Month: May 2012

Sponsor a uterus in need

by digby

Help free women from the burden of making their own decisions.

.

PoMo conservative revisionism

by digby

This makes my head hurt so much I just want to crawl into bed and drink Nyquil. Apparently, Kevin Williamson at National Review is seriously trying to make the stupid argument that the Republicans have always been the party of civil rights and that nothing’s ever happened to change that.

Ed Kilgore explains the truth to him:

Prior to 1964, southern white Republicans were a hardy minority built on the Mountain Republicanism of regions that had opposed the Confederacy and middle-class business-oriented city-dwellers. While neither faction was loudly racist, nor were they champions of civil rights, either. Not all Democrats were virulently racist, but the virulent racists were all Democrats. As V.O. Key demonstrated in his classic study, Southern Politics, the most race-sensitive white southerners, centered in the Black Belt regions of the Deep South, stuck with the White Man’s Party even as other southerners defected to the GOP in 1920 (over Prohibition) and 1928 (over Prohibition and Al Smith’s Catholicism). In 1948, these same racists heavily defected to the Dixiecrats in a protest against the national Party’s growing commitment to civil rights. They mostly returned to the Democrats after that uprising, until 1964, when they voted almost universally for Barry Goldwater, purely and simply because Goldwater had opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Four years later most of them voted for the race-centered candidacy of George Wallace, and four years after that just about every one of them voted for Richard Nixon. These were not people attracted to the GOP, when they were, because it was “pro-civil rights,” as Williamson asserts, or because they favored that party on any other issue. It was all about race, which is why, for example, the GOP percentage of the presidential vote veered insanely in Mississippi from 25% in 1960 to 87% in 1964 to 14% in 1968 to 78% in 1972.

Jimmy Carter (who was endorsed by Wallace and most other surviving Democratic ex-segregationists) got a lot of those voters back for the obvious reason of regional pride, and after that issues other than civil rights did matter in the region, though the racial polarization of the two parties was evident from the beginning in Mississippi and eventually spread elsewhere. But however you slice it, the idea that Barry Goldwater in 1964 was viewed by white southerners as anything other than the direct descendent of the Dixiecrats is just ridiculous. Sure, issues other than civil rights buttressed GOP strength in the region later on, but it would not have happened if the GOP had not also rapidly become the party most hostile towards or indifferent to civil rights. It’s also worth mentioning that among the Republicans who were notably interested in civil rights in and after 1964, none of them were southerners.

Also too, the sun came up yesterday and we have a long border with Canada. Plus gravity. This is not in dispute. There is no controversy. There isn’t even a slightly different interpretation. It is what happened, period.

I used to write a lot about PoMo conservatism and epistemic relativism or just plain old Bizarroworld politics. Rewriting history is part of all that. In order to create an alternate reality it’s important to re-imagine a past that led to it. And I think that the more blatantly dishonest it is, the better. People have to really strain to accept it and that makes it more emotionally valuable.

Fundamentally dishonest crackpots like Ann Coulter always say this stuff.

But I’ve come to realize that it has a bigger purpose than just being a gadfly and getting under liberals’ skin. These people lay the groundwork for an alternative history which, when their followers finally hear it espoused by someone like Kevin Williamson, sounds like something they’ve always known.

That’s just sad.

.

Plastic Progress

by David Atkins

Progress often happens in bits and spurts:

Los Angeles became the largest city in the nation Wednesday to approve a ban on plastic bags at supermarket checkout lines, handing a major victory to clean-water advocates who sought to reduce the amount of trash clogging landfills, the region’s waterways and the ocean.

Egged on by actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus and an array of environmental groups, the City Council voted 13 to 1 to phase out plastic bags over the next 12 months at an estimated 7,500 stores. Councilman Bernard Parks cast the lone no vote.

“Let’s get the message to Sacramento that it’s time to go statewide,” said Councilman Ed Reyes, who has focused on efforts to revitalize the Los Angeles River.

Council members quietly backed away from a more controversial plan to also ban use of paper grocery bags, which was first proposed by appointees of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

A bill authored by Assemblymember Julia Brownley to institute a similar ban statewide was narrowly shot down due to the heavy influence of corporate interests.

Brownley against now running for Congress in California’s 26th district, one of the most watched Congressional districts in the country. Her biggest opponent is professional centrist Linda Parks, about whom I’ve written here before.

If you can, please consider sending some help Brownley’s way so that we can help get a solid progressive Democrat to Congress. One who actually believes in progress.

.

Tweety Revisionism

by digby

Oh my Dear God:

Reporting from the big cable TV industry event this week, Broadcasting & Cable’s Andrea Morabito writes (5/22/12):

Hardball host Chris Matthews argued that because of the rise of opinion-based news networks, the non-critical aspect of the media is gone, going as far to say that the reporting that verified the U.S. administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002 would not happen today because of cable news.

“I would like to think there would be a reckoning we didn’t have then because of modern media,” Matthews said. “24/7 is good because it’s not only breadth, it’s depth. Without cable, it is just network [television] thinking, embedded thinking, which is dangerous in a democracy.”

Umm… He’s aware of the fact that cable news channels existed in 2002, right?

I just don’t know what to say. The article at FAIR has some good examples of the “embedded thinking” of cable news during that period.

I’ll add these:

“We’re all neo-cons now.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

“We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

“Why don’t the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

“He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn’t–he didn’t bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks.”
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

.

GOP takeover: The Randroid Generation

by digby

One thing about Ayn Rand’s influence is that, for the most part, it tends to wane as people grow up and wise up. But until they do, they tend to be insufferably single minded and painfully aggressive about it.

So, does this seem like a good idea?

Armed with an inherited fortune and a devotion to Ron Paul, John Ramsey, a 21-year-old college student from Nacogdoches, Tex., plunged into a little-watched Republican House primary in Northern Kentucky this spring to promote his version of freedom.

More than $560,000 later, Mr. Ramsey’s chosen standard-bearer, Thomas H. Massie, a Republican, cruised to victory Tuesday in the race to select a successor to Representative Geoff Davis, a Republican who is retiring.

The saturation advertising campaign waged by Mr. Ramsey’s “super PAC,” Liberty for All, may be the most visible manifestation of a phenomenon catching the attention of Republicans from Maine to Nevada.

With their favorite having lost the nomination for president, Mr. Paul’s dedicated band of youthful supporters is looking down-ballot and swarming lightly guarded Republican redoubts like state party conventions in an attempt to infiltrate the top echelons of the party.

“Karl Rove’s fear-and-smear-style Republicans are going to wake up at the end of the year and realize we are now in control of the Republican Party,” said Preston Bates, a Democrat-turned-Paulite who is running Liberty for All for Mr. Ramsey…

Paulite candidates for Congress are sprouting up from Florida to Virginia to Colorado, challenging sitting Republicans and preaching the gospel of radically smaller government, an end to the Federal Reserve, restraints on Bush-era antiterrorism laws and a pullback from foreign military adventures.

It would be nice to have some allies in the GOP on the last two items, so perhaps this could have a positive effect. But further radicalizing the party on taxes and budget cutting would be almost insane. And having 21 year old Randroid heirs to large fortunes buy elections is even more insane.

And once again I have to ask, why do they all choose the Republican party? There isn’t even one civil liberties, anti-war elected official in the Party and barely any GOP voters who agree with them on those issues. There are a handful of elected Democrats and tons of voters on the left who do. And even if Democrats are guilty of the same sins as Republicans, meaning that they would not end wars any sooner, why assume they wouldn’t be happy to shrink government and cut taxes? There are many more Dems who are on the austerity bandwagon than there are Republicans who want to cut military spending.

I think we know the answer. They have prioritized their concerns and they believe Republicans are more likely to follow through on their primary issues, which are low taxes and small government. The foreign policy piece is simply less important. It must be. Nobody would join the Republican Party if shrinking America’s military empire was what they really cared about. The Democrats may be warmongers too, but it’s definitional in the modern GOP. You have as much chance of changing that as you would have declaring the US is a Muslim nation.

.

Jackbooted Attendants

by digby

I can see a rationale for allowing airlines to kick people they suspect might be physicially dangerous off of planes. But what can possibly be the explanation for this?

[O]n the plane of the first leg of my flight home, I spent the majority of [time] sleeping, using my shawl as a blanket. Right before we were set to land the flight attendant from first class approaches me and asks if I had a connecting flight? We were running a bit behind schedule, so I figured I was being asked this to be sure I would make my connecting flight. She then proceeded to tell me that I needed to speak with the captain before disembarking the plane and that the shirt I was wearing was offensive.

The shirt was gray with the wording, “If I wanted the government in my womb, I’d fuck a senator.” I must also mention that when I boarded the plane, I was one of the first groups to board (did not pass by many folks). I was wearing my shawl just loosely around my neck and upon sitting down in my seat the lady next to me, who was already seated, praised me for wearing the shirt.

When I was leaving the plane the captain stepped off with me and told me I should not have been allowed to board the plane in DC and needed to change before boarding my next flight. This conversation led to me missing my connecting flight. I assumed that because I was held up by the captain, they would have called ahead to let the connecting flight know I was in route. Well, upon my hastened arrival at the gate of the connecting flight, it was discovered that they did indeed call ahead but not to hold the flight, only to tell them I needed to change my shirt. I was given a seat on the next flight and told to change shirts.

Due to the fact that my luggage was checked, changing shirts without spending money wasn’t an option. I consulted a friend with a law background who told me covering with my shawl would suffice. Upon boarding the now rescheduled flight with shawl covering my shirt, my ticket dinged invalid. I was pulled to the side while the gentleman entered some codes into the computer and then told, “it was all good.” I did finally arrive home to pick up my daughter an hour and a half later than scheduled.

I find it very hard to believe this is standard procedure for anyone who has the word “fuck” on his or her t-shirt. In fact, I know it isn’t since the last time I was traveling I sat next to a kid who had a “fuck you I’m from Philly” t-shirt on. Nobody said anything.

If American Airlines thought it was the word that was offensive, you’d think they would have simply told her to cover it up instead of personally harassing her and demanding that she change the shirt. (And why was the pilot involved in that?) So I’m guessing it was more the message than the word. And the last I heard, the Airline exemption from free speech only applies to threats. I don’t think there have been any pro-choice groups crashing airliners recently.

You have to wonder if they have decided to police all political speech, leaving it up to the discretion of the pilot, attendant or whomever objects to it. Do you suppose they would have kicked someone off the plane for wearing a shirt that said this?

Update: Apparently AA’s rules do state that they can kick off any passenger who is “clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers.” No word on who decides what that might be. I guess it’s left to the individual attendant or pilot to decide. Good to know. Best keep all opinions to yourself when you’re flying.

Once again, I’m reminded how airplane travel is now training for good little citizens who ask no questions and immediately do exactly what they’re told by anyone in a uniform. I can’t recall where I read it, but apparently Europeans often wonder what’s wrong with Americans who just start stripping and removing their shoes before they go through security in foreign airports. They don’t even question it, just start doing it like trained seals, even if nobody around them is doing the same thing.

h/t to @ImprimereLLC
.

So it’s not just bleating in to the void

by digby

This can’t possibly be right. Everyone knows the bully pulpit is a total myth and nobody with a thought in their head would ever dream that something the president said could ever make a difference in anything:

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

Interesting. I wonder if the president properly explaining the government’s role in the economy would make any difference.Who knows, maybe it could change a few minds too. Couldn’t hurt anyway. At the very least it could make people question the wisdom of deficit reduction as a logical response to a recession or the necessity of slashing the safety net for the future good.

We must drown this government to save it

by David Atkins

I guess we’re supposed to be celebrating this now:

See? Republicans are lying! Democrats aren’t the tax-and-spend liberals the mean Republicans say we are! And look at all these graphs that prove it!

Pretty soon if Democrats shrink the government sector enough, the tide of public opinion will finally turn and we’ll be seen as the responsible, thrifty party. Maybe we can even shrink it small enough to fit in a bathtub! After which Cory Booker can have a champagne toast with new economy job creators like Jamie Dimon.

And boy oh boy, when we do, and those independent voters in Missouri finally notice how responsible we are for cutting discretionary spending to near zero, then Democrats will surely win more elections. And then won’t mean old Grover Norquist be mad, I tell ya!

Of course, the only thing that might endanger that happy dream would be spending valuable DNC dollars defending labor’s last stand in places like Wisconsin. That would be divisive and might get in the way of winning over undecideds in those all-important right-to-work states.

It all makes sense, if only you position your head just so…

.

That transformative air

by digby

The problem with everything:

“Progressives are livid,” said one senior Democratic strategist who, like everyone we talked to for this story, requested anonymity to talk about the matter. “Cory already had the Wall Street crowd and already had a reputation as an independent thinker. He just created a lot of questions amongst folks he would need in any future Democratic primary.”

And yet, there are plenty of people in the Democratic professional political class who see Booker’s actions over the last three days as less crazy and more crazy like a fox.

“Whatever race he chooses next will be an eight-figure campaign, and in the New York market, it’s political suicide to write off Wall Street money,” said one Democratic consultant. “He’s no stranger to Wall Street but he also has this transformative air about him that makes straddling this divide possible.”

That’s Village scribe Chriz Cilizza, succinctly laying out in three short paragraphs why politics is fucked.

.

.

Government slowly committing suicide

by digby

This ad from Karl Rove is pretty clever … and it’s a winner for the Republicans, even if they lose the presidential election, because it perpetuates the myth that spending and deficits caused the recession:

Unfortunately, since the Democrats refuse to counter this myth — even going so far as to brag about their own record of cutting spending in the midst of an historic downturn — it will go on in perpetuity. Everyone will continue to believe that deficits are the cause of all our woes and that the most important thing we can do in an economic catastrophe is curtail government spending. (Of course, we are also supposed to curtail spending in a boom because “it’s your money!”)

Many Americans will believe the story in that ad. And they’ll keep believing it until someone tells them otherwise, which means that the government is not getting small enough so that Grover Norquist can drown it in the bathtub. It’s drowning itself.

.