Month: November 2012

They’d rather have a crazy Republican than even try to elect a progressive

by digby

Chris Hayes relates a funny anecdote at the beginning of this clip from today’s Up with Chris Hayes about a kooky GOP congressional candidate whose own brother says he’s crazy and will end up in jail:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here’s the sad part. Chris says this loon is likely to win. And that’s probably true. But that’s not because he doesn’t have a good Democratic opponent. He has an excellent one: Blue America endorsee Dr Sayed Taj. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party couldn’t be bothered to step in and help him:

Political analysts describe the Indian-American Canton Township board member as lacking the charisma and experience needed to sway Republicans.

That’s a euphemism for “progressive” in those circles.

And the “analysis” itself is suspect. As Howie points out:

MI-11 is a district Obama won handily in 2008 (54-45%) and whose incumbent, Thaddeus McCotter was recently caught committing election fraud and was forced to resign to stay out of prison. The psychotic teabagger who was challenging him in the primary, reindeer rancher Kerry Bentivolio, is now favored to win because Israel decided to starve the Democrat, Dr. Syed Taj, of funds. Even under the new boundaries, originally drawn by the GOP-dominated Michigan legislature to shore up McCotter, the district still leans blue and Obama would have beaten McCain 50-48%. This is a winnable district…

Instead Israel is chasing a host of hopeless Blue Dogs in districts that have no interest in electing Democrats. And most of his candidates– even if elected, would be nearly as dependable to vote against progressive legislation as the Republicans they’re running against. Steve Israel– Nancy Pelosi’s worst mistake ever.

.

CNN Contributor Erickson: “I think this world is destined to go to hell in a hand basket by design.”

by David Atkins

Erick Erickson, CNN contributor, movement conservative darling and new media leader, gives his view of history and the future:

My world view is pretty simple. I think this world is destined to go to hell in a hand basket by design. I think things are supposed to go to pot. So if Barack Obama wins, I won’t be upset. If Mitt Romney wins, I won’t be running through the streets cheering. I think, either way, it is all part of the design. The world is going down hill. Barack Obama re-elected just gets us down the slippery slope faster in my view. For others, it is Mitt Romney who does.

God is sovereign and He is in charge and He will return. That is my hope and my ever present expectation.

We often get so wrapped up in the view of things at ground level, we forget to look at the world from 50,000 feet. In the historic, grand scheme of things, this too will end…

Some of you, on both sides, are convinced that the end of the world is nigh. It is. But not quite yet and no one really knows when.

What I do know for sure is that I’m headed home to eternity and this world is temporary. So while I like politics and have my side and want it to win, I’m not going to be partying in the street if my side does win and I’m not going to think the end of the world is upon us if my side loses.

You should not either.

This is Erickson’s doomsday cult view from 50,000 feet: a view from which climate change and wars of civilizations don’t matter because the world is ending in fire before Lord Jesus arrives, anyway. Though I do wonder why someone of this persuasion would care about long-term deficits.

This isn’t a new phenomenon, remember. Ronald Reagan was obsessed with end times prophecies and may even have courted hot-war confrontation with the Soviet Union on that basis.

People like this should not be within 50,000 feet of public policy. They’re dangerous lunatics.

.

Friday Romney Voter blogging


by digby

He’s an angry, Muslim socialist throwing their hard earned money at the people who want handouts. It’s that simple.

h/t to tbogg

.

Romney’s delightful sense of humor

by digby

When he was young he was into forcibly cutting people’s hair and scaring the hell out of unsuspecting females by pretending to be a cop. And now he’s delivering hilarious one-liners:

I would just add this from just a few years back:

Yeah, these Republicans are funny, funny people.

.

One of this year’s biggest videogames makes a big move against sexism

by David Atkins

Anyone who has ever played a multiplayer online console game with voice chat (and yes, I realize that the intersection between Hullabaloo readers and those who have done so may be somewhat small) knows what a dystopic environment it can be. Even worse than the various throngs of alien life and supersoliders attempting to kill you at any moment are the screaming hordes of bullies and hormonal teenagers shouting cursewords and derogatory racist, homophobic, and sexist insults at every turn.

While most gamemakers and console manufacturers have rules about this sort of thing, they’re rarely enforced. Most have a sort of community policing system, but that works marginally at best. Racism tends to be addressed more than other types of discrimination, but a huge amount of it still gets through. And the sexism is completely uncontrolled. So gamers who want to avoid all that nastiness tend to mute the voice chat. The only problem with that is that in team games, unless you’re running with a crew of pre-picked friends, the team that communicates in real time has a huge advantage over the team that doesn’t. A player on mute tends to be a weak link. So the choices tend to be: 1) avoid team games; 2) play ineffectively; or 3) put up a neverending stream of derogatory, discriminatory abuse.

Well, Microsoft is stepping in to do something about the rampant sexism on voice chat with a zero tolerance policy in one of its most widely anticipated releases in years, Halo 4. Keep in mind that this policy represents a potentially major loss of revenue for them, so it’s a pretty impressive and laudable stand:

It’s been a rough year for women in gaming.

From the backlash against Bioware’s Jennifer Hepler after voicing her thoughts about gameplay and the verbal attacks on a female player by one of her own teammates during a live Cross Assault demo to the raping of Laura Croft so you’ll “want to protect her” and the death threats critic Anita Sarkeesian received for her Kickstarter project analyzing misogyny in gaming, the community has encountered sexism seemingly around every corner.

Yesterday, one major game franchise announced it had finally reached the breaking point.

In an interview with Gamespot, two of the most prominent women in the industry revealed that next week’s long-awaited release of Halo 4 would not be for everyone: sexists will not be welcome on Microsoft’s servers.

“This is behaviour that is offensive and completely unacceptable,” Microsoft’s 343 Industries Executive Bonnie Ross told Gamespot. “I’d like to think most of our Xbox Live players don’t support this kind of behaviour.”

Ross, along with Halo 4’s executive producer Kiki Wolfkill, told the gaming site that they would be adopting a “zero tolerance” policy for sexism on Halo 4’s servers. “Sexist or discriminatory comments against others” will earn players a lifetime ban from the game.

“It can be dangerous to give adolescents a broadcast mechanism,” Wolfkill told Gamespot. The two went on to place the ultimate responsibility for stamping out gaming culture sexism squarely on the shoulders of game developers.

Coming from two prominent executives in an industry that often silences its female developers and denigrates female players, this statement is a crucial one. Halo 4 is one of this year’s most anticipated console games, and Microsoft has funneled more money into its development than any other game in its history.

So far, though discussions of misogyny in games and gaming culture have polarized the online gaming community, it’s been rare for companies themselves to directly address the issue. For the creators of Halo 4 to state that such behavior will have direct consequences—and to do so before the game’s release—sets a hugely important precedent.

Non-gamers will doubtless say “so what?” and “what took them so long?” Fair questions, especially the latter. But for gamers, this represents a large and most welcome step forward. The arc of the universe is long, but it does bend through fits and starts toward justice.

.

Who wins the codpiece contest?

by digby

Both sides hurl around a lot of talk about “projection” but only the Republicans can be this obtuse:

Romney “Looks Like” A President “Out There In A Suit And Tie,” Unlike Obama In A Flight Jacket

I found those in a 30 second search. Seriously Rush. I think your boy Junior Bush took the cake in the costume department. He gave the Village People a run for their money.

.

Mitt’s closing argument: Vote for me or deluded wingnuts will hold their breath until they turn blue

by digby

Via TPM:

Mitt Romney said Friday that if President OBama is re-elected, he still won’t be able to work with Congress. He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy. The President was right when he said he can’t change Washington from the inside. In this case, you can take him at his word.

So, just like the delicate Wall Street financiers, the poor little GOP Honeybooboos launched their epic, unprecedented obstruction because Obama was a great big meanie. I say give them all a bottle and send them to bed.

Paul Krugman points out that the right is basically blackmailing the American public with more of the same. If Obama wins another term, they can’t be respnsible for the purely emotional reaction that will follow:

I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.

David Frum in endorsing Romney says the same thing. Only Mitt can hold back the barbarians:

The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It’s a question about his party — and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won’t reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP — and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

This has to be one of the most cynical political arguments I’ve ever seen. But it’s the most honest one they’ve put forward in this election.

.

Will common sense prevail over the phony deficit crusade?

by digby

Robert Kuttner makes the common sense proposal that the government embark on a coastal infrastructure rebuilding program in light of our changing climate:

The new normal is here, the legacy of our denial of the reality of climate change. The federal government needs to do a comprehensive assessment of the public investment necessary to protect our coasts, which will run into the trillions of dollars.

One consequences of that reality is that it blows away past assumptions about deficit reduction. The government needs to begin a multi-year public investment program.

With interest rates at historic lows, the government could issue a special series of flood-prevention bonds.

The scenes of devastation that we’ve seen in recent days are like what happens to cities in wartime. If there were a war, government would have no hesitation about borrowing as much money as is necessary to prevail.

The damage of 9/11 was small compared to the damage of Sandy—and 9/11 prompted increases in military spending north of two trillion dollars. The cynical corporate CEOs who are spending tens of millions to demand that we “fix the debt” should get serious and back a campaign to Fix the Coasts. Several of these Wall Street moguls can’t even use their Lower Manhattan offices this week because of the lingering storm damage.

And of course, that would only address defense against the consequences of climate change. We also need to remedy the causes. We should be investing comparable sums in conversion to carbon-free energy to head off even worse climate change. Not to mention the modernizing and greening of the rest of our infrastructure.

All of this public outlay will have the handy side effect of stimulating a real economic recover, instead of the half-recovery that will limp along for years absent drastic policy changes.

I can already hear the primal scream coming from the entire political establishment about “exploding the deficit” (even though this stimulus would very likely result in raising tax receipts as the private sector responded.) Here’s Dean Baker with a dose of reality:

Of course the real story of the deficit is very simple. We have large deficits at present because the collapse of the housing bubble crashed the economy. That’s it.

In 2007, the last year before the downturn, the deficit was a modest 1.3 percent of GDP. We can run deficits of this magnitude forever. The debt to GDP ratio was actually falling. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would remain modest and actually turn to a surplus when the Bush tax cuts expired in 2011.

This all changed when the economic downturn sent tax revenues plummeting and caused a sharp jump in spending on unemployment insurance and other programs designed to counteract the downturn. But the basic story is simple and straightforward: The large deficits are because the economy collapsed, not because of huge tax cuts or runaway spending.

There is a longer-term deficit problem but this is entirely a problem due to the projected explosion of healthcare costs. Interestingly, the data doesn’t seem to be cooperating with this story either. Healthcare spending grew at just a 0.5 percent annual rate in the most recent quarter. Its growth rate has been far below projections since the start of the downturn.

If healthcare costs continue anywhere near their recent path, our deficit fighters will lose their long-term deficit crisis story. They will be left pushing cuts for Social Security and Medicare that lack any basis in budget realities.

Sadly, budget realities have very little to do with the jihad against Social Security and medicare. It’s not about the budget or the debt. It’s about fixing the national “character.” Just ask Paul Ryan. He thinks these programs are ” a hammock that lulls able bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, and have that dependency culture.”

.

Devolution to the wreckage

by digby

Mitt Romney’s latest:

I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.

Uhm, no. I think Colbert said it best:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

“Who better to respond to what’s going on inside its own borders than a state whose infrastructure has just been swept out to sea?”

.

Report says income tax rates don’t affect growth. Republicans try to hide the evidence

by David Atkins

Another day, another example of Republicans trying to get rid of scientific evidence stating something they find inconvenient. Only this time, that evidence strikes right at the very core of their entire economic philosophy:

The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.

The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.

But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.

“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.

No doubt. Steve Benen:

And what is it that Republicans didn’t like about the CRS analysis? McConnell aides offered a series of complaints, including the report’s use of the phrase “Bush tax cuts.”

Apparently, in Republicans’ minds, to say “Bush tax cuts” is to use an inappropriate “tone.”

But putting all of that aside, we simply cannot have a functioning federal system in which neutral, independent offices are ignored, pressured, and/or censored when Republicans don’t like what they have to say. We’ve now seen this recently with the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Congressional Budget Office, and democratic norms dictate that GOP officials cut this out.

Really, just stop it. If objective truths bother you, don’t blame the messenger, blame your bogus assumptions.

For what it’s worth, the CRS pulled the report from its website, but Senate Democrats have liberated it, republishing the analysis on their own site.

We don’t have a functioning federal system. We have one group half composed of progressives and half of centrists, up against an obstructionist group of lying, moronic connivers who believe in confidence fairies, tax cuts that magically pay for themselves, self-aware uteri, and an earth that is 6,000 years old. It’s not exactly a surprise that they would scuttle an inconvenient economic report.

The system functions only insofar as the latter set isn’t allowed to control the levers of government, and even then it doesn’t function that well.

(h/t to Greg Sargent for the links)

.