At home in a beer hall
by digby
You can read all about this thoroughly idiotic — and completely disrespectful — hearing in this post by Ari Berman.
The GOP is becoming more and more openly thuggish. And Patrick McHenry is one of their leading lights. Ugh.
.
Behold the failed prophets
by digby
Everyone had quite a laugh about the prediction of the Rapture over the week-end. Oh those silly, silly people believing that the world will come to an end based upon the prophesy of some silly, silly man.
Thank goodness we have Very Serious People in charge of running the world rather than silly people like that or who knows what crazy things they might say?
CHICAGO – Sen. Bob Kerrey smells an odor coming from the Republican and Democratic stands on entitlements.
“It’s one of the cruelest things we do, when we say, Republicans or Democrats, `Oh, we can wait and reform Social Security later,’ ” the Nebraska Democrat said.
Mr. Kerrey says that without reform, entitlements will claim 100 percent of the Treasury in 2012.
“This is not caused by liberals, not caused by conservatives, but by a simple demographic fact,” Mr. Kerrey warned at a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council.
“We [will have] converted the federal government into an ATM machine.”
By the way. Camper, the Rapture prophet, emerged today — with yet another date for Armageddon. They always do.
h/t to ms
Update:
Speaking of false prophets, here’s another blast from the past. It’s a memo from the DLC on the losses of the congress in 1994. This selection stands out:
If you have time you should read the whole thing. Plus ca change and all that rot.
Gary Lucas At Joe’s Pub
By tristero
I’ve known the extraordinary guitarist and songwriter Gary Lucas before I knew him. It’s somehow fitting.
Back in early 1971, Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band was on tour after the release of their masterpiece Lick My Decals Off, Baby. They played 4 gigs in New York City at a long-closed and forgotten club called Ungano’s. The gig is notorious among Beefheart fans because their equipment (Don’s sax, I think) got stolen and they had to borrow stuff from Ornette Coleman in order to go on. It didn’t matter: they sounded incredible. Because I had a radio show on WFMU then, I had managed to wrangle an interview with Don Van Vliet (Beefheart), Artie Tripp (Ed Marimba), and Mark Boston (Rockette Morton). Even better, I got a pass to all four shows. It changed my life.
Also there was a young guitarist who’d haj’d down to Manhattan from Syracuse expressly for the show: Gary Lucas. We didn’t meet then. Six or seven years later, I was the only person in the CBS Records company box at Carnegie Hall for an awesome but sparsely attended performance of Pierre Boulez’s music – the one and only time I was in there (dammit!). After the first piece, I heard some sound behind me and a thin intense fellow entered the box, followed by a stunning woman. Never seen either of them before but Gary introduced himself, said he worked in marketing (I was in classical A&R) and we quickly figured out that we had a lot in common, especially a love for Don’s awesome music. We were in different, almost mutually exclusive, departments of the company, and we were both unspeakably busy, but we became friends. Gary played on one of my film scores – I shamefully underused him but he played beautifully. And somewhere along the line, Gary began to manage Don Van Vliet and even play in the Magic Band. I was thrilled for him – and not a little jealous. I was incredibly lucky one day, walked into Gary’s office and Don was on the phone. We spoke briefly, he said he remembered me (I wasn’t sure I believed him but he was Beefheart after all, so anything was possible). It was as thrilling to hear that bass boom of a voice again as it had been back in Ungano’s.
Another time, Gary pulled me into his office, whipped out a cassette and said, “Listen to this, man!” It was Don playing the piano, the demo tape for Flavor Bud Living. It sounded impossible and probably was. Gary learned it anyway, perfectly, and when Doc At The Radar Station came out with Gary’s amazing performance, every musician I knew in New York perked up their hairy jaded ears and took the measure of this new guy on the block. Lucas has been a member of the Real Ones ever since, one of the few musicians who – to allude to another aspect of Gary’s work – truly matter.
Gary Lucas has a new album out, with his band, Gods and Monsters. It’s called The Ordeal of Civility and it’s one of his greatest (the title, which could easily refer only to how difficult it is to suffer all the fools in the music industry, is actually a reference to this book: as always, Lucas’s got multiple fish a’frying). The songs are unforgettable and the band is amazing with guitar work from Gary so fiery it puts blisters on the blisters.
Gary Lucas with God And Monsters will be performing this Friday at Joe’s Pub with special guests Jerry Harrison of the Talking Heads (who produced The Ordeal of Civility) and other notables.
If you’re in New York, go.
Still on the table
by digby
Earlier today I wrote about how the GOP is moving Democrats to the left on Medicare and how hopeful that could turn out to be. Well, never let it be said that the wingnut Trojan horses in the Democratic Party would go along with playing any sort of hardball politics that might benefit the left wing:
At his weekly Capitol briefing with reporters Tuesday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed what aides in both parties have been telling reporters: Cuts to Medicare will be on the table in deficit and debt limit negotiations, led by Vice President Joe Biden.
After arguing that Democrats made significant headway toward extending Medicare’s solvency with the health care law, Hoyer said, “Do I believe that there are other things we can do related to Medicare? The answer is I do. I’m not going to get into articulating each one, but my expectation is they will be under discussion by the Biden group.”
[…]
If a grand bargain on spending includes Medicare benefit cuts that both parties buy into, it will further expose the shambolic nature of the last two years’ politics. But more to the point, it will blunt Democrats’ ability to run against the House Republican vote to privatize, and, yes slash Medicare. And it will hurt Senate Democrats, many more of whom will be up for re-election in 2012 than will their Republicans colleagues. Their opponents won’t have Paul Ryan’s budget to answer for — but they will have the Dems’ vote for the deficit grand bargain, and the Medicare cuts therein.
And people wonder why liberals are cynical. Here you have the Democrats with a clear advantage in these Biden talks and Steny is out there publicly undermining them by saying “oh no, don’t worry Republicans. We won’t even bluff if that means we might win.”
Let’s suppose that the Dems truly believe they need to “do something” about medicare because they held a focus group once in which people said they were worried about it. (Yes, that’s how Democrats do these things.) Is there even the slightest hope that this group of lunatic Republicans would agree to anything remotely sane? It’s impossible.
Steny Hoyer may not care about winning on this issue — his job, obviously, is not to serve the people but rather his donors. But some of the other Democrats may still have the illusion that winning re-election is important. I wonder if they’ll be so willing to follow Steny over the cliff.
.
How’s that austerity working out, mates?
by digby
A funny thing happened on the way to deficit reduction:
The UK saw its worst April public sector net borrowing on record last month as tax receipts fell, the Office for National Statistics said. Public borrowing, excluding financial interventions such as bank bail-outs, hit £10bn, compared with £7.3bn the previous year. The ONS said tax receipts in April last year were boosted by a one-off bank payroll tax which raised £3.5bn. April’s figure was higher than many analysts’ expectations of about £6.5bn. Economists said the figures were a surprising disappointment. “The public finances have got off to a pretty bad start this year,” said Hetal Mehta, at Daiwa Capital Markets. She warned that the position could worsen if economic growth was weaker than expected. Samuel Tombs, at Capital Economics, said he believed the government would struggle to meet its borrowing forecasts this year. However, he added: “Nonetheless, these are just one set of figures and the trend in borrowing should improve as more of the spending cuts kick in later this year.”A spokesman for the Treasury said: “One-off factors affected borrowing, but it is clear from the downward revision to last year’s borrowing figures that the government’s deficit reduction strategy is making headway in dealing with our unsustainable deficit.” David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, said it was clear that the government’s plans to reduce the deficit by more than £20bn over the year was proving difficult. But he said the government must press on with its plans. “The fragility of the economic recovery is creating a difficult backdrop, but the government must not deviate from its strategy to restore stability in the UK’s public finances,” he said. “Businesses support the measures being taken to reduce the deficit, and the emphasis should be on spending cuts rather than tax increases,” Mr Kern said.
Clearly, the problem is that they just haven’t cut enough. It’s probably time to think about another round.
As Krugman wrote yesterday in his column about the failure of austerity in Europe:
My guess is that it’s just not willing to face up to the failure of its fantasies. And if this sounds incredibly foolish, well, who ever said that wisdom rules the world?
Not me.
.
One step to the left
by digby
Greg Sargent has a very interesting analysis today which I hope is being read by the Democrats. If Greg is right, the Republicans may end up pushing the Democrats to the left on “entitlements”. I can’t remember the last time that the actual center of gravity moved in my direction on this issue and I’m almost afraid to believe it.
Democrats would do themselves a favor if they paid close attention to this report from Ben Smith, which says that Republicans will respond to the Dem offensive on Medicare by going hard at Dems from the left:
Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed yesterday to make the Medicare changes in Paul Ryan’s budget a defining campaign issue for Senate Republicans in 2012 — but Republicans plan to respond by reviving criticism of cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that were built into the 2010 health care bill… “He and every other Senate Democrat went on to vote for it.” one Republican staffer emails. “We’d agree with Schumer that in races such as this Medicare will be a key issue.” Republicans ran hard on the issue of Medicare cuts during the 2010 campaign — and it was part of the reason that senior citizens swung so hard towards GOP candidates.
Of course, Republicans are already pursuing this strategy. In the special House election in New York’s 26th district, where the GOP candidate is in trouble over her support for Paul Ryan’s plan to end Medicare as we know it, Republicans are fighting back by accusing the Democrat of wanting Medicare cuts because she said Medicare should be on the table. This strategy — attacking Dems from the left on Medicare, just as Dems are doing to Republicans — amounts to an admission that Dems are winning the argument over Ryancare. It’s an effort to muddy the waters by persuading the public that both parties agree on the need to cut Medicare and even change it in a fundamental way — and that the only argument is over the details.
They can try that. But the Democrats have 60 years of built up credibility on this — and the elderly are the most aware of that of any demographic in the country. If the Dems don’t lose their nerve and start frantically negotiating for no reason they are in the driver’s seat. As Greg concludes:
Putting aside the argument over the merits of the GOP and Pelosi policy approaches, the political dynamic here could not be clearer. Dems, you have now been put on notice: If you agree to deep cuts in Medicare in the Biden-led talks, Republicans will see to it that you lose the political advantage you have built up by attacking Ryan’s plan. You may even lose the general advantage you have built up over the generations by positioning yourselves as defenders of signature Democratic policy achievements on entitlements. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
They have been warned. From the sound of Pelosi’s rhetoric, she gets this: “we have a plan, it’s called Medicare.” This is how to do it. Seniors are old enough to remember which party signed it into law — and which one has been fighting it for decades. It’s a Democratic plan and they know it.
And what’s the downside in terms of policy? The Republicans have been backed into a wall and are now in the process of negotiating with senior citizens about how they are the better protectors of Medicare. True, they are completely disingenuous — they don’t believe in any government safety net programs. But the more they have to pander to seniors for votes, the more they’re finding out that seniors will not stand for any cuts to these programs. This is good news for the safety net. It is already pushing the Democrats away from the precipice (if they value their own hides at all) and could eventually lead to sane reforms such as raising the cap on social security and overall cost controls in health care generally.
.
The Real Deal
by digby
So I’ve been hearing that conservatives can’t be racists because some of their best candidates are black. I wonder how this fits into that thesis. Here we have a major social conservative on the subject of Obama’s trip to Ireland:
He can’t talk enough about how white he is and how white his heritage is. And you compare that to, say, Herman Cain – you know, Herman Cain was just joking around about being the real Black man in the presidential race and President Obama kind of helping reinforce what Herman Cain has said in jest. President Obama is half-white, and half-black; Herman Cain is all black; he’s authentically black; he is the real black man in the race. So we’ll see how all of that plays out. I mean, President Obama celebrating his Irish heritage, I mean there is just something about that I just find, I just find that comical, frankly.
That’s an interesting twist.
Here’s the thing. Racist types always like the “good ones”, the ones who “know how to behave” and do all the right things. They always have. Unfortunately “most of them” aren’t “good ones.” (You know how “they” are.) Nothing racist about that at all.
.
Believe ‘Em?
by digby
This is some great GOP messaging from strategist John Feehery today on Hardball:
Feehery: This is the same program that was put out by John Breaux and Bill Thomas back in the 1990s. We have to fix Medicare for the long term. Obviously competition has to be involved with it. Obviously what Paul Ryan has said is, “if you’re under 55 this is something you might have to deal with, if you’re over 55 it’s not gonna touch you.” That’s something that polls very well with seniors. This is a beginning of a conversation. This is a beginning of a conversation and it has to happen.
Matthews; You sound desperate. You’re skirting and saying it doesn’t matter if you’re over 55.
Feehery: That’s what the plan says, if you’re over 55 it’s not going to impact you. And that’s an important talking point. All the members of congress that I’ve talked to when they go back to their constituents over 55 that sells. Now I don’t happen to think that’s fair. I’m under 55 and if there’s going to be reform I think the old guys have to pay as well, but I’m not running for office so …
There’s only one answer for Democratic opponents if the Republicans try this:
“So you believe ’em? If they’re willing to screw your kids and grandkids what makes you think they aren’t going to screw you too?”
.
Jefferson Doesn’t Count
by digby
Am I really supposed to be respectful of people who believe drivel like this?
Are U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal natural-born citizens of the United States, and thus eligible for the presidency?
It’s a simple question, but the answer may not be so easy. While the Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen,” there is strong evidence that the Founding Fathers understood it to mean someone born of two American citizens.
Really? Was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of Independence and America’s third President a founder. I think he was.
This is from the Monticello cemetery:
Here’s what it says if you can’t read it:
Jane Randolph
Wife of Peter Jefferson
Mother of Thomas Jefferson
Born in London
1720
Died at Monticello
1776
Of course, it’s possible that David Barton or other right wing pseudo-historians forgot to tell them that if there was one country of origin which might have given them some pause in terms of loyalty it was England, so they think there was some sort of British exception to the rule.
On the other hand, Jefferson did plant the seeds for the Democratic Party so they may actually believe he was an illegitimate president. Aren’t they all?
.
Dr Newt Frankenstein
by digby
I highly recommend this Jonathan Zasloff post in which he responds to James Fallows’ urging that the press ignore the Gingrich candidacy.
The essential nature of Gingrich’s insurgency in the House and his conduct as Speaker was the destruction of the informal institutions of American governance. By “informal institutions,” I mean those habits and customs outside of formal, written law that make democracy work. Some things are simply not done; everyone agrees to resist the temptation for political advantage in order to make the system work. Gingrichism is the philosophy that all means short of illegality are fair game in the struggle for political power. He came to the fore in the House minority by personal attacks on other members’ patriotism; he stirred up the Republican base with the argument that the Democrats were not merely wrong, but evil and a threat to the Republic. As Speaker, he destroyed the existing committee structure and bill mark-ups, did away with Congressional institutions to educate members (such as the Office of Technology Assessment or the Administrative Conference of the United States), and centralized power in the leadership. When he did not get his way with Clinton, he cavalierly shut down the government. Not cowed by the political disaster that ensued, he used the House’s impeachment power for political purposes and put the House Oversight Committee in the hands of Dan Burton with the express mandate to harass and cripple political opponents. Gingrich broke institutions not by accident, but on purpose. (Read on, it’s all good.)
Yes, yes and yes. Gingrich’s candidacy is obviously a sideshow. And it’s clear that the GOP establishment, such as it is, doesn’t want to deal with what he represents. But as Zasloff says:
His campaign, with all of its narcissism, mendacity, intellectual incoherence, and duplicity is the Republican Party in its purest, least adulterated form. By looking at Gingrich we are not avoiding how the Republicans will choose their issues, or even their candidate: we are looking at their methods, ideology, goals, and tactics in their ultimate nature.
He is their Dr Frankenstein.
.
