You Hold the Power in Your Vote

Armando writing for Daily Kos has an intriguing article about the Supreme Court decision regarding The Affordable Care Act (ACA) which was written by Justice Roberts.  Armando lays the premise that this decision sets forth the long term goals of Roberts and lays a foundation by the Court which will be the basis to restrict progressive values and undue the principles of the New Deal.

Many pundits and politicians were surprised that Roberts joined the four Justices who he generally disagrees with in order the author this opinion.  Unfortunately, the issue and the Court have been divided into two opposing views, either conservative or liberal. Of course the Supreme Court is suppose to be apolitical.  The rulings of the Court are to be based on the precedence of the Court which stems from the interpretation of the Constitution.   As Armando discovers, Roberts recognized prior decisions regarding the Necessary and Proper Clause paired with the Commerce Clause, while at the same time ignoring precedence.  That's right, he just ignored it!

So what does this mean?  It means that Roberts has laid the foundation to reinterpret the Supreme Court's prior decisions without overturning any decisions.  This will allow the Court to change progressive laws and principles merely by having a very conservative activist Supreme Court  rule in the majority.

John Roberts is a very clever man. Of course, he is incredibly gifted intellectually (easily the most intelligent of the conservative justices). But that does not always translate into cleverness.... He is a radical incrementalist, using the language of judicial minimalism to build, precedent by precedent, the structure to achieve, over time, what incendiary radical extreme conservatives want to achieve: the undoing of the New Deal. 

John Roberts is a very clever man. Of course, he is incredibly gifted intellectually (easily the most intelligent of the conservative justices). But that does not always translate into cleverness. But the chief justice is different from his fellow conservative travelers on the Court. He knows that open proclamations of fealty to the Constitution in Exile and to a return to the Lochner Era will never be accepted in one fell swoop. He is a radical incrementalist, using the language of judicial minimalism to build, precedent by precedent, the structure to achieve, over time, what incendiary radical extreme conservatives want to achieve: the undoing of the New Deal. 

In the ACA decision (PDF), the chief justice struck two blows against progressive values: (1) he gained five votes for a theory of limitation of federal power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution; and (2) he gained seven votes (two of them quite shocking, from Justices Breyer and Kagan) for the novel proposition that states have a constitutional right to federal funding from existing programs without condition (or "coercion" as the Court termed it) of the federal government.

In my post A dark cloud on this sunny day: Roberts Court embraces Constitution in Exile, I argued that the rule regarding the Necessary and Proper power expressed by the chief justice and agreed to by the other four conservative justices presented a radical change to our understanding of the Necessary and Proper power. The chief justice presents this change, as he so often does, as no change at all. He presents his de facto overturning of precedent (including the overturn of McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall's seminal opinion regarding the Necessary and Proper power), as fidelity to precedent. It is not.

Compare Chief Justice Roberts' formulation with that of Chief Justice Marshall. Roberts wrote:

[T]he individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms. Each of our prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. For example, we have upheld provisions permitting continued confinement of those already in federal custody when they could not be safely released, Comstock, supra, at _ (slip op., at 1–2); criminalizing bribes involving organizations receiving federal funds, Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 602, 605 (2004); and tolling state statutes of limitations while cases are pending in federal court, Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U. S. 456, 459, 462 (2003). The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power. [Emphasis supplied.]

Of course, the chief justice's statement that "the individual mandate vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power" is blatantly false. The Affordable Care Act is not a bootstrap from the individual mandate. In fact, the opposite is true: The individual mandate was enacted solely because in Congress' judgment, the Affordable Care Act could only be effective if a mechanism such as the individual mandate was included in it. In other words, it was a classic example of congressional use of its Necessary and Proper power. As the chief justice puts it, "exercise[] of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power." Regulation of the health care and health insurance market is undoubtedly valid under the Commerce Clause. The individual mandate is undoubtedly a valid exercise of the Necessary and Proper power to make effective the Affordable Care Act. 

In McCulloch, Chief Justice Marshall stated:

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

Chief Justice Roberts' ACA ruling on the Necessary and Proper power cannot be harmonized with McCulloch. But he did not overrule McCulloch. Indeed, the chief justice claims fealty to McCulloch. As I say, Chief Justice Roberts is a clever man.

Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a very clever man. And he is, to use the common parlance, playing "the long game." Today, the chief justice is hailed as a man of moderation, a pragmatic man, not the ideologue of the likes of Justices Thomas and Scalia. And this is what makes him the most dangerous threat to our progressive values. In the coming terms, when the chief justice shepherds the overturning of affirmative action and declares the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, we will be reminded that the chief justice is a moderate, pragmatic minimalist by the usual suspects.

And we will look back at the cherished progressive values now under threat and wonder what happened. Unless we fight. We must also consider how the chief justice threatens the ability of the Congress to enact progressive solutions to our current and future problems.
In her dissent in the ACA case, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

Why should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion

Why indeed? Because the conservative project is to undo the New Deal. It is to impose severe restrictions on the ability of the national government to implement progressive solutions to our national problems. Climate change? The federal government may not be able to do anything about that. Income inequality? Could be a local problem. The progressive project understands how important it is that the national government can act to address our problems. The conservative project is hell bent on defeating this vision. Chief Justice Roberts is playing the long game to undermine the progressive project. To undermine the vision President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined in his 1937 Constitution Day speech:

In these days when the undemocratic concentration of economic power has brought with it a corresponding concentration of legal ability against the democratic purposes of the Constitution, only the utmost vigilance and the utmost willingness to fight for our Constitutional heritage will guarantee its continuance. 

Furthermore, a democracy cannot help counting, and seeking ways and means to avoid for the future, the terrible cost at which its ultimate triumphs have had to be achieved. […] We know that it takes time to adjust government to the needs of society and that deliberation upon the remedy is indispensable to wise reform. We also know that government must keep pace with changes in circumstances substantially as the changes occur. […] 

These unwarranted delays in the accommodation of the government of today to the needs of today have not been due, I cannot too often repeat, to any language that the Fathers used in the Constitution to bind their successors. […]
I know and every lawyer knows that you will find nothing in our Constitution which forbids the national government to do any of these things. They have been forbidden or jeopardized, not because of anything the Constitution says but because men with axes to grind have chosen to put their lawyers' own notions of policy upon the silence or the vagueness of the Constitution. [Emphasis supplied.]

Chief Justice Roberts is their man for our age. He is the man for those with "axes to grind" against progressive values. 

How can he be defeated? By denying him the votes necessary on the Supreme Court to enact his pernicious project. This is done by reelecting President Barack Obama and electing future Democratic presidents. There are no other options.

This is the most important progressive project of this election and future presidential elections.

Defeat the conservative activist Supreme Court by voting.  VOTE for Barack Obama, 2012!!!! 

Your vote will effect history for years!

Politically Correct - NOT!!!!

Below are excerpts from pundits, politicians and talking heads. This isn't about politics, it's about rightness...or is it right - NOT!!

3/11: Rush Limbaugh jokes about earthquake hitting environmentally conscious Japan. Limbaugh seems to suggest that earth was punishing the Japanese for being environmentally-conscious. He made fun of refugees in a shelter for recycling.

And In response to a caller, he elaborated:

That is an excellent question. They invented the Prius. In fact, where Gaia blew up is right where they make all these electric cars. That's where the tsunami hit. All those brand new electric cars sitting there on the lot. I like the way this guy was thinking. It's like -- it's like Gaia hit the Prius in [inaudible]. It's like they were in the crosshairs, if we can use that word, it does. What is Gaia trying to tell us here? What is the mother of environmentalism trying to say with this hit? WATCH:

3/11: Rep. Virgil Peck [R-KS] said that it might be a good idea to control illegal immigration the way the feral hog population has been controlled: with gunmen shooting from helicopters. LISTEN:

3/11: Rep. Martin Harty' [R-NH] suggested the mentally disabled should be shipped to Siberia. He said, "If shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a (solution) to our illegal immigration problem."

3/11: Glenn Beck blames earthquake in Japan on disobeying the Ten Commandants.

"Now look, I'm not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes. Well -- I'm not saying that he -- I'm not not saying that either...

Make sure you keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times. Because, things are gonna get bumpy and, just a few reminders there at the beginning as this rollercoaster takes off, always a good safety tip: Keep your arms and legs in. Don't do anything stupid, what do you say we follow the big top ten. You can call them Moses' ten commandments, or ten rules of thumb. What do you say we start doing those things? Because the things we are doing really suck and they're not getting better." LISTEN:

CNBC's Larry Kudlow on the earthquake in Japan: “The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that.” WATCH:

Progressives Unite!

Attention Progressives!! John Cory has, A Liberal Dose of Reality for you.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
- Samuel Adams

So far there is no direct factual connection between the violence in Tucson and the toxic GOP and its subsidiary Tea Party screaming mobs, or the despicable daily spewing of hate-radio or the crazy chalkboard diagrams of the coming end times.

The false equivalency by the right wing and corporate media that the left does it too is merely a deflection intended to distract and shift focus away from them and their tactics. You can't connect the dots, they say.

A drop of ink on porous paper slowly seeps across the sheet. Multiple drops in multiple locations eventually bleed together without any external help. No one has to connect the dots; they connect themselves.

Thirty years ago Ronald Reagan said, "... government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem."

Plop.

Over the next three decades, vilification of government became a self-replicating meme. Big government fed the cash-driven paranoia machines. Politics got religion with the Moral Majority, which was neither, and Jerry Falwell made a devilish new BFF in Ronald Reagan. The Christian Right was born.

Plop. Plop.

Bogus welfare queens were created from thin air. The dismantling of Unions and the Fairness Doctrine turned news into a product for the corporations, who insisted that they owned the airwaves, not the public. The public good was tossed aside in favor of free-market profiteering without protective regulation.

Money is free speech and some of us have more freedom than others.

Plop. Plop. Plop.

With all this madness came Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan crisis, HUD grant-fixing scandal, the Lobbyist scandals, EPA scandals and more. An estimated 130 Reagan officials were indicted and/or convicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal violations. But Reagan was the best president ever says the GOP.

Big government is bad. Small government, small enough to fit in a President's zipper is good. God be praised.

Boom.

The Great Microphone of Anti-Democracy was created and funded under Reagan and allowed to grow and smear at will over the following decades.

Politics became reality television. The profits of fear made millionaires of the new hate-media puppets, supported extremist think tanks and generated a publishing industry dedicated to the propaganda of self-appointed "real" America; all in the name of the corporate owners of America.

And where has our liberal progressive movement been?

Pointing out their victimhood at the hands of the GOP and how the GOP is mean. Ignoring the elimination of investigative journalism. Scrambling for consultants and pundits to appear on the TV to provide "balance" while agreeing that both sides do it. Gently promoting "objective" media in a world rewarding biased punditry and outright lies.

Woe, is us! It is so unfair. Whatever can we do?

We need to get off our ass and quit pretending the bastardization of corporate media is something new, or that the hateful politics of the right wing cannot be defeated. We need to face reality and stop looking to billionaires and millionaires to fund us or rent us a megaphone to speak to the people.

We also need to disabuse ourselves of the illusion that the Democrats are on our side, or that they represent liberals and progressives let alone the concept that they represent everyday citizens. Modern Democrats are Mugwumps straddling the fence between self-enriching celebrity and GOP corporate compromise.

All of this is obviously more complicated than my simplistic presentation. But I'm a simple guy that believes in the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

And if we think MSBC is the anti-Fox or that it is the liberal platform needed today, then we are just dumb. Snark and shouting and satirical lists are not news reporting or analysis, just tribal entertainment for the converted and like-minded.

No, we need to walk our talk. The other side will call us names no matter what we do, so let us embrace their hatred, as FDR said. Let us be proud radicals and fierce promoters of the common good.

Unions and organizations like the NAACP and La Razza have money that could be used to invest in a non-profit internet/newspaper/broadcast network instead of being spent on lobbying politicians.

Think of it, our own news outlet that conducts investigative reporting and covers real issues. Public subscriptions for print editions and sales of apps for iPad and other devices would provide support money too. Media of, by, and for the people!

Think of putting Robert Parry, Chris Hedges, Sy Hersh, Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, Glen Greenwald and so many other wonderful voices together in one powerful force of messaging.

We pick a half dozen or so prime issues to promote - issues that overlap compatible areas so as to serve multi-functional roles. Here's a short list off the top of my head:

1. End the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. War creates graves, not jobs.
   
   
2. Universal Healthcare - explain why the US spends $7500 per person on healthcare while most other countries spend $3500. Is it American exceptionalism, or just plain greed?
   
   
3. Promote government spending on infrastructure like roads, parks, schools and bridges and playgrounds. Immigrants can earn a living and progress toward citizenship by repairing and building infrastructure and paying taxes including Social Security taxes. Jobs, immigration and saving Social Security all rolled into one.
   
   
4. Taxes - progressive and enforceable on all persons including corporate persons. Taxes are not evil or onerous, they are the investment in America that sustains all of us.
   
   
5. Financial Reform regulation to protect the people. To paraphrase George Carlin, if we're concerned about street crime - that means Wall Street too.
   
   
6. Labor must be protected. The right to a living wage. The right to collective bargaining to protect the powerless from the powerful. Labor is not a product - it is not enslavement for corporate enrichment.
   
   
7. Bring back the Draft with some modifications that expand the age groups, limit exceptions, and include private contractors being converted to active duty and subject to military pay scales. Government contracts must be severely restricted. To profit from death and bombs cannot be a government function. Conservatives should love this because it is patriotic and confirms their mantra that government does not create any jobs. Right?
   
   
8. Support Marriage Equality. "If you're against Gay marriage - don't marry one!" (I saw that on a button.)

Impossible? Why?

In an interview on Democracy Now! Slavoj Zizek pointed out, "Did you notice how strange the word 'impossible' functions today? When you talk about private pleasures and technology, everything is possible. But the moment you go to social changes ... practically everything that disturbs the market is impossible ... we will live forever ... whatever you want ... we will travel to the moon - that's all possible. But a small social change of more healthcare is not possible."

Corporations don't see "impossible." Conservatives did not see "impossible." Fox News and talk-radio were not built in a day, but over years.

If we don't unite and combine our forces, progressives and liberals will drown in the coming corporate GOP takeover of democracy.

In the Pennsylvania coal strikes of 1902, miners wanted to cut their work week from 7 to 6 days and cut their work day from 10-12 hours a day to 9 hours a day and raise wages.

George Baer, president of Reading Railroad, spoke for the owners in what became known as the "divine right" letter when he wrote: "... the rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for - not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men to whom God in His infinite wisdom has given the control of the property interests of the country."

When the letter became public, support shifted to the miners as the public saw what was headed their way. An informed citizenry is the greatest fear of every corporate driven government.

It took progressives years and years to bring change and enlightenment to workers and politicians alike. People like Ida Tarbell, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Sinclair Lewis, W.E.B. DuBois and so many others all fought and organized and published their cause and the cause of the everyman and the poor and the sick. And it worked; not always in big events, but in small continuous determined steps.

To quote Edward R. Murrow: "We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late."

An ink drop on porous paper slowly seeps across the sheet. Add another and then another, until at last they bleed together to forge their own image and shape.

"Difficulty is the excuse history never accepts." - Edward R. Murrow

-PEACE-

Progressives need to unite, now!

Another Blow to Reproductive Freedom

There is an interesting phenomenon happening in this country. Conservative politicians are against government regulation. They want to limit the reach of government in order to have a free market system and allow for individual liberty.

On the issues of gun control, religion, taxes, the economy, the environment and health care, the conservatives are against most forms of governmental interference or regulation. They don't believe in laws limiting an individual's right to bear arms. They don't think there is a need to separate church and state. They want no taxes or they want lower taxes. They don't agree with the regulation of banks or businesses. They are against government assistance in health care.

How does the conservative position jive with the abortion issue?

Just this week, the Oklahoma Senate passed five new abortion bills which will extremely limit a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion and and create "some of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country."

One of the bills would force a woman to get an ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion and be shown the image and given a detailed explanation of it, even if she wishes otherwise. A vaginal probe would be used if it would provide a clearer image of the fetus, which no other state requires; three others do require ultrasounds, but none force the woman to listen to an explanation of it.

State Sen. Anthony Sykes (R-Moore), the bill's sponsor, said the measure was designed to provide women with additional information before having an abortion.

Other pieces of legislation also require clinics that perform abortions to post signs stating it's "against the law for anyone ... to force you to have an abortion," forbid state exchange program insurance from covering abortions and prevent wrongful life and wrongful birth lawsuits.

One last bill would require the woman to first answer a lengthy questionnaire and provide information such as her age, marital status, race, education and reason for seeking an abortion. The doctor would then report this information - without the patient's name attached, however - which would be compiled and put on a state web site and accessible only by certain government personnel.

The bill's sponsor has said this would provide valuable information on who seeks abortions and why, in addition to helping create programs aimed at preventing abortions. Opponents of the bill, however, argue that this represents an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy council for the Center of Reproductive Rights (CRR), says she does not consider it "appropriate to use medical appointments and doctor-patient relationship to do fact-finding research gathering project at the expense of patient privacy."

A letter to Gov. Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma) issued by the CRR arguing unconstitutionality of the bill stated, "nothing in the Constitution or the case law allows states to require women to justify their constitutionally protected decision to terminate a pregnancy."

In all fairness, these bills passed with bipartisan support, "all five bills passed with large majorities, three of which passed 35-11."

This issue of governmental reach isn't between Republicans and Democrats. The issue is between conservatives and liberals. The Democrats who voted for these bills are conservative in their views.

So why is it that conservatives see a need to regulate everyone else's sexuality? They don't want to be told what to do but they want to dictate what others should do or not do in the privacy of their bedroom.

The liberal position is that government regulation is needed to preserve equality in health care, human rights and civil liberties. Liberals do have a point!

Conservatives Just Can't Decide

All this talk of BIPARTISANSHIP. Does anyone think it will work? The Republicans have been saying that the Democrats won't listen or work with them. The President held a health care summit to try to reach a compromise. Here are some opinions on this issue.

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly

[A] Politico piece suggests Obama hasn't been willing to entertain GOP-friendly concessions on medical malpractice and insurance sales across state lines.

We already know this claim isn't true. Not only is the inter-state competition provision already a part of the Democratic plan, but President Obama very specifically said he's open to compromise on malpractice if Republicans would be willing to give on something else. They refused.

I've lost track of how many concessions Democrats have made to move this legislation to the middle. At this point, not only are the public option and Medicare buy-in gone, and single payer taken off the table before the discussion even began, but the legislation is loaded with Republican ideas. The package is so moderate, far-right Republicans, by their own admission, agree with 80% of it, and the legislation is almost identical to what moderate Republicans were offering 17 years ago.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation

First this is the sound of one hand clapping. Last I looked, it took two--as in bi--parties to do something bipartisan. Well, Republicans aren't playing. The sentiment at the Tea Party and CPAC conventions on the right was more akin to a lynch mob than a negotiating team. And the right's commissars--led by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin-- are intent on purging any Republican legislators who dare stray from the gospel, much less traffic with the other side.

That sentiment is echoed by the Republican congressional leadership, now scrambling to prove their zealotry. Republican legislators championed the idea of a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction--until Barack Obama endorsed it. Then even co-sponsors of the measure joined in torpedoing it in the Senate. House Republican leader John Boehner's initial precondition for attending the bipartisan summit on health care was that the president "scrap" the legislation that has passed the House and the Senate and "start over." His compromise was to agree to come to the summit to expose the Democratic plan and demand that they agree to start over. This is like the Iranians telling the US they are willing to negotiate about nukes with no preconditions, if the US agrees first to scrap its nuclear arsenal.

The intransigence isn't accidental. Republicans bet heavily that Obama's failure would be to their benefit. They've honed obstruction into a political art. And they are winning. A year ago they were lost in the wilderness, now they believe they are on the march.

What to do?

Unless American voters start to punish them for their obstruction, they aren't about to change.

Millions of Americans want action. They want jobs created and the banks curbed. They want leaders who are on their side, and not catering to corporate interests. The President can posture all he wants about bipartisanship. He and the Democrats have to remember one thing: they need to produce--and voters will hold them responsible if they fail.

The best hope for the country and for Democrats is to give Americans a clear choice. Push for a bold jobs bill--let Republicans oppose it, and force them to filibuster against it. And then take the argument to the American people. Push for taxing the bankers and breaking up the big banks and protecting consumers--let Republicans oppose it, force them to filibuster it, and take that to the American people. And stop talking about health care and pass the damn bill. Pass the Senate bill in the House and push the fix through the Senate on reconciliation.

Cut Government Spending/Not

Republicans, the Tea Party and conservative talking heads all agree that government spending needs to be cut. But when asked what they thought should be cut from the budget, they certainly didn't want to cut Social Security.

A recent Salon piece points out that despite opposition to government spending in general, conservatives do not advocate reductions in government spending on particular programs.

About 49% of conservatives want to cut or eliminate foreign aid; 35% want to cut or eliminate welfare. The other programs, however, are again quite popular. The average percentage of conservatives who want to increase spending is unchanged: about 54%.

The broader point does not change: for most programs, the percentage of conservatives who want to cut spending is small. In fact, it's striking that even foreign aid and welfare attract as much support as they do, especially given the long history of conservative opposition to these programs.

When Rhetoric Becomes Violent

Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes discuss the violent rhetoric being used by the right wing and the Republican Party's willingness to give that anger a wink and a nod rather than standing up to it.

The conversation revolved around the comments of Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week. Pawlenty compared "big government" Democrats to the conflict between Tiger Woods and his wife Elin.

Conservatives could learn a lot from Tiger Woods' wife Elin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said at the Conservative Political Action Conference today. "She said, I've had enough," Pawlenty said. "We should take a page out of her playbook and take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government."

Pawlenty's reference to physical conflict wasn't a metaphor or an accident. Because it was a theme of his speech.

Pawlenty said conservatives also have a message for liberals: "If you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back."

Pawlenty brought the crowd to their feet warning Democrats that Republicans were "planting the flag on constitutional ground" and that if they try to take away their freedoms "we will fight back."

When Pawlenty was asked by "Meet The Press" host David Gregory whether he expected to be taken seriously when using Tiger's Woods' marital problems as a rallying cry. Pawlenty's response was, "People still enjoy a sense of humor."

David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars cautioned against this "sense of humor" and offered an interesting observation.

But did anyone else notice that this was a particularly violent metaphor, one suggestive of people breaking out windows? It inspires images straight out of Kristallnacht.

When the fringe elements of the right-wing are embraced by more moderate Republican conservatives, the poem of Paster Martin Niemoller comes to mind. There are several versions of this poem, but the message is the same.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

What is the message Pawlenty is trying to convey? We must not forget the lessons of history when we are looking at current events. Pawlenty's comments are filled with noxious reminders of what should never be acceptable from a politician.

The message for all Americans is that we must immediately speak out and stand against this rally cry of violence.

Where does the Tea-Party End and The Republican Party Begin?

After the November, 2009 anti-health care reform rally in Washington there was some indication that the Tea Bag Party and the Republican Party had become increasingly one and the same.

You have to hand it to Michele Bachmann: She has succeeded in turning the GOP into one big Tea Party.

This past weekend, the Minnesota Republican went on Fox News and called on viewers to show up on the Capitol lawn on Thursday at noon for a press conference and a last ditch attempt to kill health care reform. The gathering that resulted was marked by the now-routine extremism of the Tea Party conservatives. "I'm a bitter gun owner who votes," read one sign. Others questioned President Obama’s citizenship, portrayed him as Sambo, or called him a traitor. One said, "Obama takes his orders from the Rothschilds." Old ladies wore red T-shirts decrying "Obamao care." The crowd also took spirited swipes at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. At one point someone yelled, "Put down your Botox and show yourself."

But what was most noteworthy was that the entire House Republican leadership was also in attendance—and their rhetoric was just as over-the-top as some of the protesters. House Minority Leader John Boehner declared the health care bill the "greatest threat to freedom I have seen." In essence, Congressional Republicans were merging with a movement that gives open expression to racist and anti-Semitic sentiments.

Is the radical fringe absorbing the GOP? Or is the Republican Party morphing into the Tea Party movement? The answer might be as close as the 2012 elections.

But one thing about the rally proved sparklingly clear: Michele Bachmann is a major star. When she stepped up to the podium on the Capitol steps, the crowd went wild. It wasn’t too hard to imagine the event as a warm up for the 2012 presidential election, where Bachmann might prove a far more viable candidate than Sarah Palin. The rally confirmed her primacy as a leading voice of the Republican Party—a party that, with this protest, has fully embraced the conservative movement's most extreme elements.

What is interesting is that the 'tea bag rebellion' heavily supported by Americans for Prosperity, a group created by the owners of Koch Industries. The significance of a huge oil and gas conglomerate busing in participants is highlighted in a recent article by Jim Hightower, "Two multibillionaire brothers are remaking America for their own benefit."

Consider the boisterous "tea bag" rebellion. No one professes more hatred for the two-party, business-as-usual political system in Washington than those angry Americans who're caught up in the tea-bag rallies. Yet unbeknownst to most of the mad-as-hellers who have showed up, it was AFP's Republican-tied lobbyists and political functionaries who cynically financed, organized, and orchestrated the very first tea-bag protest. AFP has steadily coopted the tea-bag faction to make it a front for the corporate agenda, and many of the tea-bag groups have devolved into subsidiaries of the Republican party. Indeed, AFP has become the Astroturf-To-Go Store, fabricating and spreading fake grassroots organizations all across the country. It was especially busy during the 2008 presidential campaign and in the first year of Obama's presidency.

The bottom line is that this mass hysteria is being driven by huge corporate interests. The contributing factor to this metamorphosis is a firestorm of right-wing paranoia.

Leonard Zeskind, author of Blood and Politics, a history of the white nationalist movement, says that the Tea Partiers' conspiracy theories aren't new. Similarly hysterical warnings of government overreach were rife during the Clinton or Carter administrations. "In the militia days in the 1990s it was about a UN invasion. It's exactly the same phenomenon. Some of the same people are involved," he says.

But these extreme conspiracy theories aren't just confined to the radical fringe. They're being adopted by national politicians, as Rep. Rogers proved with his attempt to roll back Obama's Interpol order. Back in the 1990s, says Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University San Bernardino, "The black helicopter stuff was pretty well segregated from the mainstream world. But now you have Sarah Palin entertaining the Obama [born in] Kenya thing or [Gov.] Rick Perry from Texas toying with the secession idea."

The fringe it seems is controlled, financed and supported by a corporate agenda of the Republican Party. Really, who can tell them apart?

Conservatism, Government Failure and the Democrats

"What conservatism in this country is about is government failure. Conservatives talk about government failure all the time, constantly. And conservatives, when they're in power deliver government failure."

Thomas Frank from interview with Bill Moyer

Bill Moyer asks Thomas Frank: How is it that the people who are responsible for the mess that Obama inherited are getting away with demonizing him when he's only had less than a year to clean it up. Let me show you just a sample of commentators railing against the President.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: President Obama and the Democrats are destroying the US economy. They are purposefully doing it, I believe.

GLENN BECK: This is a well-thought out plan to collapse the economy as we know it.

JONATHAN HOENIG: The president has, I think if you listen to what he says, a hatred for capitalism. Where do jobs come from? They don't come from the government, they come from the profit seeking self-interest, from what I hear and see, the President never misses an opportunity to smear and [no audio] slap!

RUSH LIMBAUGH: This guy is a coward. He does not have the gonads or the spine to even stand up and accept what he's doing! All of this is his doing. He cannot even probably say, you should like this -- you may not like this, but I'm telling you it's the best thing for you, it's the best thing for me. No! He knows it's a disaster, he has to slough this off, on his previous-- or his predecessor, the previous administration.

SEAN HANNITY: It's his stimulus. It's his record deficit spending. He quadrupled the debt in a year. You know, how many more are the Democrats going to say, "Well, it's George Bush's fault"? This is Obama's economy now.[...]

THOMAS FRANK: Well, that's the disease of our time. You know, that sort of instant forgetting.

BILL MOYERS: But what does it do to our politics when the very spokesmen for what some people have called a decade of conservative failure. I mean, remember before Obama, they turned a budget surplus into a deficit. They took us to war on fraudulent pretenses. They borrowed money to fight it. They presided over a stalemate in Afghanistan. They trashed the Constitution. They presided over the weakest economy in decades--[...]

THOMAS FRANK: Think of all the crises and the disasters that you've described. And I would add to them things like the, what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And the Madoff scandal on Wall Street. And, you know, on and on and on. The Jack Abramoff scandal. The whole sordid career of Tom DeLay.

All of these things that we remember from the last decade. I mean, some of them that we're forgetting. Like who remembers all the scandals over earmarking, anymore? And who remembers all the scandals over Iraq reconstruction? All that, you know, disastrous, when we would hand it off to a private contractor to rebuild Iraq. And it would, you know, of course, it would fail.

Those things have all sort of been dwarfed by the economic disaster and the wreckage on Wall Street. But I would say to you that all of these things that we're describing here are of a piece. And that they all flow from the same ideas. And those ideas are the sort of conservative attitude towards government. And conservative attitudes towards governance. Okay?

Inferior government is by design.

THOMAS FRANK: Yeah. Well, or you know, do away with it altogether, de-fund it. Look, the beginning in the 1980s, President Reagan came to office and came to power, and you remember the kind of rhetoric that he used to use in denouncing the Federal workforce. He hated the Federal workforce. And this is an article of faith among conservatives.

There's something called the pay gap that they used to talk about a lot in Washington, D.C. Which is, back in the '50s, '60s, and up into the 1970s, Federal workers were paid a comparable amount to what people in the private sector earned. Okay? So, if you're a lawyer working for the government, you got about as much as a lawyer working in the private sector.

Not as much, because government benefits are considered to be much better. Okay. Under Reagan, you had this huge gap open up between Federal workers and the private sector. I asked around. And I found out a government attorney makes $140,000 a year on retirement. After he's been there all his life. In the private sector law firm in Washington, you'd be making $160,000 starting salary. That's first year. Right out of law school.

BILL MOYERS: So what's the consequence of this pay gap you described? Or, do we get inferior government because of it?

THOMAS FRANK: Absolutely. It keeps the best and the brightest out of government service, unless you're really dedicated to a cause.

But let me go one step further with this, Bill. When I say this is done by design, I'm not exaggerating. And this is one of the more surprising things that I found when I was doing the research for "The Wrecking Crew," is that there's a whole conservative literature on why you want second-rate people in government, or third-rate.

I found an interview with the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1928, where he said-- this quote, it's mind-boggling to me. But he really said this. "The best public servant is the worst one." Okay? You want bad people in government. You want to deliberately staff government with second-rate people. Because if you have good people in government, government will work. And then the public will learn to trust government. And then they'll hand over more power to it.

And you don't want that, of course. Your Chamber of Commerce. And I thought, when I first read this, "That's a crazy idea. I can't believe that sentiment." And then I found it repeated again and again and again. Throughout the long history of the conservative movement. This is something they believe very deeply.

Part of the problem is what the Democrats don't do!

BILL MOYERS: Why? So, part of the problem with America is the Democratic Party?

THOMAS FRANK: A huge part of the problem, because look, the conservatives have for decades now made their-- the whole point of their party is to attack government, attack the state, encourage cynicism about government. And then wreck it when they're in charge, right?

Democrats never defend the state. They never come out and say, "No, no. It's important to have, you know, government. It's important to have a Department of Labor. These are, you know, having government actually-- a good government increases your freedom. It doesn't ruin it." They never fight back consistently.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

THOMAS FRANK: I think they're-- some of them do. You've got members of Congress here and there that do. But by and large, the prominent leading Democrats in our society don't do that. Why is that? Because I think that would get them in trouble with their funders. I mean, the power of money is huge in the political system. You know, despite all the efforts that have been made over the years to get money out of politics. It's still immensely powerful.

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid...

...of Republican, GOP'n, Conservatism, Right-Wing'n, Bull Crap'n & Outright Lyin'!!!

This takes the cake from Think Progress:

Few Republican congressional members have served as a greater fount for hyperbolic and uninformed ranting about health care reform as has Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC). As ThinkProgress previously documented, Foxx has claimed Democratic reforms would mean...

seniors are “put to death by their government,” that

health reform is a “distraction,” and that

“there are no Americans who don’t have health care.”

She was at it again today on the House floor, arguing that health reform is a greater threat to our country than “any terrorist right now in any country”:

Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

Watch it:

I really believe these fear mongers and false information peddlers should look at themselves in the mirror and see it is their ignorance and fear hysteria that is doing more harm than good to this country. They are right to be afraid...of their own shadow!

Rebranding or Purging?

Steve Benin at the Washington Monthly has posted an article about "The Great Purge."

In a district represented by a Republican lawmaker in every election since the Civil War, the national Republican Party not only endorsed the consensus choice of local GOP leaders in the special election in New York's 23rd, they also invested $1 million last month. Yesterday, on the verge of an embarrassing third-place defeat, she quit.

The right-wing inmates have decided it's their asylum now, and they're just getting started. [...]

Scozzafava was a respected local Republican, with a record slightly to the right of most GOP state lawmakers in New York, but she was deemed insufficiently conservative. Sen. Arlen Specter was a Republican senator for nearly three decades, but he was deemed insufficiently conservative. Gov. Charlie Crist is supposed to be a rising GOP star from the nation's largest swing state, but his future is in doubt because he's been deemed insufficiently conservative. Eight House Republicans supported energy reform in July, and the base has targeted them for retribution. Newt Gingrich, for reasons I've never understood, is considered one of the GOP's great idea men. But the Tea Party/wingnut crowd has turned on him, too.

When Newt Gingrich is too moderate, and trying to pull the Republican Party closer to the American mainstream, it's safe to say there's something deeply wrong.

Is this now a Republican Party in which "right-wing nihilists are deliberately driving moderates from the party ranks?"

Lack of Class of the Conservative in NY-23 Race

The Daily Kos has the lowdown on the NY-23 race.

For all intents and purposes, the special election to replace Republican Congressman John McHugh should have been over the second GOP nominee DeDe Scozzafava decided to fall on her sword and drop out of the election.

With the battle between Democrat Bill Owens and third-party insurgent candidate Doug Hoffman within the margin of error, Hoffman should have picked off the bulk of the Republican vote from Scozzafava's remaining core group of supporters, and that should have been the ball game.

Few people suspected that in an historically Republican district, Owens could survive without split opposition.

But, then, by virtue of his own gracelessness, Doug Hoffman complicated matters...for himself.

Just appreciate the distinction between the candidate statements that emanated from Scozzafava's stunning decision to suspend her campaign.

First, the statement by Democrat Bill Owens, which offered a very conciliatory tone:

"Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has been an honorable public servant for years now and I have a tremendous amount of respect for her and her commitment to her principles. While we disagree on certain issues, we share a dedication to serving the best interests of Upstate New York and the Obama administration's efforts to get our economy back on track. Those interests will always be my highest priority."

Contrast that statement with this sneering, almost taunting, statement from Doug Hoffman:

"This morning's events prove what we have said for the last week; this campaign is a horserace between me and Nancy Pelosi's handpicked candidate, Bill Owens. At this moment, the Democratic Party, the Working Families Party, ACORN, Big Labor and pro-abortion groups are flooding the district with troops and they are flooding the airwaves with a million dollars worth of negative ads. They are throwing mud; they are trying to stop me."

To give a succinct recap: Owens praised Scozzafava and promised to work for upstate New York. Hoffman cackled a quick "I told you so" before returning on the attack.

That might explain why a large number of Scozzafava supporters, from the head of the state's Independence Party to several voices within organized labor, immediately turned to the Democrat Owens rather than her fellow Republican, Hoffman. This morning, one of the more prominent newspapers in the district, The Watertown Daily Times, followed suit, switching its endorsement from Scozzafava to Owens.

And then, in the second shocker from her in as many days, the Republican nominee endorsed the Democratic nominee:

Since announcing the suspension of my campaign, I have thought long and hard about what is best for the people of this District, and how to answer your questions. This is not a decision that I have made lightly.

You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it’s about the people of this District.

It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.

Now, this is not to say that Scozzafava, a social moderate, would have sent an endorsement letter for right-wing ideologue Doug Hoffman if only he had been nicer to her. But her initial statement on Saturday seemed to make a very neutral statement. That neutrality had disappeared just 24 hours later. It is hard not to conclude that Owens' graciousness, and Hoffman's arrogance, might have pushed Scozzafava off of the fence.

In the final analysis, it might not matter, of course. Owens is still fighting upstream in a GOP district against what is now for all intents and purposes a single GOP opponent. But Hoffman's own lack of class might have made this a lot of harder on him than it could have been.

If the Cconservative Doug Hoffman wins, the radical right will claim it as a victory. If Democrat Bill Owens wins, the Republicans will claim foul. This is getting interesting!

The Plan To Save The GOP

From Mark Fiore: WATCH

Conservativist
Republican
American
Party

What Should Be Regulated?

Republicans and the right-wing media are framing Barack Obama as being a "socialist." They complain that there is too much government regulation. They want government to get out of our lives and not control what we do. Unless of course they are refering to what we do in our bedrooms.

Daily Kos has an interesting article, How Freedom Was Lost, about the need for government regulation because unregulated business does not self regulate.

In recent days there seems to be a trend, especially among those nodding along to Fox News, to look on every government worker as a leach on society. Is there any term said with more innate disdain than government bureaucrat? When George W. Bush first ran for congress, he campaigned for the elimination of two government agencies -- OSHA and the EPA. It's a position that would draw many cheers from those pulling for Rick Perry's rebellion today.

If there is one critical difference between the conservative and progressive view of the nation it is this: Conservatives believe that America became a vibrant, wealthy nation in spite of the government's burden on business. Progressives believe that the United States prospered because of a national effort to reign in the worst of corporate excess.

Over a century, we became a country with safety rules, with environmental regulations, with protection for the elderly. Over that same century our economy and individual wealth outstripped both our historical bests and the record of the rest of the world. Progressives see that as victory. Conservatives call it coincidence.

It's tempting to run the experiment of giving conservatives what they want. A nation without environmental rules, without workplace safety rules, without any social safety nets. Free them from the reign of bureaucrats and petty regulations. Let them live in that place where the medicine you give your baby to ease her teething pains can be made with antifreeze. Let them work in a mine where there is no regulation and thousands die each year. Let them wonder if their next bite of food will put them among the 1.8 million who die horribly each year from severe food-borne cases of diarrhea. Let them drive a car that will fall apart in the slightest collision. Let them breath free air, untainted by government interference -- air you can really sink your teeth into.

Fortunately, we don't have to run that experiment -- because we already did it. That's how we got where we are today. All those areas of our lives became regulated, because left unregulated people overreached to unsafe, and frequently hideous degrees. There would be no Clean Air Act if companies had controlled pollution on their own. There'd be no need to regulate banks, had they not demonstrate time and again that without supervisions they'll chase short term profit into a pit -- and drag the rest of us after them.

America isn't the only example of this experiment. This is an study that's been made hundreds of time in hundreds of nations, and the absolute freedom of the marketplace always runs counter to the good of ordinary citizens. Always. Those places in the world with the fewest restrictions on business are not the places anyone would really want to live. They're not even good places to do business if your task is more complex than ripping resources out of the ground and shipping them to some place that's safer. Business and government must reach a compromise if either is to be effective.

Conservative Reaction to Specter News