Skip to content

Author: digby

CPAC Queen

by digby

It was quite a day yesterday at CPAC, what with the conservative movement’s greatest intellectual leader Rush Limbaugh making his first appearance. The troops are pumped.

But nobody is more of a CPAC institution than Ann Coulter and she didn’t fail to inspire the boyz and girls this year..

La Figa has the whole speech at her blog. My favorite part is always the Q&A:

I think what I found most fascinating about this year’s CPAC is the way they disappeared Bush. It was as if he never existed and yet, just last year, this is how they presented him:

They’re really into that sort of thing:

.

Geoghegan Countdown Sunday

by digby

Remember that the Geoghegan campaign still needs contributions, phone bankers and Get Out The Vote volunteers.

Donate
Volunteer locally
Make calls from home

I’ll let Kathy Geier (who someone should hire to be a campaign blogger or speechwriter) tell you more about Tom and why you should try to help in these last few days. I’m just going to highlight some portions of her piece, but I urge you to read the whole thing:

If you were to ask me why I’m supporting Tom Geoghegan in the IL-05 special election for Congress, the answer would be simple. I’m supporting Tom because he is the truest progressive in the race.

What, you may ask, is a progressive? A progressive is someone who “comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable” — someone who, above all, will fight for the rights and the dignity of ordinary people, even — especially — when that means taking on the most powerful institutions and entrenched interests in our society. Given that so many injustices derive from economic inequality, the cause of economic justice will always be at the center of a progressive vision. But economic justice is by no means the only vitally important progressive value. A true progressive is someone who signs on to the entire progressive agenda — not just the bits and pieces of it that happen to be popular at any given moment, or happen to coincide with his or her own self-interest. And finally, a progressive is someone who is committed not merely to advocating incremental change, but to advancing big, bold, and sometimes quite controversial new ideas.

By those measures, Geoghegan is far and away the most progressive candidate in the race. He has bloody well spent a lifetime “comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable.” He’s filed lawsuits against employers who illegally discriminated against workers or prevented them from joining unions. He’s won back pensions, health care, and lost wages for thousands of people. He’s gone to court to enforce child labor laws, and to crack down on predatory payday lenders.

[…]

There are three main items Geoghegan is running on: enacting single payer health care, increasing Social Security benefits, and re-instating usury laws by capping interest rates on bank loans and credit cards. Tom believes that having the government pick up non-wage labor costs like health care and pensions is crucial, if we are to become globally competitive and get America moving again. The economic policies he advocates are not only just, but they will be more economically efficient as well.

This is an ambitious platform, to be sure. I don’t hear any of the other candidates showing this kind of leadership, or imagination, or calling so forcefully for such big changes. Instead, I hear a lot of the usual mealy-mouthed, hackish, politician-y bullshit about how “I’m on your side” and “I’m fighting for you” — with no specifics or concrete proposals attached.

But at many candidate forums, Geoghegan gets more spontaneous applause than any other candidate, because people are hungry to hear what he has to say. Voters realize that this country is in one hell of a mess, and that bold solutions are required — solutions that get the economy out of the grotesque imbalance it is currently in, so that the interests of ordinary people, not Citibank, come first. Tom is very much advancing the national conversation toward this end, and moving the ball forward in terms of the progressive agenda. None of the other candidates are doing this — certainly not to anywhere near this extent.

[…]

For Geoghegan, it’s been clear – as a progressive, he’s been all about the people party. This is readily apparent in Tom’s economic agenda. Economic justice will always be the cornerstone of a progressive politics. That’s not only because economic security is a basic human right, but because powerful political appeals and coalitions can be built upon the economic interests of ordinary working people. Even groups that are divided by other issues can unite around a politics that advances their economic well-being. Which is why Geoghegan’s progressive economic agenda is not only morally just, but it’s strategically savvy as well – it appeals not just to the lakeside liberals in the IL-05 district but the working class folks in its western end, as well.

Another example of the Geoghegan’s campaign’s use of smart politics to advance a progressive agenda is its mobilization of the netroots. If you look at ActBlue, and other sites that track campaign donations, you’ll find that one thing is clear: more than any other candidate, Tom’s campaign has relied on small donors. On ActBlue alone, Tom has raised over $204,703 from almost 2,202 donors. The average donation to his campaign is far lower than for any other candidate in the race.

In past elections, a candidate like Tom Geoghegan would have had no chance whatsoever. He’s not independently wealthy. He doesn’t know a whole lot of wealthy individuals. He’s not an elected official, so he doesn’t have a donor base, or relationships with political interests with whom he could trade favors deriving from his elected office, in return for political support.

But with the netroots, Tom has a fighting chance. He has a base from which to raise funds for a progressive politics that supports the interests of ordinary folks, against the interests of the moneyed few. The power of the netroots, in mobilizing small donors, and getting people as far away as Wasilla, Alaska, and New York New York, and back, passionately involved in each and every political campaign, is thrilling, and potentially an extraordinarily powerful thing. It is an indispensable tool toward advancing the people party, and defeating the money party.

[…]

As Geoghegan keeps saying, we are in a big change moment. Part of advancing a vigorous, and effective, progressive politics is recognizing such moments when they come (because they are rare), and then seizing them, and making the most of them. Tom’s doing that. None of the other candidates seem committed to much more than a tepidly left-of-center status quo.If you’re serious about supporting the candidate likely to do the most to bring big progressive change in our lifetime, Tom Geoghegan, in my opinion, is the only real candidate in this race. Imagine if we all woke up on the morning of March 4th to the news that voters choosing a successor in Congress to Rahm Emanuel had replaced him with Tom Geoghegan! I can’t imagine a more powerful shot across the bow, or message to the powers to be in Washington, than a Geoghegan victory in this race That’s why I think that we, as progressives, should do all we can to support Tom in this race. So by all means — donate to Tom’s campaign. Do some phone banking for him (remember, you can do it from home, from anywhere in the U.S.). And volunteer for the campaign — either to do canvassing this weekend, or to participate in the all-important get-out-the-vote effort on March 3rd.
read on

Geier knows Geoghegan and has devoted the last few months to trying to get him elected. But she isn’t the only one who feels this way. Staunch liberals from all over the country are excited at the prospect of Tom Geoghegan in the congress.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a politician so suited to the moment.

Donate
Volunteer locally
Make calls from home

.

Celebrity Cretin

by digby

Karl Rove is on Stephanopoulos this morning.

What do you have to do to become a pariah in the Village? Launch nuclear war? Would that even be enough? The man is the architect (as named by his creature George W. Bush) of the program that destroyed the country. If we can’t put him in jail, shouldn’t he at least have the decency to disappear from public view while the rubble is still smoking?

Meanwhile, NBC is obsessed with using the DOW as “the metric” for the economy. Somehow, they got the directive that they have to find a “metric” for assessing whether or not Obama is successful and this seems to be what they’ve settled on. It’s ridiculous, as even their own money people have said over and over again on their programs all last week, but they persist.

I’m sorry that their 401ks have been decimated. It’s true for everyone. But the Dow operates on its own logic most of the time. If the fundamentals of the economy turn around, we’ll have plenty of “metrics” with which to measure it — and eventually the stock market will reflect that as well. It’s infuriating to see them cling to some edict in a memo from Chuck Todd long after you’ve seen every financial expert on their own network tell them they’re all wet.

Update: And by the way, Harold Ford needs to be pulled from the rotation. He goes on every show saying that he sure hopes the stimulus works but “who knows?” and if it doesn’t, well, then maybe the Republicans deserve to win. It’s not helpful. Having two buckets of lukewarm water like DeeDee Myers and Ford face off with snarling political animals Mike Murphy and Joe Scarborough is a mistake.

.

Same As It Ever Was

by tristero

David Byrne burning down the house, Radio City Music Hall, NY February 28, 2009.

All performers were dressed in white while the background lights were almost entirely red and blue. Get it? And don’t think that wasn’t intentional: David Byrne is one of the most visually sophisticated musicians alive.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Standing in the shadows of love

By Dennis Hartley

Heggins and Cenac: About last night…

Don’t let the oddball title of writer-director Barry Jenkins’ film Medicine for Melancholy throw you. It may share its moniker with an anthology of short stories by author Ray Bradbury, but there is nothing “sci-fi” about this down-to-earth little indie gem about love, African-American identity and the gentrification of San Francisco’s neighborhoods.

A two-character “morning after” study of a one-night stand in the tradition of Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise, the film opens with an attractive, 20-something African-American couple waking up and performing their morning ablutions. We quickly glean the sense of a polite, yet awkward deferment between the two as they wordlessly descend the stairs of a very large house that displays ample evidence of a previous evening’s revelry. Once they find their shoes, and the inevitable “So what was your name again?” formalities are dispensed with over coffee, Micah (Wyatt Cenac) and Jo (Tracey Heggins) share a cab ride. After Jo enigmatically requests to be dropped off “at the corner”, the two appear to go their separate ways. Of course it doesn’t end there (otherwise we wouldn’t have much of a film). Micah spots Jo’s purse on the floor of the cab, and learns (to his chagrin) that she did not give him her real name. And so we’re off.

This is one of those films where not an awful lot “happens”; yet for the careful observer, there is still a lot going on. Micah and Jo spend a day together. After some wary circling, they begin to warm to each other’s company. They ride their bikes around San Francisco. Micah accompanies Jo on an errand to an art museum, where her boyfriend (currently out of town) works as a curator. They talk about their jobs. They make love. For all intents and purposes, they begin to appear no different than any other loving couple, spending a lazy Sunday together. Until they pay a visit to the Museum of the African Diaspora, which sparks a philosophical debate between the couple that could be a real deal breaker.

This is where the film’s central theme emerges: How do African-Americans define themselves? Despite the fact that he is basically a wisecracking, hipster indie culture geek by nature, Micah primarily defines himself as a “black man” who is becoming ever-increasingly marginalized by the creeping gentrification of San Francisco’s traditionally ethnic and/or low-income neighborhoods. Jo, on the other hand, doesn’t feel that her “blackness” solely defines who she is, and pegs Micah as “…one of those people who thinks they chose February as Black History Month because it’s the shortest month.” Her boyfriend is white; a moot fact to her but a sticking point for Micah (or is it just old-fashioned jealously, cloaked in a self-righteous polemical stance?). Ah, mysteries of love.

One obvious cinematic touchstone here (perhaps unconsciously on the part of the filmmaker) is Shadows , John Cassavetes’ 1959 film about the complexities of racial identity and the role that it plays in social/romantic interaction. The film has a loose, naturalistic feel that recalls Cassavetes as well. At any rate, the two films would make a perfect double bill. I was also somehow reminded of Kurosawa’s One Wonderful Sunday, with occasional echoes of Godard and Rohmer. The director’s decision to employ a monochromatic visual look is perfect, as it’s all about the perception of “color”.

My only previous awareness of Wyatt Cenac is from his work on The Daily Show; he shows promise as a screen actor. The appealing Tracey Heggins has potential as well; she and Cenac have good chemistry. If you are sick of the Hollywood grist currently topping the box office, Medicine for Melancholy may just be the perfect tonic for Tyler Perry.

Note: Medicine for Melancholy is in limited release, but also available on PPV (IFC).

Identity crisis: She’s Gotta Have It, Jungle Fever, School Daze, Pinky, Imitation Of Life, Black Like ME, Watermelon Man, The Human Stain, Purple Rain, Nothing But a Man, Killer of Sheep, Killer of Sheep, Monster’s Ball, Storytelling, Me and You and Everyone We Know, The Great White Hope, A Patch of Blue, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner

.

Geoghegan Countdown

by digby

As Dday reminded us the other day, we are in countdown mode for Tom Geoghegan’s campaign to fill Rahm Emmanuel’s seat. It’s looking very winnable, but they still need some help financially and on the phones this week-end. If you have some time or a couple of bucks, now’s your chance to help this true progressive make his stand.

Geoghegan’s a very interesting politician, in that he’s an unabashed, in your face, populist with a lifetime as a lawyer and writer standing up for workers and pensioners. It’s almost as if this moment were made for him.

When he was out in LA a couple of weeks ago and spoke to bloggers, he talked at length about the broken retirement system in this country. I’m somewhat aware of the problem, being of a certain age myself, with elderly parents and a close friend who works in the field. I don’t think people recognize just yet what’s happening on this issue and how acute the problem is about to get. The baby boomers have had a huge chunk of their wealth wiped out in this meltdown, in both the real estate and in the equity markets. The promise of the self-financed retirement is looking very shaky at the moment — to the biggest demographic cohort in American history. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that this may be the issue of the next decade.

Tom Geoghegan is an expert in pensions and a believer that we have to begin to look at our system with fresh eyes. He speaks of expanding social security rather than cutting it. He talks about completely revamping the retirement system across the board. It’s so outside the box that when I heard him talk about it I realized that this side of the argument hadn’t been heard in a very long time.

Even if you believe that the state can’t afford to provide more than a minimal safety net, it’s important this side of the argument get into the mix. We are in a time of great economic stress and unless all sides are being debated, political compromise ends up consisting of a compromise between saving rich people and helping rich people. And that spells serious political instability.

We need voices like Tom Geoghagen’s in the congress. We need people who are looking at these problems from all angles and who have the guts to speak in terms that fall outside the accepted village or wall street parameters. We desperately need fresh thinking on these big problems.

On a conference call the other night, Tom and his campaign manager said that they are feeling very confident among the 55 and over crowd, which also happens to comprise the largest cohort in the district and who also happen to be the most likely voters in this special election. I am not surprised that his message is resonating with them. He’s speaking directly to their issues at a time when they are feeling great insecurity.

These special elections in off years often portend the coming coming trends. And I would not be surprised at all if retirement security is an issue that will rise to the top of the agenda. If Geoghegan’s in congress, the Democrats will have someone who has immense credibility and knowledge of an issue that’s of grave importance to the biggest, single voting bloc in America.

As dday wrote:

Geoghegan is the real deal and he can win. You can help.

Donate
Volunteer locally
Make calls from home

.

Fatuous Demagogue

by digby

I’m watching the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, give his speech at CPAC on CNN, live and in its entirety, without commercials. If you doubted that he is the leader, you won’t doubt it after you see the reception he’s getting.

He says his heart is broken that Obama is using his great talents to punish earners and portray America as a soup kitchen in a dark night. And it saddens him that the president of the United States wants to destroy America.

I wish this were in prime time.

Update: Check out this dispatch from Max Blumenthal at CPAC with another wingnut gasbag. They’re losing it.

Update II:

Rush on bipartisanship:

Bipartisanship occurs only after one other result. And that is victory. In other words, let'[s say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in congress. What they mean is, we check our principles at the door, let them run the show and then agree with them. That is bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we have politically cleaned their clocks and beaten them.

Uhmkay. The crowd seemed to think it made sense though. They went nuts.

Update III: At 3:15 PST, CNN had still not broken away for a commercial. He spoke for an hour and half without interruption.

Update IV:

William Schneider says that Limbaugh crossed the line with his bullying and mockery and questioning of Obama’s motives. He seemed rather shocked by what he heard. Apparently he’s never listened to Rush before.

Ron Christie says he agrees with Limbaugh. Naturally he doesn’t find anything he says unusual.

Update V:

Question

I have been writing about the psychopatic CPAC convention every year since I’ve been blogging, noting that they blithely sold items like t-shirts that said “Happiness is Hillary’s face on a milk carton,” and the press, if they mentioned it at all, seemed to think it was all just good fun. It’s been around for 35 years.

Why is this crazed sideshow being featured pretty much constantly on the cable news networks as if it were the most important political event of our lifetimes this year?

.

Oh Good God

by digby

Matt Bai has produced another one of this fascinating “character profiles” this time of Newtie Gingrich. I believe this may be the five thousandth such fascinating profile of the man. He always makes good copy, even though he makes no sense.

I’m too burned out to go into in in detail. Read it if you can stomach both Bai and Gingrich at the same time.

I do have to mention this, just in case anyone thinks that Gingrich has lost his megalomaniacal touch:

I think I’m closer to Benjamin Franklin than to George Washington,”Gingrich told me. “I’m a contributor to my country and to my times. If it turns out that there’s a moment when it makes sense to run, then I’ll run. But if I end up never being able to run, then it won’t devastate me.”

That’s our Newtie. He’s nothing if not grandiose. Here he is from 1995:

In his first public speech to his members, Gingrich cautioned that the electorate has twice since World War II granted Republicans control of the House only to take it away again in the next election. But in private moments, Gingrich allows himself a fabulously optimistic daydream. “I think we’ll have a good run,” he said contentedly last month. “My guess is it will last 30 or 40 years.”

And there was this:

Asked recently what he had learned about himself in the last three months, he hedged, saying that whatever he answered would be portrayed as either facile or the sign of a tragic flaw. Then he said he had been watching a documentary about Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. “It talked about the impact it had when he became Supreme Commander,” Mr. Gingrich said, “and you could see it in the film footage — that he literally changed over the course of about six months.” …Mr. Gingrich may be the strongest Speaker in decades, but it is not other Speakers to whom he compares himself. It is the great Presidents and commanders — Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill, de Gaulle

.

And he’s long felt that he “might” need to run for president:

Even before Senate majority leader Bob Dole’s uninspired performance during Wednesday’s televised forum in New Hampshire for G.O.P. presidential candidates, Gingrich had phoned key Republicans around the country and wondered aloud whether he should launch his own bid for the White House. Already on the previous Saturday, over dinner at the Connecticut home of Henry and Nancy Kissinger, Gingrich had fretted about Dole and launched into a detailed analysis of his own presidential chances.

According to fellow conservative Susan Molinari, Gingrich believed he was a worldwide revolutionary:

Molinari paints Gingrich as nothing short of an incompetent, delusional megalomaniac. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions. . Her behind-the-scenes description of last summer’s failed coup attempt against the speaker reveals a world of ruthless backstabbingand deft double-crossing that would make Machiavelli proud. Molinari says Gingrich compared himself to Napoleon, FDR, Churchill, and Eisenhower and was overwhelmed by his own grandiosity. When Gingrich’s four top henchmen, among them Molinari’s husband, Bill Paxon, Republican congressman from Buffalo, NY., arranged an “intervention” to tell the speaker that he had to shape up, Gingrich dissolved into a rage. “People all over the world are listening to us, watching what we are doing. I’m at the center of a worldwide revolution,” he huffed, turning to Paxon, adding, “You will never understand that, Bill.”

In fact, he’s not just a revolutionary, king or potential president. He’s also French. This one is from this past summer when he was, once again, weighing whether his country needed him:

Pressed by The Examiner about whether his political baggage renders him unelectable, Gingrich compared himself to a famous French statesman. “This is like going to De Gaulle when he was at Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises during the Fourth Republic and saying, ‘Don’t you want to rush in and join the pygmies?'” he said.

There are a million of them.

Newtie never fails to deliver the soundbite. The question is, why is the NY Times doing profiles that are anything but satire on this man? He’s a clown, not a “man of ideas.” It’s ludicrous to even pretend otherwise.

.

Jindal Update

by digby

Our pal Bobbby has come in for some scrutiny after his bizarre performance the other night. It turns out that he “embellished” and misrepresented his story about the rescue boats during the hurricane. It’s pretty clear that the line “Congressman Jindal says you can arrest him too!” never happened because the best anyone can come up with is that Jindal and his chief of staff overheard the sheriff telling the bureaucrat story on the phone days later. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

But hey, he was just illustrating a point with a colorful anecdote and the problem isn’t the anecdote. The problem is that essentially he was saying that if the big bad government hadn’t stuck its nose in where it wasn’t wanted, Louisiana residents could have handled the hurricane just fine. And when you think about it, it makes sense to dittoheads: after all, the government is always the problem, never the solution.

But this is just amazing:

Louisiana’s transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president’s economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.

The high-speed rail line, a topic of discussion for years, would require $110 million to upgrade existing freight lines and terminals to handle a passenger train operation, said Mark Lambert, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.

Jindal on Tuesday delivered the official Republican Party response to President Barack Obama’s address to Congress. He criticized the stimulus package passed by the Democratic-majority in Congress and the president and noted examples of projects that he found objectionable.

“While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending,” Jindal said. “It includes … $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland.”

He says he will refuse money to extend unemployment benefits. He claims that rail projects like this are wasteful spending. He seems to actually believe that any government involvement is worse for his citizens than losing everything. I wonder if they agree?

H/t to BB
.