Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

So, the allegedly liberal, “pro-fatherhood”, anti- marriage equality David Blankenhorn has decided that gay marriage is a-ok now. In fact, he now wants to recruit gay people to his first principle: stigmatizing single mothers and slut-shaming women:

Instead of fighting gay marriage, I’d like to help build new coalitions bringing together gays who want to strengthen marriage with straight people who want to do the same. For example, once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace? Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation? Can we discuss whether both gays and straight people should think twice before denying children born through artificial reproductive technology the right to know and be known by their biological parents?

Will this strategy work? I don’t know. But I hope to find out.

Let’s hope it doesn’t.

Since marriage is essentially a conservative institution originally designed to protect property rights and keep women in their proper place, I always figured that at least a few members of the right wing would ultimately wake up and realize that gay marriage could be used to their advantage. Blankenhorn is nicely providing that opening.

Here’s Corey Robin once more on that subject:

Historically, the conservative has sought to forestall the march of democracy in both the public and the private spheres, on the assumption that advances in the one necessarily spur advances in the other. Still, the more profound and prophetic stance on the right has been to cede the field of the public, if he must, but stand fast in the private. Allow men and women to become democratic citizens of the state; make sure they remain feudal subjects in the family, the factory, and the field.

And nobody should be all that surprised about this coming from him. He’s always thought that the real problem is the selfish women who insist they know how to raise kids. He was only worried about gay marriage making that situation worse. Now he can get back to the real business at hand.

Basically, we’re fucked

This is yet another example of the right being so overwhelmingly myopic that you just feel paralyzed. Which is the point I guess.

Resistance is futile

by digby

I think Seth Michaels is on to something here:

Yesterday, a perceptive piece by Buzzfeed political reporters McKay Coppins and Zeke Miller laid bare a breathtakingly cynical strategy by the Romney campaign and top Republican-leaning superPACs: to win the election by a sheer, exhausting flood of money.

“There’s no way they’ll be able to keep up. Our SuperPACs are our Star Wars, if you will,” said a Republican operative close to the Romney campaign…In fact, on Wednesday Obama officials told reporters that all-in, they expected to be outspent three-to-one by Romney and his Republican allies by Election Day.

Coppins and Miller call this the “Cold War strategy,” a reference to how the arms race of the 1980s crippled the Soviet Union. It’s a sharply observed piece, and it’s hard to argue that this isn’t the intended strategy, especially after a quick look at the actual money involved. We’re seeing multi-million-dollar fundraising commitments from billionaire donors like Harold Simmons, Sheldon Adelson, and David Koch as well as from major corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And, of course, some of the money going into this strategy is anonymous and untraceable.

So that raises another question: if this is really the strategy Romney and his allies are going with, why would they tip their hand and explain it? It could be that they think the story won’t get much public attention, or it could be that they feel confident that it’s hard to counter. But there’s a deeper reason, and it’s a kind of deliberate psychological warfare. They want people to know their strategy because they want to discourage and demoralize their opponents. The shameless, arrogant insistence that they can and will buy the election is kind of the point.

That deep strategy is going to be something you’ll see all year. Whether it’s aimed at people who work in progressive politics, at activists, or at voters themselves, the ethically-loathsome goal is the same: to make people feel hopeless and powerless, like they can’t make a difference and shouldn’t bother trying. Read between the lines of op-eds and TV ads from Karl Rove and his allies and you’ll see the real message: your participation isn’t going to do any good. And the number of ads you’re going to see is going to be a tactic in and of itself: the kind of money we’re talking about is enough to completely flood the airwaves, and the effect of seeing an exhausting number of negative, misleading ads is going to be downright numbing—in a way that will make the political process seem just awful.

It’s also an extension of the “we’re winning so why bother even voting” strategy that was a favorite of Karl Rove’s during the Bush campaigns (which is itself an attempt to force the bandwagon effect.)

I believe that Michaels is right, that they are telegraphing their intention to smother the Democrats with millions of dollars. And if what I hear in activist circles is correct, it’s working out just great already. People are very depressed and disillusioned anyway, the economy sucks and the big money is the knock out punch. Of course it isn’t just the money, it’s the press disseminating storylines that imply that progressives are sunk and writing columns that are factually incorrect. They’re helping spin the threat.

This election is in some ways a grand experiment in the power of big bucks. The good news is that progressives have managed to pull out some primary wins so far despite being outspent by establishment Dems and their well-heeled friends. That proves nothing, of course. The Big Money Boys are putting most of their golden eggs in the GOP basket. It’s hard to see that how it won’t just be overkill in the presidential election, since the president will have plenty of money to fight back. (There are only so many ads you can see in a day.) But in the down-ticket races it’s going to be interesting to see if they can just overwhelm the congressional Democrats. On the other hand, if all politics is local, it’s just possible they may overplay their hand. We’ll know in November.

The worst part of all this is the further inculcation of conservative propaganda with this bombardment of right wing messaging. It’s one thing to lose elections. It’s quite another to have the entire population brainwashed more quickly and efficiently than they’ve ever been before. You have to wonder if people will even get a chance to hear the other side — or, worse, if the other side will simply capitulate and ride the storyline the Big Money Boys are selling.

Here’s a little factoid: The Camber of Commerce is only playing in one congressional election so far — Alan Grayson in Florida. I’m sure it won’t be the last, but it’s fairly clear who they think is their most important target.

.

Delicate male sensibilities

by digby

Tom Tomorrow today:

Somebody had to say it.

.

Don’t forget about Poland

by David Atkins

We always knew. It was rumored for years. And finally the truth is out:

For years, the notion that Poland could allow the CIA to operate a secret prison in a remote lake region was treated as a crackpot idea by the country’s politicians, journalists and the public.

A heated political debate this week reveals how dramatically the narrative has changed.

In a string of revelations and political statements, Polish leaders have come closer than ever to acknowledging that the United States ran a secret interrogation facility for terror suspects in 2002 and 2003 in the Eastern European country.

Some officials recall the fear that prevailed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and defend the tough stance that former U.S. President George W. Bush took against terrorists.

But the debate is sometimes tinged with a hint of disappointment with Washington, as if Poland’s young democracy had been led astray – ethically and legally – by the superpower that it counts as a key ally, and then left alone to deal with the fallout.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Thursday that Poland has become the “political victim” of leaks from U.S. officials that brought to light aspects of the secret rendition program.

In his most forthcoming comments on the matter to date, Tusk said an ongoing investigation into the case is proof of Poland’s democratic credentials and that Poland cannot be counted on in the future in such clandestine enterprises.

Good for Poland. As for the U.S.? Well, it would be nice to think that this was a moral insanity of the Bush Administration that the nation has since recovered from, much like the Japanese internment camps over a half century ago. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

That the United States continues to use rendition regardless of which party is in power should be a huge black mark on the nation’s conscience.

.

Friends in high places

by digby

The poor “job-creators.” They just can’t catch a break:

Without much fanfare, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is edging towards what could be its first “perfect” Term before the Supreme Court since at least 1994. With today’s decision in Southern Union Company v. United States, the Chamber has declared victory in all seven of its cases that have reached a clear outcome (two are additionally classified as “other” because the Court avoided addressing the issue at stake on procedural grounds, and in one the Chamber filed on behalf of neither party).

This string of seven straight victories brings the Chamber’s overall win/loss rate before the Roberts Court up to 68% (60 of 88 cases). As we have reported in prior studies, this is significantly higher than the Chamber’s success before the Rehnquist Court of 56% (45 of 80 cases), and dramatically higher than its success rate before the Burger Court, when the Chamber only won 43% (15 of 35) of its cases.

At the time of Roberts and Alitos’ confirmations there was quite a bit of talk about corporate minded this court was going to be. Of course that’s not likely to be a contentious issues since it’s a bipartisan disease. But still, it’s fairly amazing to see just how extreme they’ve been. The Chamber is hardcore, Randian wingnut at this point — the NRA of economic interest groups. And they are doing very, very, very well with this court.

I’m a little bit foggy on what can be done about this. Voodoo dolls? What?

.

North Carolina cretins say they’re sorry about the forced sterilization but money won’t help

by digby

Jezebel reports:

Between 1929 and 1974, the North Carolina Eugenics Board sterilized thousands of men and women without their knowledge or consent, most of whom were poor, black, disabled, institutionalized, or undereducated. According to TPM, an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 of them are still alive, and 146 of them have been found and verified. After years of working with victims to come up with an acceptable solution, the state’s House, led by Republican speaker Thom Tillis, proposed paying $50,000 to each of the living victims of the state’s foray into messing with the gene pool. A total of $10 million was set aside for currently known and to-be-discovered victims.

But apparently spending state money to compensate victims of a very recent state initiative was just too much to ask of Senate Republicans. Sen. Don East said, “I’m so sorry it happened, but throwing money don’t change it, don’t make it go away. It still happened.”
[…]
Sen. Austin Allrand echoed East’s dickhole sentiments, telling the AP, “I’m not so sure it would lay the issue at rest because if you start compensating people who have been ‘victimized’ by past history, I don’t know where that would end.”

If anyone’s been looking for the neanderthal logic behind “tort reform” this is it. It’s a shame when people do bad things to other people but we can’t change it after the fact so you’re shit out ‘o luck. Even this lady:

Elaine Riddick Jessie (born Elaine Riddick in 1954) is an African-American woman who, as a 14-year-old girl in 1968, was forcibly sterilized by the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, which argued that she was “feebleminded” and “promiscuous.”

Prior to the sterilization (at age 13), Jessie had been kidnapped, molested, and raped. Her son, Tony Riddick, states, “The work of the Eugenics Board was not far from the thinking of Hitler.”

Jessie was living with her grandmother, Maggie “Miss Peaches” Woodard, when a social worker discovered her pregnancy. The illiterate Woodard signed an X on a consent form, not knowing what it was, only that if she didn’t sign, Elaine would be sent to an orphanage. The Perquimans County Department of Public Welfare had earlier custody of Jessie and her 7 siblings (from their alcoholic parents), sending 5 to an orphanage, and Elaine and one of her sisters to live with Woodard.

In March 2003 Mrs. Jessie and other victims of the Eugenics Board spoke out against the atrocities committed to the Eugenics Study Committee. As she said “When you’re a little girl, what do you want? You want to be a mommy. To find out that’s been taken away from you is devastating.” She was prominent in the celebrations at the law’s repeal.

Yeah, it’s true that money can’t fix that. But it’s all we’ve got. That women deserves some kind of compensation for what was done to her. She’s 58 years old and has another quarter century to live on this earth with the knowledge of what was done to her. Is it really too much to ask for these cretinous pigs to be human just once?

Don’t answer that …

.

What to do if SCOTUS overturns the Affordable Care Act

by David Atkins

With the conservative Supreme Court’s remarkably activist anti-labor 5-4 decision today, it is becoming apparent to almost everyone that the court is a purely partisan political body. Interested parties from interest groups to bloggers are preparing for next steps should the Court take the extraordinary step of overturning the entirety or parts of the Affordable Care Act.

To me, the answers are clear:

1) For the short term, by far the most important progressive issue is the Supreme Court. Nothing else comes close. I would rank climate change as the pressing issue for humanity over all, but absent miraculous scientific breakthroughs it will require heavy national and international regulation to make a dent. Even were such a thing politically possible, it is obvious that this Court would find some reason to strike down any sort of meaningful regulation on this front. Meanwhile, the Citizens United decision is perhaps the most baleful event for progressive politics in at least the last 20 years.

That fact in turn puts presidential politics in an increasingly stark light. The next President will have the likely opportunity to replace three septuagenarian justices during his term. The current Court stands on the edge of a knife, with a 5-4 conservative split. The election of the President for the next four years doesn’t just affect the next four years of public policy: it will likely affect the next half century. Whatever the disappointments of the current administration, there is no question that Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have been excellent nominees. It is no overstatement to say that the ability of the country’s middle class to survive may well depend on which political party has the ability to nominate justices over the next four years.

2) The issue of reforming the healthcare system will necessarily devolve to the states. While they have always been important to close political observers, state legislatures will become the main battleground on which healthcare reform is fought. Fortunately for progressives, state legislature races are also where grassroots political organizing can have the greatest impact in terms of picking better Democrats at the endorsement and primary stage. Legislature battles are ones we can actually win more easily than Congressional battles where the power of big money and big influence is often simply too much to overcome.

Vermont already has a single-payer healthcare law, but the state is too small to have the leverage to truly make it work. California is but a few good progressive votes away from passing the bill (a combination of just enough Republicans and cowardly/corrupt conservadems still stand in the way.)

Enough states have majority Democratic legislatures than pressure can be brought to bear to pass single-payer healthcare in Democratic states. Those Democrats who refuse to vote for it should face grassroots primary challenges on the issue in every district.

The only way out of this mess is to organize, lobby and charge grimly through it. Refusing to vote for the President won’t “teach the Democrats a lesson” or reorient the system in any way. All it will do is give the presidency to Romney, convince Democrats to become even more conservative, and most importantly lock in conservative dominance on the Supreme Court for the next half century.

Meanwhile, refusal to engage in local legislative political organizing because it’s seen as too boring, too small-time or not sexy enough to merit attention is precisely what will ensure that this country never receives universal single-payer healthcare.

One thing is certain: Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy couldn’t care less how many people march in the streets, or how many people stay home and don’t vote. And it’s increasingly clear that they and the seats they occupy have the greatest impact on all of our future. It’s up to us to do something about it.

.

Dan Froomkin flagged an interesting new poll conducted by YouGov, put together by a Dartmouth professor. Yes, the Republicans are still completely misinformed:

Apparently vast numbers of Republicans really do believe those lies. I don’t know what to say. The poll does indicate that Republicans pay closer attention to the news and world events than Democrats, so this is probably just more proof of a professionally mendacious right wing media.

In light of that idiocy, what’s more surprising is that the rest of the poll isn’t just useless gibberish. It’s quite revealing, actually. Republicans and Democrats agree on an awful lot, more than I expected frankly. They share priorities in many cases and only differ on the margins about a number of issues. But where they disagree tells us much about our gridlock.

Take this for example:

That’s right. 53% of Republicans will not stand for any tax increases or any cuts to the military, social security and medicare. And yet, they are obsessed about the debt.

We’re not quite as marginal as people are intent upon believing we are.

.

QOTD: pink leather shorts edition

by digby

From Senator Scott “Playmate” Brown:

“Each and every day that I’ve been a United States senator, I’ve been discussing issues meeting on issues, in secret meetings with kings and queens and prime ministers and business leaders and military leaders talking, voting, working on issues every single day.”

The evidence is here.

.