and lifeless like George and Laura’s or Nancy and Ronnie’s, where the president calls the first lady “mommie” and the first lady stares at the president like he’s the cutest Jonas Brother. (One assumes that it helps if the couples have blue blood or are at least Hollywood Royalty — the respectable, conservative kind, of course.)

I would suggest that Michelle get herself over to the Bradlee parlor and apologize for failing to consult the *right people* before this backbiting gets out of hand. She needs to realize that if she wants to survive in the sleepy little hamlet called Washington DC, she and her family belong to Sally. And Sally will not be ignored.

.

Win, Win, Win

by digby

I’ve been assuming that access to abortion was going to be sacrificed in the health care debate, but it’s probably going to be worse than I thought:

The bill also prevents affordability credits from being used to pay for abortion coverage; the credits would help middle-class and working-class Americans purchase insurance coverage on the private market. Eighty-seven percent of existing private insurance plans cover abortion, which is significantly cheaper and less medically risky than pregnancy and childbirth. After reform, if insurers want to continue to provide such care, the House bill would require them to segregate all government funding from the co-pays individuals pay into the plans. Abortions could only be paid for out of the “private” side of the ledger. In addition, in each state, the health-insurance market must include one plan that does cover abortion, and one plan that does not. But because the vast majority of insurers currently do cover the procedure, pro-choicers view the provision as a step forward for the opposition. “That kind of leans toward the pro-life position,” Waxman said. Pro-life Democrats have been especially influential in the health reform process because so many of them are considered swing voters on the overall package. Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat with strong ties to the religious right, has emerged as a spokesman for antiabortion sentiments in both parties. He continues to push forward in an attempt to amend the Pelosi bill to restrict abortion even further. Stupak’s goal is to outlaw all abortion coverage within the health-insurance exchanges, requiring women to purchase a special “rider” for abortion services. But according to health-care experts, few women anticipate needing an abortion and thus would be unlikely to pay extra for the coverage—even though about half of American women experience an unintended pregnancy in their lifetimes, and one-third of American women have had an abortion. Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues, told The Daily Beast, “Currently, it’s not that we can’t pay for coverage that includes abortions. It’s that we can’t cover abortions. The [Stupak] standard is stricter than the standard in Hyde.” Abortion-rights activists regard Stupak as “obsessed,” motivated by religious beliefs, and unwilling to compromise. They allege that he may not truly support the president’s effort to overhaul the health-care system, pointing out his ties to groups like Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee, which opposed the expansion of S-CHIP, the state program that provides health care to poor children.

Stupak is clearly trying to tank health care reform and think that abortion rights are the way to do it. But it’s really win win for them, either way. If it doesn’t tank the bill completely, it will likely be because the Democrats refuse to fight for abortion coverage, so the anti-choice zealots win a big one even if some form of withered health care reform passes.

But this was probably ordained the minute Obama made his position known:

Pro-choice leaders disagree about whether more support from the White House could have strengthened their hand in the health-reform battle. In addition to the failed efforts to include comprehensive abortion coverage in the public plan, efforts to require private health insurance coverage of birth control also fell flat. In 1993, Hillary Clinton explicitly told Congress that she expected pregnancy and abortion to be treated in health reform like any other medical service. This year, though, Obama sent a different message, telling Katie Couric in July, “I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.” A different tone from the White House might have helped pro-choice groups, Waxman said. “We would like significant support from the administration on women exercising their constitutional rights,” she said.

Of course it would have made a difference if Obama had said that he believed that all women should have access to health insurance that covers abortion but he didn’t. He pretty much wrote it off from the beginning and left the field open for the zealots to tighten restrictions even more.

What Stupak and his crowd really hope to do is declare all the money going into the exchanges fungible so that no insurance companies can offer abortion coverage under the execrable Hyde Amendment. But no worries. Women could buy it as a rider, basically having to pay extra because they have the added responsibility of bearing children. If they don’t want to pay for that “extra” insurance, they could abstain from sex or be prepared to have a child every other year if their birth control fails. (Maybe they should have thought ahead a little bit and been born men.) There’s no reason that that the non-sluts and decent people in this country should have to pay for something so icky.

Here’s my advice. If women have to buy abortion coverage as a rider, all men have to buy special erection insurance in case they need medical care for sexual dysfunction. As far as I’m concerned, if a man can’t get it up, it’s God’s will and I can’t in good conscience have my money touch any money that pays for that. Those Viagra ads literally make my stomach lurch. It’s very, very icky.

As I have written before, I think this is a lost cause and was probably lost before the debate even began when the president bought into “common ground” nonsense. Even though some lame form of health care reform, likely with an even lamer opt-in public option, is going to hit the floors, everyone will insist that they simply have to further restrict millions of women’s ability to exercise their constitutional rights in order to appease “moderates.” And then the Republicans can run against the whole reform as a liberal nightmare. Awesome.

.

Lady Frothenberg Laces Up Her Corset

by digby

Village social secretary Lady Stuart Frothenberg is simply OUTRAGED by that horrible man Alan Grayson and puts her astute observations of human nature and extensive training in psychoanalysis to work to explain why he scares us so:

I didn’t meet Grayson during either of his two Congressional runs a(2006 nd 2008), but I heard plenty about him. My first and only meeting with the Congressman occurred earlier this year, in late March, in Orlando, Fla., when we spoke at the same event.

At the time, a handful of names of possible GOP challengers were already floating around, including former state Sen. Dan Webster and Orange County Mayor Richard Crotty. Both have since passed on the race.

Smart freshmen from difficult districts, when asked about their re-election prospects, will respond either that they are focused on doing their job on Capitol Hill or that they know that they’ll have a tough fight on their hands and will do everything they can to deserve re-election. Some even say something nice (e.g., “he’d be formidable”) about a potential opponent.

Grayson did none of those things. Instead, with not a whit of humility, he proceeded to bash, then dismiss, Webster and Crotty. A Grayson aide has since said in print that potential opponents have decided against challenging the Congressman because “they don’t want to be gutted like a fish.”

That is the most shocking story I’ve ever heard. What kind of animal would behave in such a way? Oh my Lord, I can hardly breathe!

Grayson’s problems, from what I can tell, include an exaggerated sense of his intellect to cover up some self-esteem issues and a misguided belief that voters supported him because they actually liked him.

The Congressman has terrific academic credentials. He graduated in three years, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Harvard. He has a law degree, with honors, from Harvard Law School, and he’s only a doctoral dissertation short of a Ph.D. in government from Harvard.

He’s also made millions in business and as an attorney, making him one of the wealthiest Members of the House.

But Grayson’s official House Web site provides some clues to Grayson the man.

No, not the man. The large, hirsute, dominating man who makes us feel so small and vulnerable. Not him, please…

His bio begins with a quote from Deuteronomy, “Justice, justice, ye shall seek,” and continues, “There is right, and there is wrong. We in Central Florida have sent someone to Washington who fights for what’s right.”

Note that the Congressman isn’t merely fighting for what he believes to be right, or that he is trying to work with others to improve things. His side stands for right, while the other side is wrong.

The bio continues by telling us that Grayson “was admitted to an exclusive public high school,” and while in that school, “he achieved the highest test score among almost 50,000 students who took the test.”

It also asserts that “life at Harvard wasn’t easy. Alan cleaned toilets, and worked as a night watchman.” And he “graduated from Harvard in the top two percent of his class.” Surprisingly, given what he does include, Grayson does not include his SAT scores or his IQ.

Grayson clearly has some issues with who he is and where he came from. And that shows, not only in his bio but also with the way he deals with those who may disagree with him.

And they let him walk around free among normal people? What kind of politician would ever dream of saying he is right and the other side is wrong? What kind of egomaniacal monster would put his curriculum vitae on his web site or indicate that he worked his way through college? Dear God the man is clearly a psychopath.

And what kind of sick, demented beasts would vote for him in the first place?

Grayson was elected to Congress not because of who he is and was, but because he wasn’t Ric Keller, the incumbent Republican. The challenger won because of a big Democratic wave in a competitive but Republican-leaning district that President George W. Bush won with 55 percent in 2004. Barack Obama carried it with 52 percent last year — roughly the same showing as Grayson. The district’s Democratic Performance Index is only 44 percent, making it a difficult district for any Democrat in a normal year.

Keller, of course, had a shockingly close 53 percent to 47 percent primary win about 10 weeks before last year’s general election, a sure sign of his problems in the district. And Grayson outspent Keller by almost 2-to-1, $3.21 million to $1.77 million, in the race.

It was his money and the mood for change that made Grayson a winner, not the public’s affection or admiration for him.

Thank you Lord Jesus. I was petrified that there was a pocket of insane voters in Florida who would vote for someone who shockingly referred to a lobbyist as a (dare I say it? … no) prostitute or who thinks that the Federal Reserve should account for the all the money it’s been printing. After all, it’s a Republican district and we know how much they loathe insulting rhetoric and emotional language.

Thank goodness Lady Frothenberg has sounded the alarm about this bizarre and frightening man. And thank the good lord in heaven that he will not be among decent people much longer:

So where does Grayson stand politically after his “whore” comment, after saying that Republicans want sick people to “die quickly” and after comparing the nation’s health care system to the Holocaust? In very hot water.

Grayson’s comments resonated with some grass-roots Democrats, but elections in Florida’s 8th district aren’t won by those kinds of voters. Swing voters, and particularly Republican-leaning swing voters, are likely to pick the next Congressman.

Republican strategists don’t have a top-tier challenger to Grayson, but given the Congressman’s public persona, they probably don’t need one to make for a competitive contest. A competent, well-funded challenger with some private-sector experience would give Grayson a headache.

Those who say that Grayson will or won’t win re-election at this point are getting too far ahead of themselves. The race is a long way from developing. But it’s already clear that Grayson loves controversy, thinks he can do no wrong and is widely seen as the loosest of cannons. That’s enough to almost guarantee he’ll be in the political fight of his life.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I am vastly relieved to know that the Lady Frothenberg has brought this to the attention of the entire Village so that this dangerously ill-mannered person can be properly shunned by Everyone Who Matters.

You see, it’s one thing for Republicans to give speeches on the floor of the House saying that Democrats want to murder the elderly or that they plan to create sex clinics and force teenage girls to have abortions. That is simply folksy language these people use to communicate with their people. When Newt Gingrich blamed Susan Smith’s murdering of her own children on liberalism, Lady Frothenberg understood that it was harmless hyperbole. When Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and the rest of the conservative movement leadership say daily that Barack Obama is a black racist who hates America, it’s simply their way, and we all understand that it is just entertainment for the masses who require this type of crude stimulation.

But when one calls a former Enron lobbyist a K-Street whore on an obscure radio show, one has simply gone too far, sirrah, and it will not be tolerated.

There will be a town hall meeting this evening led by Pastor Dick Cheney to discuss the possibility of witches in the village and what types of enhanced interrogation might be used to determine the breadth of the infiltration. Our deep sense of decency, morality and civility demand it. And thank you once again, Lady Frothenberg, for bringing this egregious breach of proper behavior to our attention.

Whatever the rest of you do, don’t encourage this miscreant Alan Grayson to do more of this boorish behavior by donating money at his crude web site: Congressmanwithguts.com. If you do, I certainly hope you don’t plan on being invited into the any of the finer homes and establishments in the Village because you just aren’t welcome there!

*Piece by Stuart Rothenberg, uberpundit, Roll Call, subscription only.

.

Teabag Front

by digby

Right wing watcher Adele Stan at Alternet has a must read piece up about the dynamics around the Scozzafava sideshow which, among other things, makes the very important point that while he is certainly a wingnut favorite, her teabagging rival isn’t actually the grassroots candidate they are portraying him to be:

Although Hoffman’s candidacy seemed to come out of nowhere, it was the endorsement of Armey, chairman of the astroturfing group FreedomWorks, who put him on the map. Then Palin signed on via this note on her Facebook page, putting Hoffman over the top:

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of “blurring the lines” between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party’s ticket.

Soon Hoffman was Glenn Beck’s favorite interview subject. (The local chapter of Beck’s 9-12 Project is a big Hoffman booster.) Tea Party sites around the nation started talking up the Hoffman candidacy and condemning Scozzafava. The Club for Growth had found its candidate. Michelle Malkin, the Fox News commentator whom AlterNet last met at an astroturf event, threw in. And don’t forget the pundits of another media property owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.: those of the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page. If this cast of characters sounds familiar, it should. These are the same forces who organized the disinformation and thuggery campaign against health care reform, and are many of the same personalities who created the right-wing Tea Party march on Washington on Sept. 12 — the one with all those “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and the signs comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

Stan shows that the conservatives are playing the long game and they know how to do it. They don’t care that they might lose in the short run or that the ruling elites think they are kooky. What they care about is that when the electorate looks to change horses, as it always does, the Republican Party will be firmly in the hands of the conservatives and further to the right when they last checked in. And she points out something that simply cannot be emphasized enough about just who those conservatives really are and who they serve:

For Armey and the FreedomWorks crew, the Fox pundits and the Club for Growth, the fight for the 23rd district is more about reminding the GOP establishment who’s in charge: The business interests who fund those organizations, whose CEOs were likely not amused by the specter of a moderate Republican congresswoman who embraces the Employee Free Choice Act, a proposal for legislation that would make it easier for workers to join labor unions.

Or indeed, not amused by the Republican party being infused in any way with “moderation” which only works for them politically on the Democratic side of the fence.

This tea party movement is certainly real. And the people who are signing on are truly upset about the election of a perceived liberal to the White House. (They can’t believe such a thing could possibly be legitimate.) But the fact is that Dick Armey is and always has been a tool of corporate America and the groups that are sponsoring this stuff aren’t doing it because they think Obama was actually born in Kenya or that he’s going to take away everybody’s guns, euthanize old people or put conservatives in FEMA concentration camps. They are afraid that the Democrats are going to empower unions, regulate business, stop outsourcing jobs and otherwise try to turn back some of the disasterous policies that are breaking the backs of the average American.

The irony in all this is almost beyond belief, but there it is. These teabaggers are sincere, but they are useful idiots for the very elites they deride. (It’s pathetic, but then progressives are hardly better with our posturing about being for the working man while our leadership covers for the financial whiz kids.)

Unfortunately, when the right gets more and more extreme it often gets out of control if the masses find themselves truly hurting and desperate for relief. At that point, they start looking for scapegoats and the only question is whether they look to the guillotine or the “other.” The rightwing radicals know which direction to point them in. The compromised left merely looks down at its feet hoping it all goes away.

Update: I guess the most violent wingnut enforcers really like Hoffman. They’re very civil.

.

Daily Goldman Atrocity

by digby

This is why they deserve the big bucks:

When California wildfires ruined their jewelry business, Tony Becker and his wife fell months behind on their mortgage payments and experienced firsthand the perils of subprime mortgages. The couple wound up in a desperate, six-year fight to keep their modest, 1,500-square-foot San Jose home, a struggle that pushed them into bankruptcy.The lender with whom they sparred, however, wasn’t the one that had written their loans. It was an obscure subsidiary of Wall Street colossus Goldman Sachs Group. Goldman spent years buying hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages, many of them from some of the more unsavory lenders in the business, and packaging them into high-yield bonds. Now that the bottom has fallen out of that market, Goldman finds itself in a different role: as the big banker that takes homes away from folks such as the Beckers.The couple alleges that Goldman declined for three years to confirm their suspicions that it had bought their mortgages from a subprime lender, even after they wrote to Goldman’s then-Chief Executive Henry Paulson — later U.S. Treasury secretary — in 2003.Unable to identify a lender, the couple could neither capitalize on a mortgage hardship provision that would allow them to defer some payments, nor on a state law enabling them to offset their debt against separate, investment-related claims against Goldman.In July, the Beckers won a David-and-Goliath struggle when Goldman subsidiary MTGLQ Investors dropped its bid to seize their house. By then, the college-educated couple had been reduced to shopping for canned goods at flea markets and selling used ceramic glass.Theirs is an infrequent happy ending among the hundreds of cases in which subsidiaries of Goldman, better known for sending top officers such as Paulson to serve in top Washington posts, have sought to contain bondholder losses by foreclosing on properties and evicting delinquent borrowers.

These guys are so good they profit in all circumstances. No wonder they are called Masters of the Universe.

Jonathan at ATR discusses yesterday’s McClatchy bombshell that Goldman appears to have committed major fraud, and adds another bit of evidence:

[F]or straightforward admissions of guilt, the recent long Vanity Fair article by Michael Lewis about AIG is even better:

Cassano agreed to meet with all the big Wall Street firms and discuss the logic of their deals—to investigate how a bunch of shaky loans could be transformed into AAA-rated bonds. Together with Park and a few others, Cassano set out on a series of meetings with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and the rest—all of whom argued how unlikely it was for housing prices to fall all at once. “They all said the same thing,” says one of the traders present. “They’d go back to historical real-estate prices over 60 years and say they had never fallen all at once.” (The lone exception, he said, was Goldman Sachs. Two months after their meeting with the investment bank, one of the A.I.G. F.P. traders bumped into the Goldman guy who had defended the bonds, who said, Between you and me, you’re right. These things are going to blow up.)

Jonathan dryly adds:

The amazing thing about human beings is that, even when they’re organizing death squads or creating multi-billion dollar swindles, they can’t stop talking about it.

I don’t see why they shouldn’t. After all, they are the bestest, most talented, productive people in the world who are so valuable that they can’t be held liable for anything they do. They are not punished for such behavior, they are rewarded. Indeed, they are proud of their criminality — they call it “maximizing profits” and are given huge bonuses for doing it. It’s the American way.

Da Bomb

by digby

You’ve all seen the ads on blogs all over the sphere for weeks, and today is the day for the Alan Grayson Money bomb.

Here’s Howie:

In the 2006 cycle the candidate who attracted the most support from Blue America donors was Ned Lamont, with his campaign that served notice on the Democratic Establishment that the grassroots was unwilling to just eat up whatever crap it was served up from Inside the Beltway hacks. Blue America raised over $77,000 for him in our first year in action. The following cycle, saw another inspiring progressive primary challenger, Donna Edwards, attract the most donors and the largest amount (almost $65,000). It may be too early to tell but it looks like 2010 cycle will mark the year of Alan Grayson. It’s still only 2009 but Blue America has already raised over $30,000 for him without having even made an official endorsement! We’ve been collecting contributions for him at No Means No, a page dedicated to members of Congress who voted against Obama’s supplemental war budget in June, and at Getting Grayson’s Back, a page dedicated to standing up for him when he gets GOP noses out of joint by telling the truth about their health care obstructionism.

Today Blue America is joining a netroots money bomb effort on behalf of Grayson, urging our community to band together and answer the Inside-the-Beltway and Villager mentality that says there’s no room for a plainspoken truth-teller like Grayson in Congress. Nevermind, they tell you, that he studied economics at Harvard, then worked as an economist, then studied law at Harvard and then successfully pursued war profiteers and Bush cronies in Iraq– even before being elected to Congress in a Republican district and becoming the scourge of banksters and assorted evil-doers dragged before the House Financial Services committee. No, to the Villagers, he’s all about “outlandish rhetoric;” he’s “the left’s Michele Bachmann;” he’s “pugilistic” and a “wing nut.”

I actually think that’s just fine. “Pugislitic, outlandish rhetoric” by a super smart, self-made millionaire, economist/lawyer is just what the doctor ordered in the Democratic Party. Indeed, I think we should put him and Michelle Bachman on a program and send them around the country for a series of Lincoln Douglas debates.

Grayson is throwing the Overton Window wide open and showing the Democrats how to appeal to average people in this populist era — from the left. He’s almost the only one. Of course the establishment doesn’t like or understand it, but that’s to be expected. They don’t want to upset Real America by being too hot. (Liberals, you see, must always be cool or they’ll scare the rubes.)

Grayson gets that this is a hot moment and it demands hot rhetoric. Politics as they’ve been played for decades are changing. We are now a realigned country of two polarized parties with different worldviews where a more parliamentary style of governance is going to reign. The days of Tip and Ronnie sharing a scocth after work are long over. But it’s also a hot moment in history. Something is happening in this country and around the globe. The near collapse of the financial system and this dreadful recession have exposed the disgusting income inequality that was kept hidden beneath a pile of credit card bills and home equity lines for decades. People are feeling it and seeing it for the first time and they are demanding that it change. The Republicans are pulling out their old well worn playbook and blaming the liberals and the government for this (and it is partially responsible) while the Democrats appear to be blaming … nobody. That is a mistake. This is is a blaming moment too.

Sadly, the Democrats seem to only be able to speak to this in wonkish, elitist terms, believing that (the illusion of) technocratic competence is what people desire and they are dismissing the anger and betrayal that’s bubbling up from beneath. The systemic problems of inequality, job loss and lowering living standards in this country are not being addressed by the left and unless they are, it’s very likely that people will turn to the right, which always has an easy set of answers to these kinds of questions. And they’re not answers any of us are going to like.

Grayson gets this moment. He makes people uncomfortable. He shakes up their cozy little world and exemplifies what to them is the more frightening future — one in which the left empowers the average voter to demand something more than symbolic change. Who knows what might happen?

Today Blue America is asking you to go to the Alan Grayson Money Bomb page, CongressmanWithGuts.com and donate to a congressman who might just show the Democratic Party how to talk to ordinary Americans in this new populist era. And if we’re lucky he won’t be alone for long and this will lead to other Democrats realizing that they can do the same thing.

He’ll be live blogging with John Amato at Crooks and Liars this morning at 9AM, PT (noon in Orlando). Ask Grayson if he’s willing to debate Michelle Bachman. (I confess, the idea gives me a real chuckle.)

CongressmanWithGuts.com

.