Newt Gingrich is a dangerous man

Sarah Palin is a phenomenon and a rabble rouser, but Newt Geingrich is a dangerous man.

Sarah Palin can say nutty things, and some people love it and whoop it up, and others who know she is full of baloney will just dismiss her as dumb or misinformed and not really take her seriously.

Gingrich, on the other hand, is obviously very smart; and he speaks with such confidence and so articulately that he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, even when he is distorting facts deliberately and shamelessly. Sarah stirs the emotions mindlessly; but for many, Gingrich both convinces the mind and stirs the emotions.

Jumping ahead of the right-wing parade of paranoia and fanning the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment in opposition to the building of a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, Gingrich said: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”

His message is that we are not taking seriously the threat of radical Islam, and he is doing what one commentator called "blustery, pugnacious nationalism." So Newt's solution is to model ourselves on the least democratic nation in the modern world -- and, further, they have to go first in demonstrating religious freedom?

Even conservative interviewer on FoxNews, Greta van Susteren, challenged his assertions and pointed out that both Mayor Blumberg and NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo are supporting the mosque building on the basis of democracy and religious freedom.

Here is Blumberg's response to Sarah Palin's opposition:

What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know the ability to practice your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to just say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it.

But Newt's presidential ambitions know no bounds.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday, Gingrich went further and rattled more sabers than even Dick Cheney ever did. Saying that we need to finish what President Bush started when he identified the Axis of Evil in 2002, here are his words, excerpted from an hour long speech:

I believe he was right but in fact could not operationalize what he said. That is, there was an Axis of Evil, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Well we’re one out of three. And people ought to think about that. If Bush was right in January of 2002 — and by the way virtually the entire Congress gave him a standing ovation when he said it — then why is it that the other two parts of the Axis of Evil are still visibly, cheerfully making nuclear weapons? And it’s because we’ve stood at the brink, looked over and thought, “Too big a problem.”

If Harry Truman had done that, the world today would be communist. If Franklin Roosevelt had done that in ‘41, either the Japanese or the Germans would have won.

Even George Bush and Dick Cheney never even hinted that they wanted us to attack Iran and North Korea -- maybe Iran, yes, but they backed off that. So his implication that Bush planned to take out all three of the evil ones, and that the Democrats have fallen down on the job, is just plain bull.

Newt didn't exactly advocate in so many words that we should fight four wars, but his rhetoric is carefully designed to stop just short of it, so that headline writers naturally supply the missing implied line. HuffPost did write: "Gingrich Calls on U.S. to Attack Iran and North Korea."

Writing about Gingrich’s recent "tirades" and "unhinged opposition" to building the mosque, the Wonk Room's Matt Druss noted that “Gingrich obviously wants to be president very badly. But he really needs to think hard about the sort of rhetorical tactics he’s embracing, and the sort of sentiments he’s cultivating, and the sort of company he’s joining in order to achieve that.”

Are there enough wise heads left in the Republican party with enough power to stave off both of these people? In a way, it might be a good thing for them to nominate the pair of them to run together, based on the idea that they would be so extreme that people would come to their senses and vote for Obama in 2012. But what of the absolutely awful possibility that they might win? All it would take would be a major terrorist attack in this country two weeks before the election. That's too big a chance to risk.

Ralph

That's telling 'em . . .

For all of us who want the Democrats to find the courage -- and the independence from their big money suppliers -- to call the Republicans on their shameless and shameful tactics, watch this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/anthony-weiner-911-bill-ballistic_n_664568.html

Headlined in the Huffington Post news page as "Anthony Weiner Goes Ballistic at GOP for Killing 9/11 Responders Bill."

Ralph

Hard to believe how much they hate Obama

The length to which the Obama-haters go to dream up bizarre ways to try to get rid of him is simply astonishing. You almost have to admire the ingenuity, while smiling at the nuttiness.

The latest: the Iowa Republican Party has adopted a platform plank for the "reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th amendment" of the Constitution."

The 13th amendment that was ratified and is part of the Constitution today simply abolishes slavery. Sounds OK.

But that's not what the "original 13th amendment" would have done. It was not just an "original wording" of the anti-slavery amendment. The original amendment was introduced in 1810 and was ratified by 12 of the 13 states at the time -- one more, and it would have been the 13th amendment and our law today. But since it didn't pass that crucial final state, the number 13 was applied to the next amendment that was ratified, which was the one abolishing slavery.

So what was in it that the Obama haters want to bring back? Here is the relevant part:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

And why this? Because, since Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize from a foreign government (the Norwegian Parliament), he would be stripped of his citizenship and could no longer serve as our president.

Of course this is the kind of nutty thing some zealots dream up. But the Iowa Republican Party adopting it as a plank in their platform -- that all their state candidates will run on?

That's what's astonishing.

Ralph

Republican support for Elizabeth Warren

Obama hasn't said whether he will or won't appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the consumer protection agency she designed and fought for. Geithner reportedly opposes her, although he has publicly praised her qualifications and said she is a candidate for the job.

There is a groundswell of support from progressives, liberals, and some conservatives. Today Charles Fried, former Solicitor General under Reagen, who also supported Roberts' and Alito's nominations to the Supreme Court -- so he's hardly a closet liberal -- not only supported her but advocated putting her in with a recess appointment. At least two other Republicans in congress have also voiced support.

Fried told the Boston Globe:

"Capitalism and markets depend on the morality, honesty, and good faith of those who participate in them. Markets function best and deliver prosperity when they are honest and the law enforces that honesty; dishonesty, fraud, and official corruption are the poisons that keep markets in many parts of the world from delivering the goods.

"That's where Elizabeth Warren comes in. Those who are lobbying hard against her nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection [Bureau] are the same people who lobbied against financial reform legislation and lost. They paint her as the enemy of capitalism and free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth: She is the enemy of dishonesty, abuse, and just plain theft."

All of this seems to cast in doubt Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd's statement last week that her appointment would be met with a unified GOP opposition that would shut down the confirmation hearings. He was most opposed to a recess appointment, reasoning that this should be used only in emergencies, where filling a position is urgently needed.

He then went on to explain his concerns about a lengthy confirmation battle, because it would delay getting the new agency up and running and would make it more vulnerable to Republicans' attempt to repeal or kill it.

Questions to Mr. Dodd: doesn't your second point meet your criterion for recess appointments? Isn't this a position that is urgently needed to be filled. Do you have your own reasons for not wanting someone as effective as Elizabeth Warren in the job? Have your financial contributors given you enough money to influence your thinking on this matter?

Here's my hope: by not rushing to make a recess appointment -- at least not announcing it prior to the actual recess -- Obama is allowing the support for her to become a public demand. That will make it easier for him then to sway enough senators to make the appointment in the regular way -- and thereby he will be doing the right thing and also be seen as standing up to the financial industry. It will also put Warren in a stronger position to do the job she is capable of doing. But, if their vote-counting at the beginning of the recess doesn't add up to enough to win a confirmation battle after the recess, then he should make a recess appointment.

Ralph

Gay adoption -- new evidence

A report about a new, very well-conducted scientific study of the comparative developmental outcomes of adopted children raised by two lesbian moms, two gay dads, and two male-female couples has just been published in the journal Applied Develomental Science.

There have been some good studies in the past that showed that children raised by same-sex parents were just as well-adjusted psychologically as those of heterosexual couples. In an attempt to counter this evidence, opponents of same-sex parenting have trumpeted scientifically invalid studies that they claim showed otherwise. They would, for example, compare children raised by single lesbian mothers with children raised in conventional families with a mother and a father; and they would ascribe any deficiencies in the single parent children to the mother's being lesbian. They would then pontificate about a child "needing a father and a mother," without applying the same standard to children raised by straight single mothers.

In fact, to be valid the study would have had to compare children raised by single lesbian mothers with those raised by single straight mothers, and those raised by lesbian couples with those raised by male-female couples. Otherwise, the effects of single parenting are conflated with the effects, if any, of the sexual orientation of the parents.

But most people don't really understand what makes a "study" a scientifically valid one, and they -- including jurors -- are likely to believe the one that fits what they want to believe. They don't appreciate such differences as the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the leading organization of pediatricians with 16,000 members, has a strong policy statement supporting gay parenting

In contrast, opponents will cite the opposite position of the American College of Pediatricians -- equally impressive sounding in its title -- as if they were two equal organizations with differing, equally valid, views. In fact, the "American College of Pediatricians" has about 200 members and was "founded,"and seems to have no other function, but to serve as a forum for a small band of anti-gay, activist pediatricians, and to put out anti-gay propaganda under its official-sounding name that is intended to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Several factors make this new study more authoritative in ways that can easily be pointed out to non-scientists and to judges and jurors:

First, it was done by respected academic researchers at the University of Virginia and Georgetown University, and it is reported in a respected, peer-reviewed journal. The article: "Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?" is in Applied Develomental Science, 14(3):164-178.

Second, the methodology is impressive. They studied 106 preschool children, 27 raised by two lesbian moms, 29 raised by two gay fathers, and 50 raised by heterosexual parents. It considered not just reports from parents about their child's development, as many previous studies have done, but also observations by teachers and care-givers.

Their conclusion is that the quality of the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents, is what creates a psychologically healthy child. They go a step further -- and this is important: the authors are on record as saying that, based on their evidence, there is no justification for a public policy “for denying lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children.”

It is also important, not only for lawmakers and jurors to have what can be considered a definitive study, but it is also important to have all this clarified for those more serious thinkers who simply haven't taken the time to read and study the results. A couple of years ago, a retired academic sociologist wrote a letter to the London Review of Books in which she made the same point about "studies show" that children with two parents are better adjusted, and therefore this was her argument against gay parenting. She had not stopped to think that she was conflating "two parents" with male-female parents and was lumping lesbian mothers in loving couples with young unwed mothers who had no family support.

I happened to see this, wrote a letter which the LRB published; and I received a nice email from the sociologist, apologizing for being misinformed and appreciative of my correcting her mistake.

This is important, because gay parenting is still a big issue in courts and in state laws. Currently, four states have laws explicitly prohibiting adoption by same-sex couples -- Florida, Mississippi, Utah -- and Arkansas, with a similar law that is being challenged in the courts. Many other states have various restrictions and ambiguous laws that are subject to bias in interpreting.

And I can't help pointing out with a note of glee that two of those states, Florida and Arkansas, were where Dr. George Rekers testified as the state's expert witness -- at huge expense to the taxpayers (reportedly $175,000 for the two states) -- when the laws were challenged in court. He is one of the founders and proponents of the above-mentioned shadowy American College of Pediatricians, and was on the Scientific Advisory Board of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality. His testimony was influential in denying gay parents the right to adopt children in Florida and Arkansas -- often children that had been living with them as foster parents.

Subsequent to his successful testimony in those two states, Dr. Rekers gained notoriety a few monthes back as the anti-homosexual activist and highly paid "expert witness," who was caught with his rent-boy coming back from a European vacation, conceivably paid for by the taxpayer-funded fee he earned for his anti-gay testimony.

Ralph

Howard Dean on the same subject

This excerpt from a HuffingtonPost essay by Howard Dean, "No More Apologies: It's Time to Stand Up for Our Convictions." It seems appropriate to the discussion in my prior posting. He begins by criticizing Fox News for "failing to report the full story or relevant facts, instead indulging in race baiting in order to exploit people's fears and crank up the fringe of their audience." He begins with Fox News and the Shirley Sherrod debacle, but broadens it to the conservative opposition in general:

There are lessons to be learned here. Tom Vilsack stated the first one best: don't make decisions without all the facts. To that I would add: consider the source. If it is a group of individuals or a corporation that has chronically ignored the facts and engaged in race baiting in the past, they are likely to do it again. A report by Fox News, Breitbart or Matt Drudge, ought to have -- as it does in most people's minds -- little credibility.

The second lesson is harder. Stand up for what you believe in. I admire Nancy Pelosi because she is tough, gets things done, and doesn't take crap from the right wing or any one else. After the year and a half this country has just been through, it is pretty obvious that the right-wing has no intention of cooperating with anyone, and that they will do anything to regain power, just as they were willing to do anything to hold on to it. The only reasonable approach is to stand up to them as you would any group of bullies. Call them out for what they do- or don't do as the case may be. If the Tea Party can call out some of their own members, surely we can call out a group of people who have put their party ahead of their country.

I have often said the biggest problem with the Democrats is that we are not tough enough. Now is the time to be tough. The fact is that the stimulus package has reduced unemployment from where it would have otherwise been in this Bush-induced recession (based on policies most of the Republicans now in Congress voted for). The fact is, as 60 members of the House and the CBO showed last week, the Public Option, or Medicare Buy-in, as it should more correctly be called, would have reduced the deficit over ten years by an additional $68 million dollars. The fact is that President Obama -- despite Republicans killing the climate change bill -- has done more in 18 months to change America's approach to the environment and green jobs than any president in memory.

The fact is that if we are going to tackle the deficit, it makes no sense to cut taxes for people with plenty of money while we tell people who depend on Social Security and Medicare that they have to do with less, or to play games with unemployment insurance for those who need it most.

The fact is that the Democrats won the election in 2008. The Republicans refuse to do anything for the country except say "no". That means we have to work hard and do what we believe is right. And we have to stop apologizing for it. We have to stand up for what we believe in and stop trying to make deals with people who cannot be trusted to make deals for the good of our country. It's not too late to win in 2010. Conviction politics works. Just ask the right wing!

Howard Dean was my original choice as presidential candidate in 2004 until he bowed out after his infamous "scream" at a post-election rally -- which was itself an early example of this sort of selective, viral circulation of a story that is distorted and misleading. He was screaming into the mike, not because he had lost his marbles but because he was trying to be heard over a screaming crowd. Unfortunately, the video clip that was circulated was made with a mike that blocked out crowd noise, so it seemed that he was deranged. Ergo, it lent itself to those who wanted to tarnish him as too fiery and unstable.

Howard Dean never had trouble standing up for his principles or calling out those who distorted them. Would he have been a better president for us right now? Adding up all the pluses and minuses, I don't think so. Would it help Obama if he could incorporate some of Howard Dean's talents and characteristics: his self-assuredness, his aggressive cockiness? Probably.

But there is no perfect choice for the job of president. It simply demands too much of any one individual, and there is no perfect candidate for the job. We don't construct one, Frankenstein-like, to incorporate the best of every characteristic. We have to accept that Obama is not all we want him to be and try to give him the public and visible support that makes it possible for him to do what is hard for him.

Remember what FDR asked of civil rights activist John Hope Franklin. After Franklin had outlined what he would like for FDR to achieve for black people, FDR said to him that he would like to do much of that. Then added, "Now go out there and make me do it." Meaning -- give me the public support that allows me to persuade others that we must do it.

I think this is what's happening right now with the groundswell support for Elizabeth Warren's appointment. Let's hope it works and is a turning point.

Ralph

Prior post discussion continued

We're up to 10 comments on my prior post ("I wish I knew why Obama won't fight back") -- largely a discussion between Richard and me about Obama's governing tactics -- Richard arguing that Obama could have gotten a lot more achieved if he were willing to fight for it, and my arguing for looking at the larger picture of what Obama has to consider in deciding when to fight and when to compromise.

I'm going to shift this to a new post today, continuing it with Richard's last comment and my response:

Richard, 07-26-10, 11:03 am:

He could've easily passed healthcare by reconciliation. He needed a simple majority and all the Dems admitted he had that. This was back when 77% of those polled favored the Public Option. He could've passed almost anything he wanted through reconciliation, which was used by Bush 3 times to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush also used it in a number of other ways.

Many progressive Dems did beg Obama to use reconciliation. In every instance he kow-towed to the right and refused. He watered down his bills to appease Republicans who still did not join him.
richard

---------------
Ralph, 07-26-10, 12:00 noon


OK -- he probably could have passed a lot of things by the reconciliation process. And maybe he should have.

There is another side to that argument, however. Using the reconciliation process, like recess appointments, can get you a short term goal at the expense of even more long-term resistance from the other side. They should be used very sparingly. You yourself use Bush's doing it as a weapon, don't you?

Besides, there are some parliamentary limitations: it somehow has to be linked to an appropriattions bill. You can't just decide to pass anything you want via reconciliation.

Now, having made that argument, I will also say that I wish Obama had used it to pass health care reform with a public option. And I hope he makes a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren just so we don't have to go through the confirmation fight.

But I also agree with Barney Frank that I wish Obama would fight for her confirmation and make the Repubs officially oppose it -- force them to openly support the financial industry over the middle class consumer -- because I think he could get the votes, given the amount of groundswell public support for it, which is encouraging more and more senators to come out in support of her as well. It would also electrify his liberal base -- because she epitomizes someone who will stand up and fight the establishment, or the opposition, for her principles. And arguably that's what he needs politically right now more than anything else. I hope they're smart enough to see that. It's the right thing to do, and it's also politically smart.

Richard, often you and I come down to disagreeing only on the tactics, not the goals. You are often right about any one individual decision. I tend to look more at the overall picture of gains and losses and tradeoffs. You want the glass to be full. I do too, but I'm more willing to accept that a half-glass may be as good as we can get at this time, with this congress; and at least it is a start in the right direction. You dismiss that argument as conciliation and appeasement. Sometimes you turn out to be right.

Another difference between us: you're always sure of your arguments, because that's who you are. I'm almost always somewhat doubtful of mine, because that's who I am. We've had this discussion before.

I am coming around to the position that it has been of almost no use to try to work with the Repubs. They are content with their position of just saying no to everything, because they are almost totally in control of the message -- and they can distort anything to suit their purposes. This has been a hard lesson for some of us to learn, Obama included. Perhaps the Shirley Sherrod thing will finally convince us. It seems to have convinced E. J. Dionne. (See his editorial in today's AJC. And, by the way, kudos and thanks to the AJC for giving Dionne a weekly space. It helps a little to offset the odious Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer.)

We have to change the message. They had done such a good job of tapping into people's frustrations and fear and turning it to their advantage. We have to counter that. This morning I was driving behind a pickup truck with a bumper sticker on one side that said "This president lies;"and on the other side, "McCain/Palin." If they can sell "this president lies" to mean Obama rather than George W. Bush who lied us into an unnecessary and illegal war -- then we have to really be afraid of what's coming between now and the November elections.

Ralph