So the right wing is very disappointed in the Planned Parenthood hearings. Here’s a typical reaction:
If you're wondering why Boehner was days away from getting canned, today's nonsense is why. Case study in ineptitude of failure theater.— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 29, 2015
Can you imagine if this band of incompetent morons had been in charge of prosecuting the Nuremberg trials? My goodness what a farce.
He further commented that this is why people are so pleased with Carly Fiorina. I guess they.want.someone.to.speak.like.a.machine.gun.
I’m not sure what they expected. Screaming in her face, “you can’t handle the truth!!!”? Tie her up and throw her in a pond to see if she floats? I don’t know. I think maybe they’ve seen to many movies. As far as I could tell Chaffetz was as rude as anyone could be, interrupting her constantly and throwing out tons of lies and egregiously phony data. It’s not good enough because Richards didn’t run from the room crying and wailing, “I give up, I am a baby killer, I am!”
Are we ready for a Duggar as Speaker of the House?
by digby
I wrote a lot about Congressman Daniel Webster’s extremist fundamentalist faith when he was running against Alan Grayson in 2010 and beyond. He’s not a member of the Duggar family directly but follows the teaching of their guru Bill Gothard and is related to the family friends of the Duggars who were also featured on TLC. So he’s “family” no doubt about it.
Right Wing Watch reported Monday that the Freedom Caucus and other right-wing Republicans in the House are pinning their hopes on Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL), an evangelical Christian with ties to the same ministry as the scandal-plagued Duggar family.
Julie Ingersoll of the Annenberg Institute said that Webster’s views are “well outside the mainstream.” Some voters find Webster’s views so medieval that they have nicknamed him “Taliban Dan,” although Ingersoll said that may be too far.
However, she said, “Webster has aligned himself with an organization that espouses an orientation to the Bible and its role in civil society that is certainly relevant to his campaign for public office” in that he is a follower of Bill Gothard and his Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP), which prescribes strict rules for the sexes and urges women to be submissive to their male family members in all things.
Writer Sarah Posner described Gothard’s views thusly:
“[S]ubmission is a central tenet of Gothard’s teachings. His evangelical critics have described the insular world of Gothard’s organization as “a culture of fear” and Gothard’s teachings as a “parody of patriarchalism,” the “basest form of male chauvinism I have ever heard in a Christian context,” and “anti-woman.” The core of Gothard’s authoritarian teachings is a chain of command of spiritual authority from God to the husband and father, who is responsible for seeing to his wife’s and children’s obedience in order to ensure their eternal salvation.
The Duggar family are followers of the IBLP and Gothard’s teachings, which place the blame for inappropriate male sexual behavior on women for not meeting the men’s needs properly, for tempting them unduly and for being the vessels through which evil enters the world.
Webster has a highly unusual belief system in which he prays to the Christian God to erect a “hedge of thorns” around him for protection. To this end, he observes a number of rituals, including never sleeping late, never watching television in hotel rooms and engaging in multiple prayer sessions per day.
“(T)hat hedge of thorns has protected me all these years,” said Webster in a video for Gothard’s organization.
Webster’s son John is married to Alyssa Bates, a daughter of a so-called Quiverfull family like the Duggars. Alyssa Bates Webster is one of 19 children. Her family was featured in two TLC shows, “United Bates of America” and “The Bates Family: Baby Makes 19″ in 2012.
If you are wondering who in the world might please the Republican right wing, here’s your answer. It would be awesome if a reporter would fill in Ben Carson on Webster’s beliefs and then ask him if it’s appropriate for him to run for Speaker.
There’s a lot of anti-PC talk in the GOP campaign. From Trump on down, it’s one of the big crowd pleasers. But nobody does it with more flair than Ben Carson. There simply are no limits with him. He simultaneously says that flying the Nazi flag is perfectly ok and that Muslims cannot be trusted to follow the constitution. He checks off all the boxes.
Tony Benn’s Ten-Minute History Lesson on Neoliberalism
by Gaius Publius
I had a different group of pieces I’ve been working on recently, revolving around a recent interview by Noam Chomsky that touches on our so-called “capitalism” and also on the Bernie Sanders candidacy. But this video sets that up nicely. It’s a ten-minute speech by long-time British politico and Labour Party member Tony Benn, sadly recently deceased.
Our thanks to the people at Naked Capitalism for bringing this to our attention. There it’s presented without comment. I’d like to print some of the text, just to emphasize some of its points.
First the video. (I’ve bumped the start to about two minutes in, but you can back it up if you like.)
And now from a self-made transcript. You’ve seen all of these points before, but to see them assembled and rounded back to where it all begins is quite striking. My emphasis below:
This country and the world have been run by rich and powerful men from the beginning of time. … The only real wealth in the world is land, and resources that lie under it, and the people. …
In 1834, only 2% had the right to vote … Out of trade unionism came the change ….
The [20th century] slumps were not acts of god … but a direct result of too much economic power in the hands of too few men who behaved like a totalitarian oligarchy in the heart of our democratic state. The had and they felt no responsibility to the nation. …
In wartime there are no economic arguments at all. I’ve never heard a general say, “I can’t bomb Baghdad this month because I’ve exceeded my budget.” In wartime you do whatever is required. We should adopt the principle that in peacetime you do whatever is required. People want jobs, they want homes, want a decent income, a good education, health care …
When you come to the Thatcher period, this is what’s so interesting. Thatcher was a much cleverer woman than we give her credit for. She knew perfectly well the strength of the labor movement lay in three sources of power. One was the trade union movement. So she took on the miners …
What she said, and this is very clever, “You can buy your council house so you’ll be a property owner. You may not be able to get a wage increase, but you can borrow.” And the borrowing was deliberately encouraged because people in debt are slaves to their employers. That’s how the whole thing began. The borrowing was a deliberate policy …
She also attacked local government … Local councilors now are agents of the Treasury. They can only spend money the Treasury give them on things the Treasury tells them they can spend it on. …
And she attacked the public sector and privatized it. And this privatization is international. I met an old friend of mine, Kenneth Kaunda, the president of Zambia. … He said, “We had a great debt and the IMF came along and said, ‘We’ll lift your debt if you sell off all your schools and hospitals to multinational corporations.'”
So privatization is a deliberate policy, along with the destruction of local democracy and the destruction of the trade unions to restore power back to to where it was. And what we’re now back in, that’s what the whole crisis is about, the restoration of power to those who’ve always controlled the world, the people who own the land and the resources and all the rest of it. And that is something we need to understand. …
There’s more in the speech besides just this. Check out his action as Postmaster (at 8:00). And his plan for the banks. And his statement about how popular his ideas are among actual voters. (Reminds us that Sanders has the same wind at his back; actual wishes of the people.)
There really is only one story in this country — the “flow of funds” story, the massive passing of money to the rich from everyone else. Whatever else we’ve been made to suffer, and are going to be made to suffer, comes from that one story. With that in mind, I’d like to close where Benn closes, and to ask you to return to these comments as we consider Noam Chomsky’s remarks later in the week.
Benn:
It’s very important to keep optimism. … Progress has always been made by two flames burning in the human heart. The flame of anger at injustice. And the flame of hope you can build a better world.
Exactly. We’ll come back to this when we turn to the Chomsky interview.
There seems to be a tiny insurrection happening over at the Washington Post today. First, we have Dave Weigel once again pointing out that the press is full of it on the Clinton emails. And none other than Richard Cohen calls out the bogus Benghazi Committee.
If you did something productive with your Sunday — if you went to church, took a nature hike, composted leaves from the back yard, concocted an alibi for the cops — you may have seen only the headlines about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Meet the Press” interview. According to those headlines, she dismissed the unkillable scandal over her use of a private e-mail server as a “conspiracy theory.” A sample:
The Guardian: “Hillary Clinton dismisses ‘conspiracy theory’ amid email server controversy”
Townhall: “Hillary Laughs Again, Dismisses Email Scandal as a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ “
These headlines are true, insofar as how Clinton used the phrase “conspiracy theory” as she answered one of Chuck Todd’s questions. “She is now blaming a ‘conspiracy theory’ for her sinking poll numbers,” grumbled a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. The “conspiracy theory” quote was even quickly tweeted by the opposition research wizards at America Rising.
What hasn’t been mentioned: Clinton was actually calling back to something Todd said at the start of the interview. “I know there’s always conspiracy theories out there,” he said knowingly, referring to rumors that Clinton had sat down with him only after some subjects were barred from discussion. He then made absolutely clear: “There are no limitations to this interview.”
Clinton agreed — “as far as I know, that’s true” — and plowed through seven e-mail questions. Todd wound up the eighth question by asking whether the Democratic presidential front-runner could “respond to an alternative explanation that has sort of been circulating.” Only then did Clinton laugh: “Another conspiracy theory?”
None of this will matter when it comes to the way Clinton is covered, and I already have designated a section of my inbox for the complaints that I am carrying her water here.
No doubt. I just wish all these people who are so sure of Clinton’s imminent defeat (it’s a matter of days, I’d guess, before we start hearing the calls for her to drop out — Democrats always do that in primaries no matter who is running) could explain this:
If Clinton were more forthright, she might — my guess here — admit that she used a private server because she didn’t want her every thought to wind up in the hands of her political enemies. As if to prove the truth of the cliche that even paranoids have enemies, that’s precisely what’s happened. The Benghazi committee has the e-mails. But e-mails to her daughter, her husband, her staff about personal matters, biting comments, maybe even an insult or two ought to remain private. Even public officials are entitled to private thoughts.
Benghazi has become a Republican fixation. It is mentioned with utmost solemnity, virtual code for treason or something close to it. It is no longer an event, a debacle and a tragedy, but a totem: Something went wrong. Someone’s at fault. Why not Clinton? In the latest Republican debate, Carly Fiorina, she of the hallucinatory abortion procedure, accused Clinton of having a “track record of lying about Benghazi.” Yeah, sure. But give us an example, please.
He is being too kind to the press. They are leading this as much as following it, gleefully going after Clinton on this nonsense, a group of nasty boys and mean girls competing for who can finally take her down. (If you are on twitter you can feel the excitement when a new “revelation” is published by one them from the flurry of breathless tweets and retweets and snarky bon mots that go with them.) It’s obvious that it’s taken on a life of its own with the pursuit itself becoming the point.
Still, it’s a good thing to at least have a few reporters and columnists writing about the phenomenon itself. Simply holding up a mirror might have some effect at least around the edges. This is a sickness in our media landscape and anyone who thinks it’s confined to the Clintons should ask Al Gore and John Kerry how this worked out for them. Certainly any Democrat who is cackling with delight that Hillary Clinton is being skewered with this sort of nonsense should stop and think about whether it’s a good idea to empower the media and the Republicans this way. You never know who might find himself or herself on the receiving end of it.
Update: More insurrection:
Iron rule of Centrist Media Guild: Press criticism is invariably motivated by partisanship, so no substantive response ever necessary.— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) September 29, 2015
Chuck Schumer taking advantage of Democrats’ fear of hippies
by digby
People complain that Chuck Schumer is the kind of guy who consistently works to keep more liberal Senators out of office. And it’s true. But it’s excused by the the establishment with the old saw that “this is a conservative country” and the Democratic Party must adapt to that by electing conservatives.
But how can we explain the fact that the future Senate Democratic leader is now just outright helping Republicans to win? He’s working on a deal with Paul Ryan and vulnerable Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman on a big windfall tax for corporations and infrastructure plan:
“On a political level, Schumer should be honest about the fact that striking a deal would absolutely help Portman in his race,” the person said. “Helping him secure a corporate tax deal that will be a stinker for Democrats and a talking point for Portman is only a good move if your sole goal is self-promotion, even if it comes at the expense of the caucus.”
Several other Democrats shrugged off the possibility that Schumer is hurting his own chances at becoming majority leader by collaborating with Portman. They believe that beating Portman hinges on turnout in the presidential race and the Republican’s embrace of the broader GOP agenda — not a long-shot attempt working across party lines with one of the nation’s most powerful Democrats.
Senate leaders must “do what they have to do: What’s right for their state and right for the country,” said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who leads the Democrats’ campaign arm.
However, Republican officials said that this type of bipartisan effort is central to the campaign of the Ohio senator, who helped craft a deal on unemployment insurance that stalled in 2014 and is eager for a major accomplishment to point to on the trail.
“This is good for Portman,” one national GOP official said.
Schumer admits that this plan is a a long shot. But by helping Portman he’s giving him some “bipartisan” cred that he will need to win his tough reelection fight. Does this make any sense?
The nutty caucus in the House is accused of refusing to allow the Speaker to govern the House of representatives and so they chased him out of office. And it’s true. But I don’t think there’s any evidence that John Boehner was ever openly helping Democrats win re-election at the expense of his own party. This is an especially bold move you must admit.
It strikes me that one of the effects of GOP craziness will be that it perversely allows centrist Dem leaders like Schumer the ability to do more of this lest Democrats be accused of being just like the looney Republicans if they get upset and object. If there’s one thing the establishment Democrats don’t want it’s to be compared to the looney Republicans. Schumer gets that better than anyone and he’s already taking advantage of it.
Capitalism is overdue for an upgrade
by Tom Sullivan
I design factories for a living. When I get off a job, lots of other people get jobs: building them and working in them. And in this country, too. Does that make me a “job creator”? Or, as Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO suggests in the video below, is that really just “a polite term for plutocrats”? As he says, maybe that is why billionaires buy PR firms.
Mike Lux has a piece up at Huffington Post promoting a progressive economic agenda that just might be more important than the next loony thing a Republican candidate for president says. A video in plain-speak condenses a lot of progressive thinking on the economy to 7:25 min. Lux writes:
Contrary to the current trickle-down economic orthodoxy, our economy will only grow and strengthen over the long run if we focus on helping more poor people climb the ladder into an expanding and more prosperous middle class.
That is not happening today. It has not been happening much since the Reagan era introduced us to trickle-down. Capitalism is overdue for an upgrade.
“Rules are not the enemy of markets,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren observes. “Rules are the necessary ingredient for healthy markets.”
That is why my business law textbook is 2-1/2 in. thick. It is chapter after chapter of real-world examples of who did what to whom, who gets paid, and who gets left holding the bag, demonstrating precisely why rules exist in business. It only works if everyone understands and plays by them. Rules need to be enforced again.
All this government focus — or is it myopia? — on protecting the incentives of the investor class, on their rewards. Yet unless the carrots are sticks, no similar care for the incentives of the working class, and on designing an economy that rewards the people who actually do the work that adds the value that creates the wealth. What’s wrong with this picture?
“Anything we can create we can reinvent,” says Gabriella Lemus, president of Progressive Caucus.e The economy is not a product of nature. People designed it. People built it. People crafted the rules that govern it. If it no longer serves We the People as it should, we can and should improve the design. That is the American way, isn’t it?
American Family Voices holds a conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday on building a new economy. Lux concludes, “We need to make our economy grow from the bottom up and middle out, rather than from the top down.”
Building a factory from the top down? Now that would be a neat trick.
Mark Murray tweeted about the “anger” on both sides of the aisle by showing us word clouds of the slogans members of each party said they would put on a protest sign in the new NBC poll:
The good news is that the pundits were so right on when they told us that the culture wars were dead.
And whatever we do, let’s not talk about all that icky women’s rights stuff because nobody cares about it.
This Duck Dynasty guy unendorsed Bobby Jindal and endorsed Trump this week-end:
“I do like me some Trump, I’ve gotta admit. Here’s the deal. We’re both successful businessmen. We both have pretty big shows on television. We both have wives that are 1,000 times better looking than us so I like Trump.”
Big shot Reality TV celebrities have to stick together.
I actually suspect that the same people like both of these guys and for exactly the same reason: they “know” them from TV. I’m not sure it’s any more complicated than that. Trump will remain popular with them as long as he remains that guy they know. If he morphs into something else he could have a problem. The question is, how many of these people are out there? And do they know they won’t be able to vote with an app on their phones?
The talking heads are all talking about this picture as if it says everything about “the relationship” between the two leaders. The amount of armchair psychology coming from these tedious gasbags today is almost worse than the endless pundit wanking last week over the political significance of the Pope’s emergence from an airplane.
It’s nice that they are all talking about the issue of Syria and the crisis in the Middle east. It’s great that they are doing programming around something other than emails and Donald Trump. But do they have to frame it around around puerile notions of male social rivalry?
