Skip to content

Month: September 2012

Some justice for Lt. Pike’s victims, by @DavidOAtkins

Some justice for Lt. Pike’s victims

by David Atkins

The wheels of justice are turning at UC Davis in the wake of the pepper spray incident. First Lt. Pike was placed on administrative leave. And now the victims will be receiving damages:

The University of California will be paying damages to the UC Davis students and alumni who were pepper-sprayed by campus police during an otherwise peaceful protest 10 months ago, officials said Thursday.

The UC regents met in closed session Thursday to discuss and approve a proposed settlement payment to 21 UC Davis students and alumni who have sued the university and contend their civil rights were violated in the incident.

But both UC officials and the ACLU of Northern California, which is representing the students in the lawsuit, refused to divulge details of the settlement, saying the rules of the agreement require a federal judge to review the matter before it can be made public. That may happen within a few days, they said.

UC regent Leslie Tang Schilling said the regents decided to settle the matter because UC needs to move past the pepper-spray controversy and focus on many pressing budgetary issues.

The only unfortunate part of all this is that the money used to pay the victims of this plutocracy-defending thug will come directly out of the funds used to cover tuitions, scholarships and researchers’ salaries, rather than out of the pockets of the top %.1 percent whose interests he was serving.

They do live in a different world from you and me, and they’d like to keep it that way–with the help of a few authoritarian friends dishing out their own perverse sense of cosmic justice.

.

So who is that cares about the deficit anyway?

So who is that cares about the deficit anyway?

by digby

Your reading assignment for the evening is this great piece in the New York Review of Books by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson entitled What Krugman & Stiglitz Can Tell Us. There’s a lot to it, but I homed in on this particular piece:

A majority of Americans have consistently told pollsters that creating jobs is a much higher priority than tackling the deficit. And when asked how deficits might be reduced, the public strongly endorses increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting defense spending. The problem is not that these ideas couldn’t guide policy. It’s that they have almost no political traction in Washington. The most influential Republican budget plan—the blueprint put forward by Representative Paul Ryan and given even greater prominence by his selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate—would do just the opposite of what most people say they want. The plan would add to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy; increase, rather than cut, defense spending; and enact huge cuts in social programs for the poor and middle class, including Medicaid and Medicare. These are changes that polls show Americans (including, at least with respect to Medicare, even Tea Party supporters) strongly oppose.

While the Ryan budget is at odds with the stated priorities of the majority of Americans, one group appears quite supportive of its general thrust—the superrich. Most polls reach few if any extremely wealthy Americans. But thanks to a pilot poll recently commissioned by a team of political scientists, we now know that the very rich are indeed different from the rest of Americans: They place much higher priority on deficit reduction and cutting spending, and much, much lower priority on reducing unemployment.*

This explains most of the wealthy celebrity Villagers (and those who expect to be wealthy, celebrity Villagers in the near future) flogging deficit reduction as if the future of the Republic depends upon it.There’s no mystery as to “what’s the matter with the Village.” It’s class bias, pure and simple.

Read the whole piece, it’s very illuminating.

This thesis fits with this interesting post today about the Chicago teacher’s strike, which featured this memorable quote:

Billionaire wise hobbit Warren Buffet once told school reformer Michelle Rhee that the easiest way to fix schools was to “make private schools illegal and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.” In England, the notion of banning private education—while highly unlikely—has long been a part of the political debate entertained by major-party candidates.

Why did he say this?

Nationwide, where 10% of the nation’s students—and 16% of the white ones from families making more than $75,000 per year—attend private schools, the stratification is similar. White and asian students enroll in private schools at twice the rate of black and hispanic ones, according to Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project. Nearly two thirds of private-school students are from wealthy families. In the nation’s 40 largest school districts, one in three white students attends private school (the number is one in ten for black students).

I’ll just quote Charles Pierce and leave it at that:

I am not flexible about this. If you want to look tough at the expense of public-school teachers, you are a snob or a coward, or perhaps both. Every member of this MSNBC panel that Digby found, including all the liberals and all the Democrats thereon, can bite me, seriously. If I have to read one more smug, Ivy League writer from Slate talking, as the big strike goes on, about public-school teachers as though they were unruly hired help, I may hit someone with a fish.

*The average wealth of those polled was around $14 million; the average annual income was just over $1 million. See Larry Bartels, Benjamin Page, and Jason Seawright, “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, September 2011.

h/t to RK

There’s a good reason why this country is polarized

There’s a good reason why the country is polarized

by digby
It appears that Romney’s little foreign policy gambit didn’t go over too well around the country:

New York Times: “An extraordinary lack of presidential character”

Washington Post: “A discredit to his campaign”

Los Angeles Times: “An outrageous exercise in opportunism.”

Boston Globe: “His statement was offensive on many other levels…Romney’s actions raise more doubts about himself than Obama.”

Philadelphia Inquirer: “Mitt Romney didn’t wait for expert assessments to use the four diplomats’ deaths to launch his own verbal assault.”

Miami Herald: “Profoundly inappropriate”

Tampa Bay Times: “The Republican nominee continued to exploit the situation”

Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel: “Irresponsible. And totally unwarranted.”

Sarasota Herald-Tribune: “Prematurely lobbed off-base criticism”

Cleveland Plain Dealer: “Mitt Romney’s trigger finger was so quick that he didn’t even get it right”

Akron Beacon Journal: “Unfortunately, Mitt Romney chose to ignore the distinction.”

Boulder Daily Camera: “For someone whose campaign has been studded with tone-deafness abroad, this was stunning, undiplomatic and undemocratic rhetoric.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “Yes, it was sad and pathetic to see such callous and uninformed statements from politicians who couldn’t wait until they had the facts to use an international incident for political gain.”

But it sure was a big hit in Bizarroworld:

Ann Coulter: Obama’s Actions “Led To Our Ambassador Being Killed” In Libya

Fox’s Steve Doocy: The U.S. Embassy In Cairo Was Essentially “Apologizing To Al Qaeda”

Fox’s Ralph Peters On Libya Attack: “They Kill Four Of Ours, You Kill 400 Of Theirs”

Bolling Hypes Myth To Politicize Embassy Violence, Claiming Obama “Apologized For Our Reaction To 9/11”

Limbaugh’s Conspiracy Theory: Al Qaeda “Gave Up Osama Bin Laden” To Make “Obama Look Good”

Rush Limbaugh: “Obama Gave Us The Arab Spring, Which Has Turned Into What Happened Yesterday”

Pat Robertson On Embassy Attack: “You Wonder What It Is In These Muslims That Causes Them To Go Crazy”

If you watched Fox at all today you would have learned that we are under attack and that Obama is ignoring the fact that “the Arab street” is enflamed and ready to come kill us all in our beds, replete with endless loops of American flags being burned and tinny, constantly interrupted dispatches from reporters in the field. None of the other networks were doing this, not even CNN whose bread and butter is just such reporting.

I suppose it’s possible that FOX is way out ahead on this story, but let’s just say it’s doubtful. Certainly the commentary that accompanies their images on the screen bears no relationship to reality. Anyone who watched Fox News is under the impression that America is under siege and that we should expect another terrorist attack imminently. It’s kind of like those fundamentalist preachers who are always predicting Armageddon.

Meanwhile, be sure to read all the latest on the people who started this whole thing. Unsurprisingly, they are active in American right wingnut circles.
.

A narrative path forward for teachers, by @DavidOAtkins

A narrative path forward for teachers

by David Atkins

Apropos of the Howard Dean/Randi Weingarten blogger meeting my brother and I had the privilege of attending in which Ms. Weingarten seemed to dismiss the power of narrative, education blogger extraordinaire JerseyJazzman has an excellent take on what should be the storyline for teachers going forward. After putting forward the well-honed narrative of the neoliberal “reformists”, he says:

We don’t have a story like this – yet. The good news is that we are beginning to create one. Again, I know some of you are getting frustrated with the choir-preaching mode that we seem to be stuck in, but that’s how these narratives get built. The reformy right figured this out long ago, but they have to work a lot harder at it than we do. They have to sell nonsense, illogic, and lies; we just have to find the right way to tell the truth.

Again, I’m no politician; I don’t have the chops to write the full orchestral score. I can, however, whistle the tune:

In every country in the world, poverty impedes educational success. Our biggest education problem is that more of our kids are in poverty than any other developed nation. When America’s public school teachers get kids who are well-fed and healthy and live in stable homes with parents who have good jobs, those kids do better in school than any other children in the world.



But a group of people who do not teach (or taught for a short while and not very well) have decided to blame teachers – teachers! – for all the problems in our country. They say that “choice” will save our schools, but the “choice” they offer is between underfunded, crumbling public schools and corporatized, autocratic charter schools that they admit they will never serve all children. These schools cherry-pick their students and then falsely claim they have the secret for success. Their inability to educate all students proves that public schools are not the problem – poverty is. 



Why do these people sell this snake oil? Three reasons:



1) Many of them are looking to make moneya lot of money – off of education. They want to do to our schools what they did to our military, turning them into a bunch of Haliburton Highs.



2) They want to finally and completely break the unions. Once the teachers fall, it’s all over for the middle class.



3) They need a scapegoat. Teachers didn’t create these problems: the corporate titans of Wall Street did. These plutocrats are now paying a gang of carnival barkers a big bunch of money to blame teachers – teachers! – for the problems they themselves made.

I encourage you to read the whole thing, and make a regular visit to his blog if you’re passionate about this issue.

The “reformists” have a big head start on teachers in pushing their storyline. The only way to counter it is to get aggressive on the fights that can be won, while defining the fights that cannot be won (such as metrics, where pure resistance will leave us crushed underfoot) in progressive terms.

.

With friends like these, Part 837

With friends like these, Part 837

by digby

Can you see what’s wrong with this picture?

I knew that you could.(That’s Schumer’s spokesman, btw)

The funny thing is that I’m sure Schumer really does want Ryan back in congress. They have so many “interests” in common.

h/t to Jay Ackroyd

.

More on can kicking and tax hikes

More on can kicking and tax hikes

by digby

With all the talk of undoing the sequestration deal (I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!) and kicking the can down the road for another six months, it’s also looking more and more obvious that all the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended as part of it. Which was probably the point of all this crapola to begin with.

It’s not the end of the world. The economy is still dragging and deficit reduction should be the last thing anyone’s worrying about. Maybe we could try to get unemployment under control and then see how it looks, eh? Full employment tends to enrich the coffers quite a bit what with all the extra people working and businesses giving raises and whatnot.

Once we get a real recovery underway, then let’s take a look at this and see if it just might be enough to put a sizeable dent in what’s left of the deficit without putting disabled kids and old people out on the street:

In one episode recounted in Woodward’s book, Senate Democrats lit into White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors for pointing out that raising taxes on millionaires — no matter how much they were taxed — would never close the deficit without adding in cuts to cherished entitlement programs.

Well, that’s assuming that completely closing the deficit is necessary in the first place and that the economy is incapable of growing enough to adequately pay it down with the help of what is historically a very modest tax hike on the people who won’t even feel the difference. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. So, maybe we could wait to throw granny and disabled Junior out on the streets at least until we’ve tried that. Certainly we could wait until the negative market reaction everyone keeps talking about actually shows some sign that it might happen.

Most people have obviously bought into deficit fever and those with the not-so-hidden agenda have moved in with precision to take advantage of it. But that doesn’t mean it’s real.

.

QE III: I’ve got yer certainty for yah rightcheah

QE III: I’ve got yer certainty for yah rightcheah

by digby

Contrary to what one of the sages on MSNBC exclaimed yesterday when insisting that the only answer to our economic woes was to slash spending, it turns out that no, Ben Bernanke is not “out of bucks.”:

The Fed’s statement announcing its third round of quantitative easing is out. The big story is that they will buy $85 billion in new assets, including $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities every month until the end of the year.

The key here, which differentiates this from QEI and QEII, is that the commitment is open-ended — the Fed has committed to continuing the buys if the economic situation is not significantly improved at the end of the year. Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond regional bank and a noted inflation hawk, was the only vote against.

In addition to the QE announcement, the bank stated it will maintain its interest rate range of 0 to 1/4 of a percent until mid-2015, a later date than their previous commitment to keep rates low through 2014. Also new is the bank’s commitment to keep policy easy even after the recovery has gotten stronger: “The Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.”

Not being a Fed expert I’ll await the analysis of those who are to see if this is adequate under the conditions set forth in Mike Konczal’s most excellent (and entertaining) primer on the Fed’s lackluster results from QEI and QEII. But at first glance, it seems very promising. The open-ended nature of it is what people have been clamoring for and the commitment to continuing even after the recovery takes place is a very significant change of direction.

If you wanted some certainty from the Fed, it looks like you’ve got it.

I’m sure the conservatives will now say the Fed is in the tank for Obama, but who the hell cares?

.

Support these candidates. It’s good for the soul

Support these candidates. It’s good for the soul

by digby

Alternet’s Sarah Jaffe put together a list of 10 under the radar races to keep your eye on:

1. CA-25: Democrat Lee Rogers vs Republican Buck McKeonBuck McKeon is a trifecta of loathsome: a Republican in a district that Obama won in 2008 who got preferential treatment from housing-bubble blowersCountrywide, and who, as the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee,refused to hold hearings on sexual assault at the Air Force’s training facility at Lackland. He was also one of the forces behind California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, and is the co-chair of the House drone caucus (for real).So why aren’t we hearing more about his opponent, surgeon Lee Rogers? As could be expected, Rogers is running heavy on health care, leaning on his experience with the system—he says that 75 percent of his patients (he’s a podiatrist) are on Medicare–and calling for improvements to the Affordable Care Act. He’s called for keeping drug addicts out of prison, getting out of Afghanistan, and investing in infrastructure. As Blue America’s Howie Klein notes, McKeon hasn’t had real competition in a while, so this race could get interesting.

2. NY-23: Democrat Nate Shinagawa vs Republican Tom ReedNate Shinagawa is running as both the Democratic and Working Families Party candidate in upstate New York’s 23rd district against Republican Tom Reed. He is one of the youngest candidates for Congress this year (just 28 years old) and a former student labor activist. He’s already spent six years in the Tompkins County legislature, and has been an outspoken critic of fracking — a practice his opponent is all for—which New York Governor Cuomo would like to open up in his district.In addition to welcoming fracking in his backyard, Reed was one of the GOP members of Congress on an infamous trip to Israel, where in addition to enjoying the hospitality of AIPAC’s nonprofit offshoot the American Israel Education Foundation, at least one legislator copped to going skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee. (Reed says that he and his wife were “appropriately clothed.”) He’s been cited as a possible future GOP “star” from New York, and he’s a big fan of Paul Ryan and his (wildly unpopular, especially in New York) budget.3. PA-16: Democrat Aryanna Strader vs Republican Joe PittsJoe Pitts’s name is familiar to anyone who cares about reproductive justice—along with Democrat Bart Stupak, the Pennsylvania Republican was the author of the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform bill—a sneak attack on abortion rights that would’ve restricted access to abortion coverage in private health insurance plans.Pitts should be a huge target for Democrats, but despite a leftward trend in his district and a bit of redistricting that might make it even more likely to swing Democratic, they’re not pushing very hard. But Aryanna Strader is. She’s a 29-year-old veteran, a mom, and a small business owner, and she leaves no question where she stands on reproductive freedoms—she argues that Pitts“started the war on women’s health.”There are two independents running in the 16th as well—Jim Bednarski, a former Republican who apparently wants to win the seat without fundraising, and John A. Murphy, who called Strader the Democrats’ Sarah Palin. Pitts is smoking his competition when it comes to fundraising, though—which might make one wonder about the Democrats’ commitment to electing pro-choice politicians, since there’s plenty of money being funneled into other Pennsylvania races, including Mark Critz’s race at the other end of Pennsylvania — despite his support for Pitts’ H.R. 358, dubbed the “Let Women Die Act” because it would, well, let women die if their doctors were opposed to abortion.4. MI-11: Democrat Syed Taj vs Republican Kerry BentivolioIf this district sounds familiar, it’s because Thaddeus McCotter resigned from it earlier this year after a chunk of the signatures qualifying him for the primary ballot were found to be fraudulent. (Four of his staffers were charged with violating election law.) Dr. Syed Taj is one of several M.D.’s running for Congress this year on their practical health care experience. He’s skipping the special election for the remaining weeks of McCotter’s term (really, weeks), choosing to focus on the general, where he’s facing a Tea Party candidate, Kerry Bentivolio, who’s well,unique—Mother Jones describes him as “a reindeer rancher, Santa impersonator, and political novice who once starred in a low-budget movie suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job.” A former teacher, he’s facing questions about his treatment of students, and he got a chunk of funding for his campaign from a 21-year-old Ron Paul fanboy.Taj has spent over 40 years as a doctor, including a stint as Chief of Medicine at Oakwood Hospital in Dearborn. He’s been endorsed by the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, Representative Keith Ellison, Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Nurses Association and the American Federation of Teachers.5. WV-01: Democrat Sue Thorn vs Republican David McKinleyWest Virginia is coal country, and any political battle in the state is likely to have Big Coal’s dirty fingers all over the race. Sue Thorn’s challenge to David McKinley is no exception. Multimillionaire McKinley (what is it with these rich members of Congress in some of the poorest districts?) has gotten a good chunk of his campaign cash from Murray Energy, the company whose Utah mine at Crandall Canyon collapsed and killed nine people—and which got slapped with the largest fines ever from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (until the 2010 explosion at Upper Big Branch mine right in West Virginia, that is).McKinley tries to claim that Thorn doesn’t support coal mining and works under a big picture of a miner—but Jack Spadaro, former head of the National Mine Safety and Health Academy, doesn’t buy that:

There’s no question about that, he’s a hypocrite. He may say that and have that poster in his office, but he hasn’t done anything to further the interests of miners and to make their workplace safe.

Meanwhile, Thorn has pointed out that McKinley’s voted against stronger protections against black lung (which is having a resurgence) and better safety regulations. And she spent her Labor Day at events with actual workers, not just pictures of them.

6. WI-01: Democrat Rob Zerban vs Republican Paul RyanPaul Ryan‘s busy running for Veep, of course—but just in case, he’s also running for reelection in his House district. And Rob Zerban would like to take that job from him as well. Zerban‘s probably the first serious challenge Ryan has faced in Wisconsin since his election; he’s raised over $1.4 million for his race so far, and points out that Obama carried the district in 2008 (and still would have even after redistricting). He told AlterNet’s Joshua Holland:

I’ve lived my version of the American dream. I was only able to do that because our government was there when I needed help. I realize that being a successful small business owner — someone who employed 45 people, providing excellent wages and benefits — I realize that this isn’t something I accomplished all on my own. Our government helped me get an education on Pell Grants and loans, I was able to go on and start these small businesses. I want to make sure economic opportunity exists for everybody in this country, not just the wealthy and the well-connected.

Zerban’s wife is a teacher and they were both part of the Capitol protests against Scott Walker’s anti-union bill. He endorses a “Medicare for All” single-payer system, noting that people don’t start small businesses, in part, because of the sky-high costs of health insurance.Ryan’s selection to the presidential ticket may have helped put other Congressional races in play for the Democrats—it’d be pretty funny if he managed to lose his own, too.7. NC-10: Democrat Patsy Keever vs Republican Patrick McHenryNorth Carolina redistricted notorious Blue Dog Heath Shuler out of Congress(Shuler decided to step down after some of the more Democratic-leaning parts of his 11th district were sliced out and dropped into the neighboring 10th). But that might wind up helping Patsy Keever, who’s facing off in the 10th against Patrick McHenry, described by Alex Pareene at Salon as “born to be cheerfully corrupt: He’s a product of the College Republicans, an organization that trains little Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Grover Norquists in the arts of scorched-earth campaigning and wholly irresponsible ‘governing’ on behalf of the monied interests that bought you your job.”Keever, on the other hand, won a primary over more conservative Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy (who had the backing of the national party). The former schoolteacher is a sharp critic of the corporate education reform policy currently being celebrated at both party conventions, writing recently:

Vouchers and charter schools are not the answer. Defunding good programs and instituting unfunded mandates are not the answer. Adding more students to each classroom while decreasing support systems for teachers is not the answer.

Howie Klein notes that unlike Hayden Rogers, the anti-gay, anti-choice candidate (and Shuler’s Chief of Staff) now running in the 11th district, Keever’s getting little support from the Democratic party in the 10th. This, even though she stronglyopposed North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage Amendment One and was endorsed as pro-choice by NARAL. Interestingly, the DCCC named Rogers a “Red to Blue” candidate, which gives him additional funding even though he’s running to replace his old boss, a theoretical Democrat, while Keever’s running against an honest-to-goodness Republican.8. CA-39: Democrat Jay Chen vs Republican Ed RoyceEd Royce is a longtime incumbent who’s gotten more money from the financial sector than any other member of the California delegation; he’s one of the few senior Republicans to actually join the Tea Party Caucus, has said that Arizona’s “Papers, Please” anti-immigrant law should be the national standard, railed against multi-language ballots, and voted against extending the Voting Rights Act. But he’s in a new district this time, and this one is 30 percent Asian-American and 30 percent Latino—creating a perfect opening for Jay Chen to take a crack at defeating him.Chen still faces an uphill battle, but the school board member and Navy Reservist is running on the issues that matter—making education more accessible, better health care (he’s ultimately a single-payer supporter) and financial regulation. He recorded Mandarin-language ads to urge the Chinese-American community to vote against Proposition 8, and even though the DCCC doesn’t see fit to spend money on his race, he’s determined to keep fighting.9. PA-03: Democrat Missa Eaton vs Republican Mike KellyMissa Eaton is one of many educators running as a Democrat in a time of reduced funding for schools and universities. The daughter of a union bus driver, the assistant professor of psychology is challenging super-rich incumbent Mike Kelly and mentions the student debt crisis as one of her issues to tackle. She’s also no slouch on trade policy, an issue that might not be sexy but is deeply important in the era of outsourcing.Eaton’s getting union support in her blue-collar western Pennsylvania district (represented, before Kelly, by Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper) and won the “Keystone Challenge” from the state Democratic Party.Meanwhile, Mike Kelly compared the health insurance mandate to cover contraception to Pearl Harbor and September 11. No, really.10. TX-16: Democrat Beto O’Rourke vs Republican Barbara CarrascoBeto O’Rourke’s already won one rough race this year—his primary, where he knocked off conservative Democrat Silvestre Reyes, in part in a battle over drug policy. O’Rourke favors marijuana legalization and bluntly calls the drug war a “failure.” The El Paso city representative argued that marijuana prohibition only fuels the cartels and stokes violence just over the border. It didn’t hurt that Reyes had other problems–$600,000 in campaign funds steered to himself and family members, say, or a vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Tim Murphy at Mother Jones notes that try as Reyes might have to make drugs an issue in the campaign, the race was really won on the economy.O’Rourke’s also pushed for benefits for same-sex partners and is pro-choice, pro-contraception, and pro-health care. The district remains largely Democratic even after redistricting, but O’Rourke still has to go through Barbara Carrasco, a Republican whose website pledges that she’ll “FIGHT for America’s Free-Market Economy” and “PROTECT our Children – Born and Unborn.”

These are all races Blue America is involved with and there’s a good chance that we’ll get a few upsets among them. And supporting these candidates is important for movement building in any case. We need hardcore progressives with experience in running campaigns and running for office if we ever hope to have an effective independent bloc in congress that isn’t afraid to take on the political establishments of both parties. It’s slow, tedious work, but over time it can happen.

If you feel like throwing a couple of bucks toward these candidates, you can do it here.

And that Eric Clapton/BB King platinum award drawing is still opento support Patsy Keever in North Carolina if you want to get in on it.

Politics sucks these days in so many ways. But in this era of huge money it’s inspiring to see grassroots candidates working their hearts out the old fashioned way, going door to door, asking for small donations, trying to get the word out however they can. Supporting them is good for the soul.

.

“They’re at home, doing the laundry” by @DavidOAtkins

“They’re at home, doing the laundry”

by David Atkins

Oh boy:

Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio said Wednesday at a Romney campaign rally that his wife was at home doing laundry while he gave political speeches.

“You know, Jane Portman, Karen Kasich, and Janna Ryan, they operate an awful lot of the time in the shadows,” he said in Owensville, referring to the wife of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, his own wife, and the wife of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, respectively.

“It’s not easy to be a spouse of an elected official,” Kasich continued. “You know, they’re at home, doing the laundry and doing so many things while we’re up here on the stage getting applause, right? They don’t often share in it. And it is hard for the spouse to hear the criticism and to put up with the travel schedule and to have to be at home taking care of the kids. And where is the politician? Out on the road.”

This is the problem Republicans have with women–and frankly with every other traditionally dispossessed group with whom they tank in the polls. Kasich was trying to say nice things about the women in male Republican candidates’ lives. The mundane but sincere point he was trying to make is obvious.

But these people are so steeped in the normative language of oppression (to use academic jargon) that they can’t help themselves.

Conservatives know they have an impending demographic implosion on their hands. They think they can just retool their message and the faces of their candidates to overcome it. But it’s not going to be a simple matter of rebranding. The latent contempt for anyone who isn’t a white male is woven into the very fabric of their being.

.

Fox News today

Fox News today

by digby

I’ve been watching some Fox News this afternoon. It’s quite a show.

This is a fairly good representation of what’s been going on:

They’ve been around the bend for some time and they just keep proving it over and over again. These two women are completely batshit crazy.

.