Month: October 2014

A profile in courage

by digby

Here’s Republican Tom Foley when asked whether he accepts the scientific evidence on man made climate change:

“It doesn’t really matter. It’s happening. So we have to find solutions.”

The press asked again. Here’s his reply:

“From a policy point of view it really doesn’t matter.”

Asked again if he believes what “what 90-plus percent of scientists believe” about humans contributing to climate change:

“Listen, I’m not an expert on global warming. So I haven’t had a chance to read all the reports.”

It must be hell being held hostage to the Tea Party faction.

.

Countering wingnut lunacy with a progressive message. How novel!

by digby

Now we’re talking!

This election isn’t about Joni Ernst or me, it’s about who would be best for Iowa. Take Social Security. My plan would make millionaires pay Social Security taxes on all their earned income, just like middle class families already do. That will keep Social Security strong and increase monthly benefits. Joni Ernst would rather privatize Social Security, risking benefits. Millionaires don’t need a Senator, you do, I’m Bruce Braley and I approve this message.

That’s the difference between Braley and Ernst, right there, and it will say a whole lot about the “heartland” state of Iowa if they elect this Tea Partying extremist over Braley. But hey, perhaps you truly believe that making millionaires pay the same percentage of their taxes to Social Security as middle class working people and increasing monthly benefits for everyone is more “extreme” than this:

TPM’s Daniel Strauss dug up a candidate questionnaire Ernst filled out in 2012 in which she indicated that she would support “legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement” the healthcare reform law.

or this:

Among other stances, Ernst has endorsed impeachment for President Obama, expressed the belief that states could nullify federal laws, and supported “personhood” anti-abortion laws that would outlaw most forms of contraception. In addition, she’s slammed Medicaid recipients for not taking “personal responsibility for their health”—even though recipients have to apply for coverage—and talked extensively about “Agenda 21,” a decades-old U.N. recommendation for environmental sustainability that forms the basis for conspiracy-mongering on the far right.

She’s full-fledged nuts. And to Braley’s credit he’s countering her nuttiness with a progressive policy like taxing millionaires and expanding Social Security. Good for him. There’s no point in trying to “move right” when your opponent is a lunatic. You might as well run on something that will actually help people. And who knows? The people of Iowa might even be persuaded by it.

.

When Poppy carried Rush’s bags

by digby

My friend tristero, blogger extraordinaire and talented composer (also known as Richard Einhorn) is in town for a performance of his master work “Voices of Light” at the Disney Hall this week-end. (If you are in LA and want to see it you can get tickets here.)

Anyway, we were chatting last night and he reminded me of this, which I had remembered as being someone other than Limbaugh himself:

There was never a doubt that Limbaugh would support the reelection of George H. W. Bush in 1992 — he was the Republican candidate — but Rush wasn’t enthusiastic. Bush struck him as a preppy, country club moderate, an Ivy League snob who, as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 1980, had dismissed Ronald Reagan’s supply-side ideology as voodoo economics. Not only that, Bush had raised taxes.

[…]

Early in the summer of 1992, Roger Ailes, who was working for President Bush, made the connection. The president invited Limbaugh to accompany him to the Kennedy Center and spend a night at the White House. Bush personally carried Limbaugh’s bag from the elevator of the White House residence to his room, a gesture Rush never forgot. That night he called his mother and brother from the Lincoln bedroom. “Guess where I’m sleeping tonight,” he said. Bush might not be Reagan, but he was the president of the United States.

This too:

PBS’ Frontline said that Limbaugh “went all out for Bush.” Bush appeared on Limbaugh’s program in September 1992, and Limbaugh introduced Bush at a late-stage campaign rally on November 2.

Following Rush’s introduction, Bush took the stage and said:

BUSH: Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Here we go for the last day. Thank you all. Thank you so very much. Thank you. May I start by thanking Rush Limbaugh. And last night, Governor Clinton was at the Meadowlands with Richard Gere and other Hollywood liberals.

AUDIENCE: Boo-o-o!

BUSH: Well, here’s a good deal for you. Let Governor Clinton have Richard Gere. I’ll take Rush Limbaugh any day.

If anyone wants to know just how the GOP became a bunch of extremist freaks, this is a good place to start: right smack dab in the middle of the GOP establishment.

.

The Myth of Susan Collins’ Moderation

by digby

The death of the “Republican moderate” has been a topic of political conversation for some years now. The rise of the Tea Party and the ongoing rightward turn of the GOP leaves little room for moderation. However, there is at least one so-called moderate to whom the political press always fondly point when they wax nostalgic for the good old days when Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan allegedly knocked back scotch and sodas at the end of the day together. That lone “moderate” is Susan Collins of Maine. And unfortunately, her reputation for “moderation” is as mythic as those cocktail parties on the Truman Balcony.

Susan Collins may play Hamlet from time to time, wringing her hands in public about the crazies “on both sides” and Democrats inevitably throw in some more goodies to make her happy, watering down what is always already a compromise, and then … she votes with the Republicans anyway. It’s a con game she’s run over and over again. Here are just a few examples:

Paycheck Fairness Act
Collins voted in April and again in September against the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would shield employees who raise legitimate questions about workplace pay equity, among other features. Bellows has consistently called on Collins to support the bill– which Collins also voted to filibuster in 2010, 2012 and earlier this year– and has made support for the measure one of the centerpieces of her campaign.

A February national survey found 60 percent of voters are more likely to support a candidate who supports fair pay for women, a higher minimum wage, paid family and medical leave and paid sick days. The survey also found that women are less likely to receive paid extended leave than men.

Republicans have been uncomfortable discussing the issue all year, leading to an MSNBC story on the GOP’s shifting explanation for why the bill keeps getting filibustered. Collins said in 2012 without citing evidence that it would lead to “excessive litigation.”

Minimum Wage
Collins stood with Washington Republicans in April against increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, which translates to $21,008 per year for someone working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Afterward, Collins put out a statement bemoaning the fact that the proposal “does not have the votes it would need to pass the Senate.”

Maine voters support “raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour and indexing future increases to inflation” by a 63-36 spread, according to a July poll by the Maine People’s Resource Center.

In 2007 the Senate voted 94-3 to increase the federal minimum wage in stages to its current level of $7.25 an hour, a far cry from today’s partisanship.

Campaign Finance Reform
Collins is also out of step with public opinion on campaign finance reform. A CBS poll in May found voters support “limiting the amount of money individuals can contribute to political campaigns” over “allowing individuals to contribute as much money to political campaigns as they’d like” by 71-25. Collins has voted in lockstep with Washington Republicans against both the DISCLOSE Act, which would publicize the sources of large political contributions in a timely way, and the Udall Amendment, which would give Congress and state legislatures the power to regulate campaign spending.

That’s just for starters.  Her contention that she voted against the most outrageous Republican act of sabotage in the last congress (and that’s saying something) — the government shutdown —  is at the very least misleading.  (In fact, she voted three times for bills requiring the president to defund or delay Obamacare in order to keep the government open.)

A whole lot of Mainers are on to Collins’ phony posturing. They know that Collins is a phony and being independent Yankee types they don’t take kindly to being conned. Instead, they are supporting Democrat Shenna Bellows for Senate.

Take, for instance, this fine fellow, (whom you might recognize — especially at this time of year)

Or, how about this former Susan Collins volunteer.

In stark contrast to Susan Collins, Shenna Bellows is an energetic, independent, principled leader who will not have to answer to the Tea Party and won’t be dancing to the tune of corporate interests and the ossified political establishment in Washington. If the people of Maine value independence, principle and the ability to work across party lines on issues of importance to the whole nation, and I know they do, then Shenna Bellows is someone who knows how to get it done. As she put it:

I may be the first ACLU leader in history to run for the United States Senate, but nothing less than our democracy is at stake. Politicians in Washington have trampled on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have created a constitutional crisis. NSA spying is out of control, threatening our individual freedoms and international relations.

My work in Maine provides a model for moving forward. I made my decision to run for United States Senate when I was working on two groundbreaking privacy laws this spring to require law enforcement to get a warrant before accessing cellphone communications including location data, text messages and voice mails. I organized a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and Greens. We did not agree on very much at all except the fundamental importance of our constitutional freedoms and the dangers posed by government intrusion into our personal lives. The opposition was intense, bipartisan and included some of my close friends, but we persevered. Maine was one of only two states in the country to protect against cell phone tracking. The law also survived a veto by Governor Paul LePage on a rare veto override vote.

Our work in Maine with Republicans and Democrats alike to advance strong privacy principles should serve as a model for the nation. We demonstrated that it’s not necessary to compromise our core principles in order to advance meaningful reform. A shared commitment to protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights transcends partisan politics.

The experience of working with people across the political spectrum on issues of fundamental American values and constitutional principles made Shenna Bellows a person who can reach across the aisle with integrity, respect and common purpose to get things done. Unlike Susan Collins who has turned herself into a parody of bipartisanship, Bellows has been doing the real thing throughout her career — and doing it without sacrificing her principles or her ideals.

The beltway may be in love with phony “moderates” they can laud as examples of bipartisan comity despite all evidence to the contrary, but there’s no reason for Maine voters to do the same. Shenna Bellows is the Real Deal.

If you’d like to help Bellows down the stretch, you can contribute to her campaign here.

.

“You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news: then welcome to civilization.”

by digby

In my latest for Salon I recount the Dixie Chicks flap in which they said on a London stage “we’re ashamed the President is from Texas ….” in light of the shocking speech Texas Governor Rick Perry gave in London this week. Holy smoke:

This trip down memory lane is just to add a little context to another American who went to London this week to talk about American foreign policy. Texas Governor Rick Perry went across the pond and gave a speech that would have made all those Chicks-haters proud. No, he didn’t repeat his earlier comments to the Americans for Prosperity gathering (from which he drew “hoots” from the audience), in which he said, “The deepening chaos in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine is all the clear and compelling evidence the world needs of a president one step behind, lurching from crisis to crisis, always playing catch up.” But what he did say was enough to curdle the blood of anyone who isn’t looking to start World War III. He makes his case in no uncertain terms:

It is one thing to speak earnestly about the international order that our nations have helped to establish these past 70 years, and something else altogether to see that it is defended. That, once again, is what is required of Western nations and the great alliances we have formed. And as you know better than I, this cause will draw heavily on our wealth, our will, and our wisdom.

The plainest imperative of all is the resources we commit to the common defense, holding nothing back if it will better assure our security. And the nations of the West had better get about it, and never take for granted our military superiority.

For us, in the present conflict, the difference that superiority makes is the difference between those people – the jihadists of ISIS – in control or in retreat.

We know what they do when they’re in control, and they try very hard to make sure we see it. In all of our conduct toward this enemy, there can be no illusions, and no compromise of all that we are defending.

There’s more along this line. Much more. He goes on to put himself in the shoes of the average Iraqi or Syrian, lugubriously asserting that Americans are always seen cleanly and purely as saviors:

And when they look up and see an RAF, Danish, or American bomber coming in, they feel precisely as you and I would feel. That sight must seem like the answer to a prayer, a prayer that can be expressed in every faith: “Save my family, save my home, save my village, save me, from this evil.”

There is much more in his speech to alarm you but this probably sums up his attitude most succinctly:

What all of these various hate groups have in common is a disdain for, and a wish to destroy, our Western way of life.

And someone needs to tell them that the meeting has already been held. It was decided, democratically, long ago – and by the way through great and heroic sacrifice – that our societies will be governed by Western values and Western laws.

Among those values are openness and tolerance. But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us, and yet plan against us, to receive the protections and comforts of a free society, while showing none of its virtues or graces, then you can have our answer now: No, not on our watch!

You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news: then welcome to civilization.

(But don’t worry, you can carry a many guns as you like and shoot anyone who looks at you sideways.)

More at the link…

This man cannot become president. That speech makes George W. Bush look like Cindy Sheehan.

.

Privatized politics
by Tom Sullivan

“President Hillary thanks you,” I used to say when Republicans saluted any expansion of presidential power under George W. Bush. As someone who watched lots of 1950s science fiction and monster films growing up, I have a healthy appreciation for how what at first seem like good ideas have a way of quickly spinning out of control. And the Citizens United ruling never seemed like a good idea. Yet it spun out of control faster than Frankenstein’s monster.

Jim Rutenberg looks at how the decision has allowed America’s oligarchs of whatever political persuasion to become “their own political parties.” Rutenberg sat in on a strategy session with hedge fund billionaire, Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen Climate Action, itself “a capitulation to the post-Citizens United world.” Gubernatorial candidate and former Florida governor, Charlie Christ, could wait:

With the advent of Citizens United, any players with the wherewithal, and there are surprisingly many of them, can start what are in essence their own political parties, built around pet causes or industries and backing politicians uniquely answerable to them. No longer do they have to buy into the system. Instead, they buy their own pieces of it outright, to use as they see fit. “Suddenly, we privatized politics,” says Trevor Potter, an election lawyer who helped draft the McCain-Feingold law.

Now we have Michael Bloomberg, who has committed to spending $50 million to support gun-control legislation; his Independence USA PAC, meanwhile, is spending $25 million this fall to elect “centrists.” We have the TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts and his group Ending Spending, which has spent roughly $10 million so far this year to elect fiscal conservatives to Congress, an effort that has drawn support from the billionaire hedge-fund executive Paul E. Singer, who has also devoted tens of millions to Republican candidates who share his views on Israel. We have Mark Zuckerberg and his FWD.us, with a budget of about $50 million to push an immigration overhaul. In 2014, as of early October, when the campaigns had yet to do their big final pushes, overall spending was already more than $444 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Roughly $231 million was from the parties and their congressional committees, the rest from outside spending. The biggest chunk of that by far came from super PACs — more than $196 million. Looking at those numbers, it’s not hard to understand why Crist was willing to wait outside a conference room in Coral Gables for Steyer.

Citizens United has created new playgrounds for ideological billionaires where America’s quasi-democratic process used to be. Are there not enough islands for sale, or enough gulches?

Your moment of zen

by digby

This election isn’t just about losing the Senate

by digby

I have a piece today over at Salon about the upcoming election and the ongoing takeover the state governments by these right wing extremists. It’s extremely unsettling:

You know it’s getting close to an election when every political junkie gets obsessed with polling, and men like Nate Silver and Sam Wang are spoken of in hushed tones usually reserved for sports stars and religious figures. As of today it’s not looking good for team D to hold the Senate and there are a lot of reasons why that’s a bad thing for America. Not the least of those is that the Republican party has lost its mind and they are likely going to elect some more fringe characters along the lines of Ted Cruz to the allegedly “greatest deliberative body in the world.”

I had been of the opinion that this wasn’t going to be such a travesty since it’s probably going to last only last two years, but the advent of this new ISIS war and the hysteria around immigration and Ebola means that the congress has quite a bit of leverage over the administration and could demand some very ugly concessions just to keep the government working in a time of crisis. (Yes, they will do that, don’t kid yourself.) So it’s probably a mistake to be sanguine about this election not being important. When the world is blowing up you really need the government to work properly.

As I said, the field is much more favorable to Democrats in 2016 so there’s something to hang on to if the worst happens. But this story from Mother Jones about the continuing rightward turn in the state legislatures is enough to give you nightmares. Republicans already hold total power in 23 states and are about to take control of 2 more. And let’s just say they aren’t exactly Eisenhower Republicans. Across the country where they’ve won full control, they’ve tried to enact as extreme an agenda as they can get away with. And when you have all three branches, as many of them do, the agenda is very extreme indeed.

Read on...

US media reaches new heights of embarrassment

by digby

This hysteria is out of control. Everybody’s having a fit on TV over “the man with the clipboard” who wasn’t wearing a Hazmat suit when they transported the latest patient to Emory University. Jesus. You don’t get Ebola from just being on the same tarmac with an Ebola patient. How many times do people have to be told this?

Anyway, the ironic thing is that it’s part of the safety protocol:

The man seen not wearing a hazmat suit while standing just feet away from the second nurse with Ebola as she was transported to Emory University hospital did not need to wear the protective gear, the medical airline said.

The nurse, identified Wednesday as Amber Vinson, was flown from Dallas to Atlanta on medical airline Phoenix Air.

She was seen being transported to and from the ambulance by three people in full-body hazmat suits, but the fourth person by her stretcher was wearing plainclothes and holding a clipboard.

The airline confirmed to ABC News that the man was their medical protocol supervisor who was purposefully not wearing protective gear.

“Our medical professionals in the biohazard suits have limited vision and mobility and it is the protocol supervisor’s job to watch each person carefully and give them verbal directions to ensure no close contact protocols are violated,” a spokesperson from Phoenix Air told ABC News.

“There is absolutely no problem with this and in fact ensures an even higher level of safety.

Maybe people think it would be better if the people actually handling the Ebola patient were stumbling around like blind salmon?

And do these dizzy anchors really believe that a medical transport company would have just allowed some random guy to be walking around like that if he were in any danger? That the man would have willingly done it? It’s absurd.

This reminds me of the AIDS outbreak back in the 1980s. I was working in a hospital in San Francisco and we became aware of the disease early on. Even though nobody knew what this disease was the people in medicine took precautions but, for the most part anyway, behaved like the professionals they are. It was only when the public became aware that everyone started to get nuts about it. And it was awful.

This time they know what the disease is. One person has died inside the US. And cable TV is turning it into a horror show:

Number of Ebola Wire Stories (By Region Tagged) pic.twitter.com/044GZAfqXw
— Michael McDonough (@M_McDonough) October 16, 2014

Update: Oy. And this is idiotic too.

Update II: And the hits just keep on coming:

Speaking on Glenn Beck’s radio program, Gohmert — who represents Texas, where one Ebola patient has died and two nurses have been infected — said he was “okay, but do any of us really know for sure.”

“If the CDC says you’re not okay then you’re okay in my book,” Beck quipped.

“You know, it’s a shame that the CDC head, Frieden, is apparently the commander of the Democrats’ new war on women nurses,” Gohmert opined. “Because, goodnight, they set them up, and then they throw them under the bus.”

“The idiot comes out and says that clearly she had violated protocol,” the Texas congressman continued. “At least in football, they have to tell you what you violated.”

Update III:

Female passenger dressed in a hazmat suit — complete with a full body gown, mask and gloves — was spotted Wednesday waiting for a flight at the airport.

.

This is how it’s done, debate moderators

by digby

This is from a TPM story about the debate last night in Colorado between Republican Cory Gardner and Senator Mark Udall:

[A]t a debate Wednesday night, moderator Kyle Clark of KUSA in Denver put Gardner’s dodges in perhaps the starkest terms yet, adding fuel to the fire Sen. Mark Udall has been trying throughout his campaign to fan with women voters.

“You continue to deny that the federal Life at Conception Act, which you sponsor, is a personhood bill to end abortion and we are not going to debate that here tonight because it’s a fact,” Clark said. “Your co-sponsors say so, your opponents say so, and independent fact-checkers say so.”

“So let’s instead talk about what this entire episode may say about your judgment more broadly,” Clark continued. “It would seem that a charitable interpretation would be that you have a difficult time admitting when you’re wrong and a less charitable interpretation is that you’re not telling us the truth. Which is it?”

“I think again I do not support the personhood amendment,” Gardner said, apparently referring to a state amendment that he had renounced at the start of his Senate campaign. “The bill that you’re referring to is simply a statement that I support life. But let me just repeat the words of Sen. Udall –“

“But why does no one else think that? That’s what we’re getting at,” Clark said, continuing to press Gardner on the issue.

“What I’m asking you about here is what appears to be the willing suspension of the facts,” Clark said. “People who agree with you on the issue of life think you’re wrong about how you’re describing the bill. Everybody seems to have a cohesive idea of what this is with the exception of you, and I’m just wondering: What should voters glean from that fact?”

“There are people who agree with my opinion on life. There are people who don’t,” Gardner said. “I support life, I’ve voted for exceptions, but the fact is that the bill that you are talking about is simply a statement that I support life.”

Again, the fact that these Republicans felt free to sign on to the most onerous anti-abortion legislation in the country not long ago and are now forced to retreat on the issues is one of the few bright spots in this election. Not that it means they will give up. But the “Personhood” gambit failed and they are in retreat.

By the way, it’s obvious that the national Republicans have told all the right wing extremist types to say their anti-abortion fanaticism is best excused by saying they were just making a simple statement that they were “pro-life.” Tea partier Joni Ernst in Iowa is using those exact words as well.

Unfortunately, if they win it won’t matter. They have 6 year terms and they’ll be in there agitating for every anti-woman policy that comes up. I don’t think you vote for “personhood” out of politics. Those two are true believers.

.