Month: September 2010

Everything Old Is New Again

by digby

Fergawdsakes. It’s nice that the mainstream media is noticing this, but it’s hardly new. Emasculating liberals has been a standard attack from the right wing for at least forty years since Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California at least:

“A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah”

Snotty New York Times columnists have made their careers on it. Bloggers have spent years writing about it. Books have been written about it, even.

And (oh God, there goes my lunch) remember this?

Reductively speaking, Thompson stands as the Daddy Party’s dream Daddy–although a Daddy of a very particular type. Forget the nurturing, “compassionate conservative” model of Bush’s 2000 candidacy, which has been roundly discredited on the right. Forget, too, the blustery, “Bring it on!” swagger that W. adopted after September 11, a little-guy machismo one also sees in Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Thompson’s manliness is laconic rather than feisty, a style more John Wayne than Jimmy Cagney. “He’s a big man,” says Duncan. “He has a way of filling or dominating a room.” And, as all of us recall from our schoolyard days, big guys like Thompson don’t need to run around picking fights, talking smack, and constantly reminding us of how tough they are because, well, look at them.

Certainly, the Thompson talk in both cyberspace and the traditional media is a study in hero worship, with grown conservatives swooning like cheerleaders smitten over the manliness of the varsity quarterback. There is much rejoicing about the senator’s growling voice, his studly cigar habit, and his physical size. My favorite bit of macho Fred-worship making its way around the Internet is a widely circulated joke about the title of the recent film 300, in which a small troop of Spartans holds the line against the massive Persian army: “If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1.” (Reading posts like this, it’s unsurprising that, according to USA Today, 64 percent of Thompson’s supporters are male, the highest percentage for any presidential hopeful.)

Among more serious journalists, The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes has developed a particularly intense man-crush on Thompson, penning a series of breathless valentines about the fledgling campaign, starting with a 6,000-word profile in April that gushed: “As we spoke, I was struck by the fact that Thompson didn’t seem to be calibrating his answers for a presidential run. On issue after contentious issue, I got the sense from both his manner and the answer he gave me that he was just speaking extemporaneously.” Nor is it only the conservative media getting high on the smell of testosterone. The creepiest musings about Thompson’s “sex appeal” thus far have come from NBC’s Chris Matthews, the machismo-obsessed id of the Washington media, who recently cooed: “Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of–a little bit of cigar smoke?”

More adolescent members of the chattering class, meanwhile, have taken to drooling over Mrs. Thompson, whose penchant for low-cut, form-fitting ensembles already has buttoned-down political types buzzing. Msnbc’s Joe Scarborough recently created a stir when he and guest analyst Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly indulged in some lascivious speculation about whether the curvaceous Jeri’s fitness regime makes use of a stripper’s pole. Tacky as the comments were, they were essentially envious. “That’s what a Hollywood career will do for you!” enthused Crawford.

Inevitably, with his official entry into the race, Thompson will lose a little luster as he morphs from above-the-fray candidate-in-waiting to flesh-and-blood (not to mention bloodied) combatant. Still, the lure of his manly charms should not be underestimated. As Bob Davis, a former Thompson staffer now chairing the Tennessee Republican Party, puts it, “When you put your children to bed at night, and you’re laying your head down on your pillow, this is a guy people would trust to protect their backside no matter what happened.”

Seriously, can anyone over the age of 15 not know that this is always one of the central themes of every GOP campaign? It what they do. In fact their worst pundits get so confused in their gay bating sometimes that they make complete fools of themselves over it:

DEUTSCH: Off the air, you were talking about Bill Clinton. Is there anything you want to say about Clinton?

COULTER: No.

DEUTSCH: No? OK. All right. Did you find him attractive? Is that what it was?

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: You don’t find him attractive?

COULTER: No. OK, fine, I’ll say it on air.

DEUTSCH: Most women find him attractive.

COULTER: No.

DEUTSCH: OK, say it on air.

COULTER: I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality.

DEUTSCH: OK, I think you need to say that again — that Bill Clinton, you think, on some level has — is a latent homosexual. Is that what you’re saying?

COULTER: Yeah. I mean that sort of just completely anonymous — I don’t know if you read the Starr Report. The rest of us were glued to it. I have many passages memorized.

.

Moderate Roadblocks

by digby

Patrick Nielsen Hayden intelligently discusses what “moderation” really means in this interesting post:

There’s no inherent virtue in political “moderation.” The “moderates” weren’t the ones who were right about whether we should have marched into Iraq; it was the so-called extremist peaceniks who had it right from the start. The “moderates” aren’t the ones who are right about the priority we should be giving to the threat of global climate change; again, the people who are correct on this issue are labelled as “extremists.” And contrary to Jon Stewart’s foolish assertion, while it may be “moderate” to reject charges that the Bush Administration committed war crimes, it’s also wrong. Because in fact they committed war crimes. (Nor are the current administration’s hands much cleaner on this score, and those who point this out continue to be marginalized.)

In that spirit, I’ve been meaning to link to this famous complaint about those who always urge against political passion and direct engagement. Here’s a most relevant passage, although the whole thing is worth reading every once in a while:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with allits ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

Reactionaries always have violent, repressive impulses. In America it waxes and wanes in its intensity. But those who try to confront it are always mistrusted by the moderates who choose to believe that they are being hysterical (or may provoke more violence) simply by pointing it out or unmasking the reality. It was only 40 odd years ago that Martin Luther King wrote that letter in an atmosphere of terrible violence. It’s a mistake to think it can’t happen again.

.

Burning, Acidic Lemonade

by digby

They’ve always believed this, it’s just that until now no cruel sadistic theocratic political “leader” had the nerve to say it out loud. Now they have permission:

While much of the 2010 election is focused on the economy, there’s another issue quietly simmering which underscores a shift in the Republican Party: abortion. Specifically, an increasing number of GOP candidates — especially ones receiving heavy support from the Tea Party movement — not only oppose abortion, but want to bar women who have been victims of rape or incest from having access to the procedure.

Dianne Edmondson of the Republican National Coalition (RNC) for Life told The Huffington Post that there are absolutely more candidates this election cycle opposing abortion without exceptions. Each election cycle, her political action committee, founded by Phyllis Schlafly, submits questionnaires to GOP House candidates about their positions on choice issues and then endorses candidates who advocate a strict no-abortion platform. “I know that we have many more candidates responding to us this year than we did in the last election cycle — probably about three times as many — and I’d say at least half of them do meet that criteria,” she said. “The rest are pro-life to one extent or another.”

RNC for Life has endorsed 63 House candidates who are “pro-life without discrimination” and heading into the general election. Edmondson pointed to Bill Flores (TX-17), Stephen Broden (TX-30), Rocky Raczkowski (MI-9) and Sandy Adams (FL-24) as especially exciting candidates to watch. Incumbents endorsed by RNC for Life include Michele Bachmann (MN-6), Jean Schmidt (OH-2) and Duncan Hunter (CA-52).

The candidates getting the most attention, however, are on the Senate side: Sharron Angle (Nev.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Joe Miller (Alaska), Christine O’Donnell (Del.) and Rand Paul (Ky.). All of them oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

Angle received significant national attention in July when she advised young rape victims to make “a lemon situation into lemonade” — the “lemon situation” being the rape and the “lemonade” being giving birth to, and raising, the child. Buck has said, “I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest” and backs a constitutional ban on abortion. The progressive group Campaign for a Strong Colorado held a press conference on Tuesday with rape and incest survivors who oppose Buck’s stance. “Ken Buck is in a luxurious position of not seeming to care of the permanent impact of rape can have on a woman’s life,” said one rape survivor at the event.

Even several high-profile gubernatorial candidates such as Carl Paladino (N.Y.), Bill Brady (Ill.) and Nathan Deal (Ga.) hold these views.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has prominently backed and helped launch some of these conservative candidates this election cycle, so it’s perhaps not surprising that this position on abortion is one she helped elevate. In 2006, Palin said she opposes abortion in all instances except when a mother’s life is at risk. “I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society,” she wrote in response to an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, “we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.”

But they do condone forcing a 14 year old girl to gestate her rapist father’s child inside her body for 9 months and then face the prospect of either giving it up for adoption or raising her own sibling as her child. Maybe in Sarah Palin’s family that’s not a big deal, but most of these little girls will be scarred for life. (As will rape victims of all ages.) But hey, these girls and women have to take responsibility for their actions. After all, if they’re old enough to get raped and pregnant, they’re old enough to make their own lemonade.

This, by the way, is a perfect example of the Overton window in action. Every capitulation to their position brings a further move toward outright prohibition. As these people come to national prominence, watch the polls move on this question, now that the wingnuts and fools have been given permission to think this way.

Here’s a good primer on the right’s ongoing anti-choice campaign on rape and incest. It’s usually cast as the “two wrong don’t make a right” argument but they have a newer more clever line of nonsense that says forcing girls to bear their father’s child is the compassionate thing to do. This way they don’t have to bear the stigma of abortion (which, if they have anything to do with it, will be severe and painful.)

.

.

Meet Your New Majority

by digby

Howie catches up with Blue America candidate Billy Kennedy today (the day our ads start running against his looney toons opponent, Virginia Fox) to ask him to tell his readers what the main difference is between them. Billy mentions that he would end the Bush tax cuts for the rich among other things. But the fundamental difference, aside from those on virtually every policy on either party’s agenda, is the fact that Billy Kennedy is sane while Virginia Fox is … not. Here’s the ad:

This is just an embarrassment for all Americans. Seriously, this woman has no business being in any position to affect the lives of others.

Howie says:

There are several ways you can help Billy beat Foxx today. You can donate to the Blue America ad campaign our PAC is running against Foxx as of today. The other would be to donate directly to Billy’s campaign here.

Here are some of Fox’s recent hits:

.

Leftjab Video Of The Day — Nitwits and Hypocrites

by digby

.

A True Tale From Texas

by tristero

via darksyde at Kos, comes this amazing video. Watch it:

Update: Donate to get truly qualified, intelligent, and sane people on this vital Board of Educationhere.

The Method To Their Madness

by digby

We’ve been going back and forth the last few days about whether the president and the Democrats are wise to use the “hector the base” strategy to close the enthusiasm gap. I wrote this:

More importantly, it’s a complete misreading of what ails the base. It’s not about a bunch of liberal bloggers being pissed about the health care bill or the wars. Sadly, there just aren’t enough of us to make a difference. And it’s not about a bunch of liberal pundits in DC fretting about “tidal waves.” Susie Madrak hits the nail on the head about what’s depressing Democratic turnout:

[T]hose of us left living on a wing and prayer thanks to your “half full”, half-assed economic policies just don’t have a sense of humor about our continuing plight. I know it’s been a long time since your mom got food stamps, but you might want to give that empathy thing some thought.

It’s not that rank and file Democrats are congenitally unable to celebrate all the wonderful accomplishments of the Obama administration. It’s that, like Americans everywhere, they are hurting financially and don’t have good feelings about the future. The Republicans are fired up and believe that they can take action to change it by voting for teabaggers. But Dems are stuck in a holding pattern waiting for things to hopefully turn around. They have nowhere to focus their angst so they tune out. In those comments, the president is, at best, ignoring their real issue and saying they don’t know how good they have it. It’s not helpful.

Yesterday the President heard from one of those non-professional left members of the base in person and this is what she said:

Velma Hart: Thank you very much. And good afternoon, President Obama. I’m deeply honored to be in this forum and so grateful for CNBC for making the forum available so you can speak to American citizens just like myself. I’m a chief financial officer for a veterans service organization and that’s here in Washington. I’m also a mother, I’m a wife, I’m an American veteran, and I’m one of your middle-class Americans. Quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I’ve been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting, sir, I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet. While I thought it wouldn’t be a great measure, I would feel it in some small measure. I have two children in private school, and the financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family. My husband and I joked that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives. And quite frankly, it’s starting to knock on our door and ring through that that might be where we’re headed. And quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer honestly, is this my new reality?

I think that says pretty clearly what has rank and file Democrats tuning out. It’s the economy, stupid.

But there’s another element in what she says that’s also very important and it’s one I hadn’t taken into consideration, although I should have since I’m very familiar with the phenomenon:

Quite frankly, I’m exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the man for change I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now.

The “deeply disappointed with where we are right now” speaks to the real worry people are feeling about the state of the nation. And in an appearance today on Hardball she articulated what she was worried about:

I’m worried. I know I shouldn’t be, somehow I know I shouldn’t be. I should have confidence in our leaders to get us through these trying times, but I’m getting a little anxious. And quite frankly, the other thing that I’m concerned about is that other people are getting anxious and anxious people do desperate things and I’d like to avoid that.“

And that brings me to the exhaustion part of her statement yesterday. Those of you who went through the 90s will recognize this phenomenon. It’s when the right’s ferocious attacks are so vicious and relentless that they eventually wear down average, common sense people with normal lives to lead — and even scare them a little.

In Clinton’s case it was defending him from the non-stop personal attacks that was so wearying. It took a brave soul with a taste for political combat to keep fighting in the face of that onslaught. It was called Clinton Fatigue, the sense that even people who were sympathetic to the president’s political plight and understood that his enemies were rabid and insane, just wanted it to end. Many analysts think it was the reason why Gore had such a hard time even though the economy was roaring — normally the country would have not wanted to rock that boat. It was the prospect of four or eight more years of wingnuts shrieking and howling that made at least few people say “whatever… give it to them … anything to shut them up.”

In Obama’s case it’s this moribund economy vs the outsized expectations that form the substance of the Democratic base’s complaint. And there’s good reason for people to be disappointed and worried. But the exhaustion at defending him, at least some of it, comes from the same place as that Clinton Fatigue. The right’s non-stop attacks eventually just wear people down, sap them of their enthusiasm, make them question their own judgment, especially in the face of a negative and less than hopeful future. You have to be pretty committed to want to wallow in this toxic mud every day and most people have better things to do with their time.

I’m not saying that if the GOP wasn’t relentlessly attacking Obama that this woman would feel good about him. He hasn’t been very successful at addressing her concerns and there are plenty of liberals who are critical of him as well. But even if he were able to allay her concerns about the economy and the future of the country, the exhaustion that comes from battling back these lunatics is what really takes its toll.

This woman feels besieged, she’s worried that the country she knew is slipping away and deeply concerned that the president and his party don’t know how to stop it. And she’s not wrong to be worried: they do seem to be paralyzed in the face of this psychotic right wing onslaught. They have a huge majority and the White House and they are left holding kabuki votes like today’s DADT show and tell and rather than making the Republicans look like big meanies, they end up making it appear that the crazies have the upper hand again. And when that happens a lot of Dems just tune out, avert their eyes, preferring to look to more personal concerns and withdraw into their own projects and pursuits.

I know this because I get emails every day from people who were deeply engaged asking me how I continue to do this every day because they just can’t stand to even turn on the TV. Seriously, I’ve had dozens of notes saying this and many of my friends feel the same way. And when you are on the defensive all the time and you don’t see any progress and you feel that politics is a scary freakshow, it’s actually the sane thing to do. I think it may be the people like me who are crazy.

So there is a method to this madness. It’s the same method that all bullies use. And it’s very effective.

.

He Never Gave The Slightest Hint

by digby

Justin Elliot is reporting that the NY GOP is saying that they will “cut loose” this fellow who won the Republican nomination for the 18th district because they didn’t know about his “racist and ethnocentric” views prior to the revelation yesterday. Of course not. As they said it doesn’t have “anything to do with the Republican Party. Certainly it has nothing to do with republican party principles.”

Here’s what the Republicans who voted for him did know about:

Russell, whose campaign website focuses on immigration and opposition to a housing desgregation settlement in Westchester, has not responded to a request for comment. But his campaign manager, Frank Morgenthaler, told the Journal News that the scrutiny on Russell’s racial views is “mud-slinging.”

Here’s an interesting clip of a local newscast (from Russell’s campaign YouTube account) that provides some context on what seems to be his primary motivating issue: opposition to a housing desegration settlement that Westchester entered into last year. The deal, reached after mostly white Westchester was found to have failed to comply with fair housing rules, requires the county to build public housing and market it to minority groups.

“Our neighborhoods have to be protected,” Russell says.

No wonder they were stunned and shocked to find out he held racist views. He never gave the slightest hint about it.

.

Which Side Are You On?

by digby

I’ve been asked by a number of readers if I plan to attend the Comedy Central rally on October 30th. I don’t know if I can, but if I do it, I’ll be attending the Colbert “Keep Fear Alive” rally rather than Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity.” With the ascent of the Teabag, I think his view is the more reasonable. YMMV, of course.

.

Ideology Pander

by digby

Kevin’s made the point before, and repeats it today, that Democrats have to run to the center more than Republicans because more people identify as conservative than liberal and therefore, they have to appeal to fewer “moderates” or people in the center than the Democrats do. Or put another way, since there are so many more people in their base, they have to pander to it to win while the Democrats have to pander to the center in order to get a majority.

The problem with this analysis is that he thinks all this has something to do with how people self-identify, as if the people who identify as “conservative” are all really conservative or the moderates and liberals are truly moderate and liberal. I don’t know that that’s the case. Sure it’s true in some cases, but I don’t think people necessarily identify with these ideological labels out of ideology. It’s more of a tribal ID or a social designation.

And I think it’s fairly clear that a huge propaganda campaign to demonize the word liberal that has lasted nearly 30 years has taken its toll on the willingness of people to wear it. Even I, old time lib that I am, have found myself in large social and business situations in which self-identifying as a liberal is uncomfortable. So I’m fairly sure that there are plenty of people who call themselves moderates or centrists who are actually ideologically liberal. (And conversely, I suspect there are more than few “conservatives” who would more likely fall into the moderate camp. They identify as conservative because its adherents embrace it proudly, which makes it the default “popular” ideology regardless of its content.

I’m just musing here based on my intuition and experience. I grant there there may be studies which show just the opposite of what I think so I’m not saying Kevin is definitely wrong here. But without some deeper probing of the meaning behind them, just using the ideological label as a way to divide the electorate on issues seems wrong to me, especially in light of the fact that the right so thoroughly destroyed the liberal label that many people have completely abandoned it in favor of the term “progressive” when there is no ideological difference between them. That certainly suggests to me that the meaning of the labels is fairly flexible.

Personally, I think the Democrats are afraid to appeal to their base for the same reason I have felt uncomfortable in those social and business situations. And with the Republicans constantly defining everything they oppose as liberal, leftist, now socialist (again)they run in fear of being associated with it. I think it’s much more a matter of perception and aggressive GOP marketing than it is any real ideological disadvantage.

.