About Newt

This is the thing about Newt Gingrich. He always sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and he can be so convincing -- until you stop and analyze his clever distortions.

This is about Obama's decision no longer to defend DOMA in the courts. Newt raises the counter argument: suppose it was a President Palin who had decided that Roe v Wade was unconstitutional and ordered her AG no longer "to protect anyone's right to an abortion."

That prospect, even with my suspicions and dislike of Newt, almost had me for a moment.

But wait. This isn't parallel at all, on at least two counts:

1. Respected legal scholars are not going to agree that Roe is unconstitutional, whereas they have advised Obama that DOMA is unconstitutional.

2. Obama only ordered the AG not to defend the law in court -- but to still enforce it until it is overturned.

The fact is that Obama is upholding the law; he's just not defending it's constitutionality when challenged in court. But Newt glibly presents it as parallel, even hinting that impeachment might become necessary if the president persists in violating his oath of office to faithfully uphold the laws. Dollars to donuts: 90% of people won't stop to think that Newt is comparing apples and oranges.

I repeat: this guy is dangerous because he is so slippery and can sound so convincing.

Ralph

The real story behind Wisconsin

Always -- there's more than meets the eye.

It had become clear that Wisconsin's governor Walker did not want a budget settlement with the public employees union, which had already signaled a willingness to accept cuts in pay and benefits. What the governor was really after was an "excuse" to kill their collective bargaining rights.

Now, Howard Fineman, writing in HP, explains there's yet an even deeper motive.

The real political math in Wisconsin isn't about the state budget or the collective-bargaining rights of public employees there. It is about which party controls governorships and, with them, the balance of power on the ground in the 2012 elections. . . .

Gov. Scott Walker . . . is the advance guard of a new GOP push to dismantle public-sector unions as an electoral force.

GOP operatives had expected to take as many as 20 governorships away from Democrats in the November elections. They took only 12. And they believe it was the power and money of public-employee unions that kept the Dems in power.

"We are never going to win most of these states until we can do something about those unions," one key operative said at a Washington dinner in November.

And under the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, unions -- like corporations -- are free to spend as much as they want directly advocating for a candidate. That makes the math even more urgent as the 2012 election season approaches.

So, underneath all the drama, it's just plain old political war.

Like most wars, however, there are civilian casualties. In this case, they're trying to demonize the generic "public employees."

But many of these "public employees" are teachers, nurses, firefighters, police and paramedics. Demonizing them isn't working too well with the public.

They may win this battle -- and lose the war.

Ralph

Why is he surprised?'

Rep. Paul Broun (D-GA) was holding a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County. The first questioner asked, "Who is going to shoot Obama?" which reportedly drew a big laugh from the audience, including an apparent chuckle from Braun as well.

Broun's response, as reported in the Athens Banner-Herald?

"The thing is, I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare."

Broun later released a statement, saying:

Tuesday night at a town hall meeting in Oglethorpe County, Georgia an elderly man asked the abhorrent question, "Who's going to shoot Obama?" I was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question. After the event, my office took action with the appropriate authorities. I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements--made in sincerity or jest--that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.

OK. The prepared statement is a good response -- just way too late. It came only after it had reached the internet and was becoming viral. Watch for it on Jon Stewart or "The Colbert Report."

Comments from the paper's web site by Mark Farmer, a resident of Braun's district:

I was there last evening. . . . Nearly everyone in the room, including U.S. Congressman Broun, laughed.

Since when is a threat against the life of the President, even one made to score political points, a laughing matter? . . . Instead of chastising the man and taking the opportunity to point how we should behave as citizens, Paul Broun laughed and moved on to the next question. Never was I more ashamed of our representative to the U.S. Congress. . . .

"Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, ..."

INAPPROPRIATE? It is a federal crime! . . . I would have thought that a United States Congressman would have known this and done a little bit more than "move on."

Another commenter pointed out that even John McCain corrected a woman on the spot at a 2008 rally when she referred to Obama as a Muslim.

A Secret Service spokesman says that the agency was aware of the Braun rally incident, had taken appropriate steps in interviewing the man, who now regrets having made a bad joke; and they consider the incident closed. OK. I don't for a minute think that this 71 year old man was actually advocating assassinating the president.

But where is Braun coming from?

Has Tucson faded from his memory so fast?

Gabrielle Giffords and Paul Braun are colleagues in the House of Representatives. True, they sit on opposite sides of the chamber, but wouldn't you think there would be some solidarity when it comes to political figures getting shot? Or does all decency go out the window when it's the right-wing's hatred of Obama?

I think this is indicative of Braun's political and moral sensibilities, to say nothing of the astonishingly anti-scientific stances of this Congressman, who was a practicing physician before he was elected to Congress. I will detail more of his positions and past statements in a subsequent post.

Ralph

Eric Cantor should study history

The #2 Republican in the House, Eric Cantor, is either ignorant of historical fact or else he is only 15 years old

In answer to a question following his talk at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Cantor said he was "taken aback" by Obama's ordering the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama based his decision on legal opinions that a crucial part of the law is unconstitutional. As reported in Huffington Post:

The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books.

So if "being around" means "being alive," then he can be only 15. Otherwise, he is ignorant of some recent presidential history of precedents -- easily available on the New York Law School web site from last October: http://www.lasisblog.com.

In 1996, a federal court struck down as unconstitutional part of a law that barred HIV positive men and women from serving in the armed forces. Bill Clinton then refused to allow the decision to be appealed by the Justice Department.

And even a recent Republican president, George H. W. Bush, in 1992 refused to defend the Cable Television Act after Congress overrode his veto.

Here's the dilemma in damage control for Cantor. Is it better to admit that the House Majority Leader is this ignorant of recent history that directly affects Congress and its laws? Or to confess to being a teenager?

Let's see how they spin this one.

Ralph

GOP budget plan panned even by Wall Street

Yes, we Democrats, liberals, progressives, and thinking moderates all agree that the GOP budget strategy of sharp cuts in federal spending is simply nuts.

Timothy Geithner has said it will cost jobs.

Now, an economist from Goldman Sachs has warned that the $60 billion in spending cuts, which just passed the House by 235-189, could reduce economic growth by as much as 2% -- which would reduce the growth projected by the White House to about 0.7% instead of 2.7%. Other growth predictions are higher; but, even according to highest projections, it could reduce growth by about half.

Not to mention that most economists (short of the Milton Friedman-inspired brand) say that, in the face of high unemployment, we should concentrate on creating jobs and let the deficit wait for later.

So now, even Goldman Sachs is opposing the Republican budget proposal? Wow !!

Will it matter? Probably not. Because it's not expert economic advice, nor even common sense, that will prevail. It's the fired-up, Tea Party-backed, Obama-hating, Limbaugh/Beck-loving Republicans who have the majority in the House.

They are on a mission; and what little is left of the Republicans who can think of more than one thing at a time -- i.e., two conflicting problems, like joblessness and budget deficit -- have caved in to them.

What a mess.

Ralph

U-Turn

The man I refer to as Sen. McNothing (R-AZ) has completed his complete U-Turn.

His "maverick" days are long gone; so, too, the time when he could be counted as one of the few Republican votes for "bipartisan" legislation.

The latest, conclusive evidence of the completeness of his U-Turn is in the National Journal's January ratings: McNothing ties for the title of "most conservative" senator.

So now the only thing left that he can do to make news is to head back in the other direction. A good place to start that journey would be to support repeal of DOMA. What a reversal that would be -- from his insane fight to keep DADT to co-sponsor of repeal of DOMA.

Let him have the distinction of Most Unpredictable Senator. He doesn't have much else these days.

Ralph

It's all about money

Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times a few days ago about the legislative stand-off in Wisconsin, clarifies the issue as not about the state budget, despite the governor's insisting he's only trying to be fiscally responsible. According to Krugman, it's really about getting rid of the collective bargaining power of unions. In fact, the union has already signaled it's willingness to accept it's share of monetary sacrifices in the face of the budget crisis.

But Governor Scott Walker doesn't want that settlement, because he's after the larger goal of union-busting, as are other conservative Republicans who have swept control of many state governments. And this will "make Wisconsin -- and eventually America -- less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world style oligarchy," Krugman suggests.

Krugman continues:

So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.

Are there enough thinking liberal, progressive, and even moderate voters to overcome the combined influence of money, ignorance, right-wing propaganda, and anti-government radicals? I don't know, but I often feel the we are losing the fight. Hell, it sometimes feels like we've given up the fight.

Ralph