Month: April 2014

Congratulations to Colbert

by digby

Just this:

And lordy, remember this?

Friday, September 24, 2010

 
The Beltway Quilting Bee And Ladies Pearl Clutching Society

by digby

Oh dear. It appears that Stephen Colbert offended the delicate sensibilities of the Beltway Quilting Bee and Ladies Pearl Clutching Society:

Comedian Stephen Colbert commandeered a hearing on migrant farm workers with lewd one-liners Friday morning, creating a public relations pile-up at the tail end of a legislative session that is limping into a pre-election recess.

It was lost on no one that the Comedy Central faux news anchor delivered his off-color rant against the backdrop of the House canceling floor votes for the rest of this week as Democratic leaders struggle to reach consensus on how to move a simple stopgap spending bill that will prevent the government from shutting down on Oct. 1.

“I would like to submit a video of my colonoscopy into the Congressional Record,” he told mortified lawmakers at one point. “Sorry for saying cornpacker, I know it’s an offensive term for gay Iowans,” he told conservative Iowa Rep. Steve King. He made reference to getting a “Brazilian” — a wax-based hair-removal service in a very delicate area of the body — from a Chilean at a spa serving tomatoes sliced by a Guatemalan.

Colbert’s comedic rant was also a sleight of hand – his “prepared” testimony was passed out to the media before he spoke, and it was a bland, seemingly straightforward speech on migrant workers in America.

Asked about whether the comedian’s appearance before a House panel Friday morning was appropriate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hadn’t seen it but applauded him for testifying before Congress…

[I]t’s not as if some Democrats on the committee couldn’t see the disaster coming.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) implored Colbert to simply enter his testimony into the record without speaking.

Some in the room gasped. Colbert muttered into the mic: “No hablo Ingles,” before straightening up and asking Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the subcommittee chairwoman, if she’d prefer if he left the room.

@Chuck Todd has been wringing his hands for hours. Rough translation:

Lawdy, lawdy lawdy!! Bring me the smellin’ salts Miss Mellie, I almost like to daaaah! Ah have nevah been so appalled in mah laaaahf! Why, po Aunt Pittypat fainted dead awaaay!

Of course in a world where Glenn Beck is considered a serious political figure, I suppose you can’t blame them for not getting the joke. 

I will miss “Stephen Colbert” more than I can say. But Stephen Colbert couldn’t keep that up forever. He’s actually a wonderful interviewer and a super smart cultural observer, whether in character or not. He’s an excellent choice to take on Late Night.  I’m very happy for him.

.

Wil Wheaton, All American hero

by digby

I have never seen this before and it’s wonderful: Wil Wheaton tells this little girl who asked on how to handle being called a nerd that he was also teased as a kid.

Of course, if you read his blog and his twitter feed you already know that Wheaton is very smart — and a real mensch.

.

No, the cost of a living wage won’t significantly affect prices


by David O. Atkins

WalMart has always claimed that paying its workers better wages would hurt the economy by leading to higher prices for consumers. Not so, according to a new report:

Would you be willing to spend one penny more for a box of macaroni and cheese if it meant that Walmart workers would no longer need food stamps to survive? Because that’s all it would cost, according to an analysis by American Public Media’s Marketplace.

While it’s unclear how many of Walmart’s workers are on food stamps, as many as 15 percent of the company’s employees in Ohio are. Applying that same percentage to the rest of Walmart’s workforce, Marketplace estimated the company would need an extra $4.8 billion to lift its average wages across the U.S. enough to get all of its workers off public assistance.

Walmart workers cost the government about $300 million a year in food-stamp costs, according to Marketplace. A single 300-employee Walmart store may cost taxpayers anywhere between $904,542 and nearly $1.75 million per year, a study by Democrats in the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce found.

Marketplace gets to its $4.8 billion figure by using an average wage for Walmart sales associates of $8.81 an hour. This figure, which was also cited in the congressional report by House Democrats — comes from market-research firm IBISWorld. Three years ago, an analyst at IBISWorld calculated the average based on job listings in urban areas, and posts submitted to the employer review site Glassdoor showed entry-level Walmart workers earning between $7 and $14, an IBISWorld spokesman told The Huffington Post.

Keep in mind, we’re not talking about the company making any less profit. They don’t pay their employees a decent wage not because it would be bad for business (see Costco for a refutation of that premise). It’s as much about raw Objectivist ideology as anything else.

.

QOTD: Mike Huckabee

by digby

Via HuffPost:

“I’m not a hater. I’m not homophobic.”

Perhaps not. But he is still a nasty piece of work:

“We’ve had a congress that spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop”

Hahahaha.

I’ve written about Huckabee’s fake “compassion” going back a decade. The idea that he’s not a hater is ridiculous. Consider this lovely exchange from 2007. He always starts off with a nice bipartisan bromide — and then he sticks in the shiv:

BLITZER: The president is determined to revive the immigration bill and they are determined to come up with a game plan in the next few days that will see it pass… Are you on board with the president of the United States?

HUCKABEE: Not at this time. But let me explain why. First of all, I think there are three basic reasons that the bill is in real trouble, particularly with Republicans.

And the first reason is is there’s a general lack of credibility that the American people have with government based on their inattention to Katrina and the way it was bungled, based on the lack of attention when it came to corruption, and they saw it…The second factor, it was written in secret…

But Wolf, let me tell you the third reason that people in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with it, I can put it in this simple phrase. What part of Kennedy do you not understand?

When Ted Kennedy is involved, it immediately creates a natural, just anxiety for Republicans. Now having said that, you know, I respect and appreciate that Senator McCain has put a stake in the ground on this. And unlike so many people who just take the easy way out, you’ve got to give him credit for working on this problem along with other senators from both parties and attempting to put something on the table.

So rather than just throw it all away, let’s be very specific in the parts of it we don’t like, and let’s fix it. That’s the way legislation gets done.

BLITZER: Well, let me be just clear, Governor. Just because Senator Kennedy is on board with Senator Kyl and Senator McCain and the president, just because he has come to their side, does that in and of itself make it unacceptable?

HUCKABEE: No. What I’m saying is that when he is front and center, you’re always going to have the first glance from Republicans sort of saying, whoa, we better really take a real close look. Because if he likes it, there may be something hidden in there that we’re not going to like.

I’m just saying that’s one of the issues. It does not mean that it can’t happen. But he’s not exactly the one that brings warm, fuzzy feelings to Republicans in America.

Like I said, Huckabee has a nasty streak a mile wide. He’s the real “slick Arkansas snake oil salesman.”

.

Ryan’s new goal post

by digby

This is the GOP’s agenda in a nutshell as embodied in the Ryan budget that just passed this morning with a vote of 219 to 205:

The plan by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would cut more than $5 trillion over the coming decade to reach balance by 2024. The sharpest cuts would come to health care programs for the poor and uninsured, food stamps, and array of domestic programs, including Pell Grants, education, and community development grants.

The Wisconsin Republican’s plan proposes more money for the Pentagon and wouldn’t touch Social Security benefits.

So they propose to starve the poor and squeeze the middle class to pay for the military. Sounds like a GOP dream budget.

It’s probably a good idea to remind everyone at this point that Social Security expenses are not part of this budget so his leaving them out is not really a big concession.  The only reason they became part of it was because opportunistic politicians of both parties saw the austerity obsession as a way to pass cuts to the program. That did not work, largely because the GOP is dependent on the votes of older voters who in turn are largely dependent on that program. They’re going to have to live with that hypocrisy for the time being — their voters certainly have no problem with it. In their minds, the only people who deserve government largesse are themselves and the military. Everyone else is a freeloader. So this is all good.

The press is presenting this  budget and vote as mere symbolism. But they are missing the point. Ryan has consistently moved the goal posts every year since he’s been doing these budgets and it’s been very successful for him: the 2014 two year budget came in lower than the budget he proposed in 2010. I’m sure he’s looking a few years out and assuming he will be able to reach today’s goals as well in one of those highly touted, “grown-up” compromises with Senate Democrats. Why wouldn’t he?

.

Climate change for dummies

by digby

Senator Jeff Sessions, shows how it’s done:

During Janet McCabe’s confirmation hearing [for the Environmental Protection Agency], Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) cited research from two Singaporean scientists and a widely-disputed political scientist to claim that there is no connection between intensifying weather and climate change. McCabe, whose critical job would put her in charge of many climate-related regulations, attempted to refute the claims, but was repeatedly interrupted.

Sessions: You believe that we’ve had more storms, more hurricanes.

McCabe: I believe that the scientific record shows that, over a long period of time and over broad geographic areas, there have been changes in our climate that…
Sessions: You dispute, then, the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]‘s recent finding, that “current data set indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cycles frequency over the last century.” That’s the international panel on climate change.

McCabe: I know that the IPCC has made many findings relative to the effects of climate change around the world.

Sessions: Well, I’m just going to tell you, I’m going to submit this is writing to you, and if you continue to insist that we’ve had more hurricanes in the last century and that they’ve increased as a result of global warming — climate change — I don’t see how i can support your nomination. I don’t see how I can support somebody who can advocate against plain fact. My time is up.

Needless to say, despite noted scientist Jeff Sessions’ expertise and devotion to the facts, he’s the one misrepresenting the consensus. Click through for the full explanation.

Also too, they simply don’t have a clue:

As many scientists would also note, Sessions’ demand that McCabe confirm or deny increases in the number of storms misinterprets how climate change works. Increased carbon emissions bring increased moisture and heat into the atmosphere, which has an effect on the intensity of weather events — not necessarily the amount of weather events that occur.

“The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question,” Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, a distinguished senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has written. “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

I grew up in a country that fetishized science and technology although I guess the conservative evangelical anti-evolution strain was always there. We were the country of “Tomorrowland” and progress. Granted, climate change is a crisis to be solved rather than some shiny new adventure but I’m still surprised to see the conservatives go full-blown superstition on this. I understand why the Koch brothers and their ilk are resistant (although someone should remind them that they can’t take it with them and their kids are going to pay the price for their greed and avarice.) And I guess those who are hoping and praying every day for the Rapture could be cleverly trying to do the Lord’s work by hurrying on the end of the world. But how many of those people can there be?

Mostly, Republicans seem to be resisting this science simply because it validates certain obvious assumptions about the hazards of polluting the planet. I assume that because the hippies raised the alarm way back when it means these people reflexively oppose the very idea of it. It’s really not an ideological issue in itself. If anything protecting the land should be a conservative ideal.  (Maybe we should re-brand earth-day as a religious holiday …)

In any case, we’ve really gone through the looking glass if Republicans are using someone’s belief in scientific consensus to deny them a post in the “clean air office” of the EPA.

.

States’ Rights and reefer madness

by digby

I have a story up over at Salon this morning about the Republican war on states’ rights. Well, actually it’s just the stale old Drug War, but they seem to be very unhappy that the Feds aren’t moving into sovereign states and exerting the will of the Federal Government. Odd, don’t you think?

Some days you wonder how much Eric Holder can really like his job. Like last week when the A.G. testified before Congress and got it coming and going on the subject of legalized marijuana. If he were a toking man (and I’m sure he isn’t) he’d have been justified in going home and sparking up a spliff the size of Colorado. After all, he, an African-American, had to sit there and listen politely to a bunch of white conservatives criticize “states’ rights” and insist that he deploy his jack-booted federal thugs to put a stop to it… More here.

.

Elizabeth Warren getting even more hype for a Presidential run

by David Atkins

Elizabeth Warren is getting a lot of attention around the left-leaning media for her recent barn-burning speech at a recent fundraiser in Minnesota. Watch:

Chris Cilizza suggests that Warren’s language represents a strong case for her to run for President:

As we’ve written before, Warren has the national profile, the liberal icon status and the demonstrated fundraising capacity — $40 million for a Senate race ain’t too shabby — that would, theoretically give her a chance to run as the liberal/non-establishment alternative to Clinton. Now, we don’t think she’s running. And, even if she did Clinton would be tough to beat.

…

Now fast forward to Iowa in the fall of 2015. And imagine Warren telling a crowd packed with Democratic activists this: “I’m fighting to level that playing field. I’m fighting to build real oppoortunity, fighting to give every child a chance to build something extraordinary. And I want you to fight alongside me. We are in this together.” Or condemning the “big banks [who] looted the economy.” Or slamming Ted Cruz, who could well be in Iowa at the same time, as someone who if he was “around for the Declaration of Independence, he would have tried to repeal it because Jefferson was a Democrat.”
It’s a powerful riff — particularly in a place like Iowa where the average voter is likely more liberal than Clinton. And it’s one that Hillary Clinton due to the very Hillary Clinton-ness that she represents wouldn’t (and couldn’t) give.
Again, Elizabeth Warren is almost certainly not running for president in 2016. But if she did, she might be able to make it one hell of a race.

And no surprise. Warren is currently at the top of Quinnipiac’s political thermometer:

According to a survey out this week showing Quinnipiac University’s National Thermometer rankings, voters have cooled on New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie in the wake of allegations that staffers closed lanes on the George Washington Bridge, seemingly for political retribution, and withheld relief aid following Hurricane Sandy. Christie’s administration has denied the Sandy allegations.

Christie scored a 45.2 degree mean temperature in this week’s poll, down from 55.5 degrees at the beginning of the year – a difference that dropped him from the “hottest” politician in the nation all the way down to ninth place.

But Christie’s loss is Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s gain – the progressive rising star has secured the top slot in voters’ minds. With a 48.6 degree score, Warren is now the hottest political leader in the game.

Despite her popularity, however, it seems many people still don’t know that much about her. Forty-six percent of American voters said they lacked enough information to form an opinion of the Massachusetts senator, according to the poll.

Nipping at Warren’s heels is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who came in at 47.8 degrees with only 1% saying they didn’t know enough about her. Though Clinton still swears she’s not after the presidency, she’s sure talking like a potential 2016 candidate.

Warren’s unknowns remain her greatest drawback in any potential run for President. Clinton’s best argument is that she remains very popular, and there’s nothing the GOP can throw at her that the public doesn’t already know. But the flip side of that coin for Warren is that the more people learn about her and hear from her, the more they like her. She speaks truth to power, is unflinching in her advocacy for popular progressive positions, and has the one quality in a politician that is hard to fake: authenticity.

As the engines start revving for 2016, the calls for Warren to enter the race are only going to get louder.

.

ICYMI: My piece on Salon earlier today about Jebbie, Rove, Coulter and the next President George Bush.

If there’s ever been a case of a serious presidential contender who doesn’t seem to have the fire in the belly, it’s Jeb Bush. He makes Fred Thompson’s somnambulant performance in 2008 look like Rahm Emanuel after shooting a triple espresso. 

How else, for example, to explain what seem to be public utterances of an incoherent interior dialogue on the subject of immigration? It was just a few months ago that many in the GOP establishment called for the smelling salts over his rejection of a path to citizenship in his book called “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” when various wags whispered that it appeared he was politically rusty and out of step.

Read on ….

Yes, the rich really are different than you and me. They have more influence.

by digby

The Monkey Cage has some news for you:

The Supreme Court’s Gilded Age reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC has inspired a flurry of commentary regarding the potential corrosive influence of campaign contributions; but that commentary largely ignores the broader question of how economic power shapes American politics and policy. For decades, most political scientists have sidestepped that question, because it has not seemed amenable to rigorous (meaning quantitative) scientific investigation. Qualitative studies of the political role of economic elites have mostly been relegated to the margins of the field. But now, political scientists are belatedly turning more systematic attention to the political impact of wealth, and their findings should reshape how we think about American democracy.

A forthcoming article in Perspectives on Politics by (my former colleague) Martin Gilens and (my sometime collaborator) Benjamin Page marks a notable step in that process. Drawing on the same extensive evidence employed by Gilens in his landmark book “Affluence and Influence,” Gilens and Page analyze 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Average citizens have “little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process? This must be an overstatement of Gilens’s and Page’s findings, no?

Alas, no.

Read the whole thing. You knew this was true already of course. But it’s always good to have empirical evidence to back up common sense.

.