When Lunatics Run the Asylum

There are, by any real measure, no moderates in the Republican Party. Not because there aren't any center-right members, but because there are no center-right actions. There are still a few willing to put nation before party, to value facts above ideology, but the fact is that the far right extremists who have taken over their party have made them irrelevant. There are no moderates in the Republican Party because moderation has been banned.

Buzzfeed:

According to Republicans, moderate members of the House GOP conference feel that Boehner, who has struggled with an often raucous and openly defiant right wing, has forced them to go along with conservative demands but has provided them little in return.

One Republican familiar with the dynamics within the GOP argued part of the difficulty for Boehner has been the fact that conservatives -- and not moderates -- have been the "squeaky wheel" within the conference, which has forced him to focus on them for much of the 112th Congress.

Rather than work with his entire conference Boehner has had to "prove to conservatives constantly that he's advocating for them and not screwing them behind their backs," the Republican said.

Boehner remains deeply popular within his conference, and despite the frustration of moderates he faces virtually no chance of an effort oust him as Speaker.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Since When are Guns Laws Not Political?

After the sinking of the Titanic, Congress immediately began forming committees to investigate the tragedy. And by immediately, I mean immediately -- committees were formed before survivors had even reached solid ground. In all, investigations lasted six weeks and eighty-two witnesses were interviewed. As far as I can find, no one complained about congress "politicizing" a tragedy. In fact, I'm sure of it because "politicize" is a made-up weasel word thrown around by spineless modern politicians who want avoid tough debates and hard discussions. It didn't exist back then. But literal-mindedness aside, no one protested that it was unseemly to allow a tremendous human tragedy to spur politicians to take a look at their outdated maritime laws. Why? Because it's a stupid argument, that's why. Ships needed more life boats right away, not later. If your reaction to needless death is to try to prevent further needless death, sitting around waiting for an imaginary "seemly" period of time to pass is idiotic.

A lot of people are thinking like the congress of the Titanic's day. With this post, I include myself in that group. A mass murder in an Aurora, Colorado theater requires action -- not a period of pointlessly sitting on our hands waiting for a politically-correct amount of time to pass. And the reason for immediate action is that the next mass killer is out there now and the next mass killing is around the corner.

The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik spells out the problem:

[N]o one -- really no one -- anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night -- as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Of Food Assistance and Rightwing Lunatics

I was going to write about the Supreme Court and "Obamacare," but I have to agree with Ezra Klein -- we don't know jack and we won't until the ruling comes down. "Wait and see" isn't a very satisfying bit of punditry, but it is responsible. So wait and see.

Instead of some crystal ball gazing, let's look at an issue that has the rightwing blogosphere up in arms; the fact that the government wants to make sure you get what you're entitled to.

CNN:

More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Mitt Romney, Candidate of Mystery

It's kind of ironic that the candidate whose primary opponents ran as his antithesis is running as the antithesis of his opponent. After facing down various Not-Romney candidates for his party's nomination, Mitt's running as the Not-Obama. And that's pretty much the gist of it. The seems to have no ideas and stands for nothing other than the idea that Barack Obama should not be the president.

This has been obvious for a while now, but the media is just starting to notice it.

Politico:

...Vague, general or downright evasive policy prescriptions on some of the most important issues facing the country are becoming the rule for Romney. Hoping to make the campaign strictly a referendum on the incumbent, the hyper-cautious challenger is open about his determination to not give any fodder to Obama aides hungry to make the race as much about Romney as the president.

Romney is remarkably candid, almost as though he’s reading the stage directions, about why he won’t offer up details: he thinks it will undermine his chances to win.

“The media kept saying to Chris, ‘Come on, give us the details, give us the details,’’’ Romney has said about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s 2009 gubernatorial race. ‘’We want to hang you with them.’”

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Obama and Immigration: Why the Right Thing to do Was Also the Smart Thing

President Obama's announcement that he will end deportation of undocumented people who came here as children was seen as a gamble. After all, it may get Latino voters more enthusiastic, but what about those who are freaked out about illegal immigration? The president was obviously throwing those votes away. For example, an analysis by the Associated Press:

There's not much President Barack Obama can do to boost the economy in the next five months, and that alone might cost him the November election. But on a range of social issues, Obama is bypassing Congress and aggressively using his executive powers to make it easier for gays to marry, women to obtain birth control, and, now, young illegal immigrants to avoid deportation.

It's a political gamble that might fire up conservatives, many of whom remain cool to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Democrats think it's more likely to inspire enthusiasm among groups that were crucial to Obama's 2008 victory — young voters, women and Hispanics.

There is, of course, a glaring flaw in this thinking. Conservatives are already fired up by nearly four years of rightwing BS from Fox News and talk radio. When 51% of Republican voters are birthers and believe that Obama's a Socialist, Communist, Muslim terrorist, and atheist at once, it's a pretty clear indication that they don't like the man very much. Conservatives have worked hard to keep the outrage meter pegged on the right, so anything Obama does comes without consequence on that front.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

George W. Bush, Mitt Romney's Running Mate

Recently, I titled a post, "We’ll stop blaming Bush when it stops being Bush’s fault." That is, when we finally get dug out from under the wreckage of mismanagement of the economy, whatever happens afterward will no longer be Bush's fault. The economic craphole we're in now? Bush's fault. Obama may not be fixing it faster enough for you, but he's not the guy who crashed it.

Americans agree.

Gallup:

Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September.

Gallup first asked this "blame assessment" question in July 2009, six months after Obama became president. At that point, 80% of Americans gave Bush a great deal or a moderate amount of blame, compared with 32% who ascribed the same level of blame for the bad economy to Obama. The percentage blaming Bush dropped to about 70% in August 2010, and has stayed roughly in that range since. Meanwhile, about half of Americans have blamed Obama since March 2010, with little substantive change from then to the present.

[...]

The relative amount of blame Americans give to Obama and to Bush has largely stabilized over the last two years. It remains to be seen whether Americans are open to further discussion of those issues in the months remaining before the Nov. 6 election, or whether their minds are made up.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Harming America for Political Gain

It's something that's completely obvious to any close observer of politics and now it's clear that it's pretty apparent to even casual observers -- Republicans are sabotaging America.

Talking Points Memo:

Nearly half of voters believe that Republicans are deliberately hamstringing efforts to resuscitate the economy in order to bolster their chances of defeating President Barack Obama, according to a new poll released Tuesday.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP), conducted in conjunction with Daily Kos and SEIU, shows that 49 percent of registered voters nationwide think Republicans are “intentionally stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy” to ensure Obama’s defeat in November. Half of all independents surveyed feel the same way.

And it's not just the DC subspecies of the Republican animal who's guilty of this; the state level variety is also playing along, attacking the problem of rising employment and consumer demand by laying off public workers by the truckload. At the federal level, Republicans block any attempt further stimulate the economy (because, contrary to their talking points, the stimulus worked). At the local level, they lay off workers, cut wages and benefits, and do whatever else they can to make sure demand remains weak and unemployment remains high. Then they all join together and complain about poor economic performance and high unemployment. They're making your life suck, so that they can enjoy political gain by complaining that life sucks. And for that, the most charitable assessment I can make of an average elected GOP official is that they're one sick individual. The least charitable is that, by actively working against the best interests of their nation and its people, they're damned close to committing treason. As always, one doesn't necessarily rule out the other.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Neutering Money in Politics

I know, I've already written about the "money had nothing to do with the Wisconsin recall results" argument. First, I pointed out why the media would be biased toward the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited money to be poured into elections; i.e., they stand to make a bazillion dollars selling advertising to Super PACs. Then later, I also pointed out the obvious -- that if spending ungodly amounts of money on candidates' election campaigns didn't make any difference, the marketing-savvy billionaires, corporations, and Wall Street firms wouldn't do it.

I think I've done a pretty good job of showing why the "money had nothing to do with it argument" doesn't even make sense and why people have a vested interest in pushing it. But I'll let Sen. Bernie Sanders, by way of John Nichols, explain what it means:

“There is,” the senator says, “an aggressiveness out there among the ruling class of this country, among the billionaires who are saying: ‘You know what? Ya, we got a whole lot now, but we want even more. And we don’t give a damn about the middle class. We don't care about working families. We want it all. And now we can buy it.’ ”

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Hey Mitt, Why's Your AZ Co-Chair Trying to Kick Obama Off the Ballot?

State level Republicans are crazier than outhouse rats. That's not even a matter of opinion, that's pretty much provable fact. Take, for instance, today's news from the Iowa GOP.

Radio Iowa:

The chairman of the Iowa Republican Party’s platform committee says the group is intentionally questioning President Obama’s citizenship with the wording in one section of the document. It calls for presidential candidates to “show proof of being a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.”

Don Racheter, chairman of the Iowa GOP’s 2012 platform committee, spoke with Radio Iowa by phone this afternoon.

“There are many Republicans who feel that Barack Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ because his father was not an American when he was born and, therefore, feel that according to the Constitution he’s not qualified to be president, should not have been allowed to be elected by the Electoral College or even nominated by the Democratic Party in 2008, so this is an election year. It’s a shot at him,” Racheter said.

You don't get much crazier than birtherism -- although I suppose you'd have to call this neo-birtherism. Of course, neo-birtherism is probably worse, since it means you accept that the original birther argument was horsecrap, but you're sticking with the broader premise anyway. It's practically an admission of playing politics with paranoia.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Failure of Ignorance-Only Sex Ed

I've always called "abstinence-only" sex ed "ignorance-only." After all, the idea is that if kids know about birth control, they'll inevitably go out and use it. In fact, the reasoning -- such as it is -- is that kids who know about birth control will be more likely to have sex. They think they're safe, so they'll engage in risky behavior. This is the same reason why giving a kid a bicycle helmet is a bad idea -- they'll immediately crash straight into a tree because they think they're safe. Because your kid is mentally helpless and stupid beyond all words.

That's the way it works, right? No matter how you raise your kids, they'll turn out dumber than a sack of hammers and irresponsible to boot. You simply can't tell kids the truth -- or, at least, the facts -- or they'll abuse it. 100% of the time. Never, ever trust your teen's maturity, their intelligence, their common sense. They are, in their raging hormonal hearts, the purest evil known to humanity.

Of course, this line of thinking often leads to disastrous consequences. Turns out that kids can figure out how to do this sex stuff without anyone telling them how. You'd think it was some sort of instinct or something, not a closely guarded secret revealed only to mature adults.

And if you try to keep it secret, disaster follows.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Weathering the Economy

The slow recovery gets a little slower.

The Hill:

The nation's economy added 115,00 jobs in April while the unemployment rate dropped one-tenth of a point to 8.1 percent.

The figures are lower than a month ago and were also below what many analysts had expected.

They will add to the sense that the labor market is cooling down after months of stronger growth, and come as unwelcome news for President Obama, who is formally launching his reelection campaign on Friday with rallies in Virginia and Ohio.

But is it actually slower -- or are we experiencing a correction after a period of unnaturally faster than normal growth? It turns out that we can probably blame the weather -- of all things -- for our current bumpy ride.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Logically Speaking, the War on Women Must Be a War Without End

I think I've narrowed down the reason for the War on Women -- this whole childbirth thing freaks conservatives right out. Watching the video above, I can't come up with a better explanation. In it, Republican consultant Alex Castellanos denies that women are paid less than men, despite the plain, indisputable fact that they are. As always, Republicans hate math and math hates them right back.

But Castellanos backs up his assertion with creative accounting -- women run off and do crazy things like have babies, so if you count that time off, the pay gap disappears. Therefore, women should take the hit for their frivolous hobby of, you know, perpetuating the human race. You don't see men running off and having babies. Because men are serious and grown up.

This is all about as silly as it gets and it demonstrates how weak the conservative arguments are in defense (and denial) of their War on Women. But consider this argument in relation to the other fronts in the war -- abortion and contraception. In Conservative World, women should be punished by law for avoiding childbirth and punished economically for engaging in it. Republicans are busy reinforcing a no-win situation for women, where both pregnancy at its avoidance have negative -- but in their minds, completely justified -- consequences. We've already established that women who use birth control are sluts. The less said about women who seek abortions the better. And women who get pregnant are bad workers. I guess the logical conclusion to all this is that women are just naturally bad people.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

A GOP Economic Myth Bites the Dust

It's one of the most enduring myths in American politics; that if you increase taxes for the wealthy (or, in the right's favorite BS term, "job creators"), the rate of employment will take a nosedive. Nothing about this makes any sense at all, but with a media environment that values a false "balance" above truthtelling, it's much easier to gloss over that fact. What the right is saying when they make this argument is that it would be too expensive to make profit -- a ridiculous claim that ignores simple math, not to mention logic.

So, in our current political and media environment, even obviously bogus claims need to be debunked. And two top economists -- Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark award winner Emmanuel Saez -- probably felt more than up to the task when they took it upon themselves to bust this rightwing myth. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Diamond and Saez set the record straight.

The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly. Given the large current and projected deficits, should the top 1% be taxed more? Because U.S. income concentration is now so high, the potential tax revenue at stake is large.

[...]

According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.

But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Does Anyone Know Who Mitt Romney Actually Is?

Mitt Romney is terribly concerned that President Obama is harboring secrets. And in speaking to the American Society of News Editors earlier this month, he told reporters to get off their butts and do their jobs.

Washington Times:

Mitt Romney urged the country’s news editors on Wednesday to delve more deeply into what he said were President Obama’s secret second-term plans, telling them they have a duty to “do the seeking” to expose what the White House has in store.

[...]

Mr. Romney also called on the press to take a closer look at what Mr. Obama has planned for a second term and said the exchange last week between Mr. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, caught by a hidden microphone, was telling.

Mr. Obama was heard, when he thought no open microphones were nearby, asking the Russian government not to pressure him before the election on missile defense, and he signaled he will have more “flexibility” to negotiate afterward, when he won’t need to vet those positions with voters.

“He does not want to share his real plans before the election, either with the public or with the press,” Mr. Romney told the editors. “By flexibility, he means that ‘what the American public doesn’t know won’t hurt him.’ He is intent on hiding. You and I will have to do the seeking.”

Of course, Obama was merely telling Medvedev what everyone in the world already knows -- that the power of the presidency is diminished during an election year. But Romney and the rest of the right are always on the lookout for something to be outraged over and an unexpected moment of candor would have to do.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Romney Not Acting Like a Winner

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall makes a pretty on-the-money observation; that Mitt Romney's walking into the general election looking a lot like he expects to lose.

As noted this morning, Wednesday April 11th is day one of the general election. But there are things I’m seeing that tell me that Mitt Romney is kicking off the campaign in a telling defensive posture. What I mean is that on various fronts, Romney is kicking off within Obama’s campaign narrative. He’s living in Obama’s world, playing on his turf.

Example one is the Romney campaign’s push that it’s Obama’s economic policies that are the real “war on women.”

The effort to point to an “Obama Rule” over and against the “Buffett Rule” looks the same to me.

Right now, Romney's not a man with any real ideas of his own. And this isn't actually anything new. He's laid down a policy proposal or two, but after they failed to catch fire, he seems to have abandoned them. With his poor polling numbers, Romney is in a reactionary position -- and by that I don't mean like the typical Republican knee jerk reactionary, I mean like a boxer losing a fight. Mitt's too busy deflecting blows to land a good one of his own. He can only react and hope for a chance to counter the better fighter. Last night I described Romney's strategy as "I know you are, but what am I?" Marshall seems to agree.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

News From the War on Women -- Still a Disaster for the GOP

It's as close to official as we're ever going to get; a second major poll shows the biggest losses in the Republican War on Women are being taken by Republicans themselves (here's the first). A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that in an Obama-Romney matchup, the President "has double-digit leads over the likely Republican presidential nominee on who would do a better job of protecting the middle class, addressing women’s issues, handling international affairs and dealing with health care."

Not surprisingly, Obama wins the "who would you rather have a beer with" question. Obama "has a better than 2-to-1 advantage as the more friendly and likable of the two, and nearly that margin as 'more inspiring.'" These are basically personality questions and Obama wins by being the only one who actually has one.

But the biggest blow to Romney's Oval Office dreams is dealt by women:

Romney faces a huge deficit among female voters, one that more than negates his advantage among men and represents one of the biggest challenges he and his advisers face as they turn toward the November election. Obama’s edge among women gives him a clear lead among all registered voters in a matchup with Romney.

Adding to the GOP's problem is that their gas price demagoguery isn't paying off. Of three possible culprits, President Obama is the one Americans are least likely to blame. "US Oil Companies" and "Other oil-producing countries" take the bigger hits.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

ALEC, Guns, Prisons, and the Lucrative Business of Fear

The Trayvon Martin case has brought a secretive group to national attention. "The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has traditionally been anonymous, working behind the scenes to advance a far-right agenda far from the public spotlight -- which was always the intended plan," writes Steve Benen. "Shadowy obscurity allowed ALEC to be more effective and made it easier for lawmakers to follow the group's lead without controversy."

ALEC is behind many bad ideas at the state level; ultrasound laws, attacks on Planned Parenthood funding, attacks on unions, the Republican War on Voting, and -- of course -- insanely liberal gun laws like "Stand Your Ground." The sum total of ALEC-inspired gun laws has turned states like Florida into wild west-style war zones, where one in every fifteen adults has a concealed carry permit. Needless to say, this doesn't make for the safe society that conservatives tell us it does. If you doubt that, consider how safe a gun saturated community kept Trayvon Martin.

But the purpose of all these gun laws isn't to keep anyone safe, no matter what you're told. The purpose is to create fear. Liberal gun laws are great PR for fearmongers. They pretend to decide to "finally get serious" about a problem you had no idea existed. And the reason you were ignorant of the problem is because it doesn't exist. As they do with voter ID laws and voter fraud, political hacks use a few isolated incidents to create the impression of a massive problem about to overrun the United States. First the argument is that the only way to protect yourself is to get a gun, then it's that liberals are too strict about how you use that gun. Finally, it reaches the absurd level of "Stand Your Ground," which -- when all is said and done -- allows you to shoot anyone you're afraid of.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Fox News Death Panel of Experts

Today I posted an image called "Fox News killed my mother." Because it did. It was the most widely circulated image I've ever posted. But, after about and hour I could no longer read any of the comments. Still can't. And some of you have messaged me to say you can't see it. So here it is again. This time, my explanation will be in the first comment instead of here. Basically my mother fell and refused to go to the doctor because she was afraid that "Obamacare" would get information about her and use it in their "death panels." Since then several of you shared identical experiences. This is how their fear mongering is killing our nation, one person at a time, one lie at a time.
-Tracy Knauss, Facebook

"FOX News is killing America one lie at a time, one life at a time. I know this personally," Knauss wrote in her comment. "FOX News killed my precious mother, Hallie. She watched FOX religiously. And when she fell ten days before she died, she refused to go to the doctor because, 'I don't want Obamacare to get all of my information!' she declared, recalling the warnings from FOX News 'anchors.' She was emphatic. She was not going to consort with the Muslim enemy. As she made out her will she told her lawyer, 'I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!' And her last protestation dealt with 'Obama's death panels.' Mother died just days later. I hold FOX News responsible for my mother's death."

It seems the real death panel here is the panel of "experts" (otherwise known as "PR flacks") on any given Fox News program. This is the danger that not only Fox News presents, but the entire rightwing "news" industry and the Republican Party: when you lie to people about healthcare, bad things happen. It's really no different than being a snake-oil salesman -- except, for some reason, you aren't held responsible for the damage you cause.

But I'd go further here. Yes, Fox is the worst of the mainstream media -- followed by talk radio on the second tier and the wingnut blogosphere at the lowest -- but the supposedly "unbiased" media sources share a lot of the blame as well.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Enthusiasm Continues to be Weak

I've already touched on the latest Pew poll briefly, but it really bears a closer look. In my original post, I used Pew to shoot down the "Obama's crashing poll numbers" narrative that's currently popular on the right. After all, it -- like most other recent polling -- shows the President's numbers rising, not falling. A grand total of two polls have shown Obama's approval dropping and his lead in the general election drying up. All polling since then shows the opposite -- Pew included.

But the Pew poll also shows a trend continuing and, perhaps, worsening -- Republican voters still don't like their choices. And the stark differences between the candidates (as much as Romney pretends to be as far to the right as Santorum) is actually exacerbating the problem. Behold the damage:

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

As voters look toward the fall election, Democrats express more enthusiasm for Obama than Republicans do for either of their party’s leading candidates. To be sure, however, this reflects the internal divisions within the party over who would be the best nominee, with each candidate receiving tepid support from those who would prefer to see the other candidate win.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP on Gas Prices: 'Quick! Look Over There!'

We've seen this movie before. Ahead of a big holiday that traditionally involves post-winter travel, gas prices begin to rise. They rise in the spring, ahead of Memorial Day and Easter. Then later, they'll raise again before the Fourth of July. We've been spared the worst of this lately, because of a poor economy. Gas prices need to respond to the economy and low demand means low prices. The price of a good or recovering economy is higher prices. It can't really be helped. And, of course, there's always the "genius of the free market" -- in the form of speculators -- artificially inflate the price of oil.

In our present circumstance, speculators are the biggest problem. Oil prices are actually falling -- and prices at the pump rise. If you ever needed any evidence that the price of gas is inflated, there you go.

Still, it's the president taking the beating here.

Washington Post:

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

CONTINUE TO POST>>