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

Surprising (to me) facts

This is of course nothing to be proud of, because it involves the United States' history of slavery. Showing that only a small percentage of the slave trade from Africa landed in the U.S. gives us no moral superiority; even one boatload carries the full impact of the crime against humanity that it was.

Nevertheless, in reading a review of Atlas of the Transatlantic Slave Trade by David Eltis and David Richardson (The Nation, Feb 7, 2011), I was quite surprised to learn the destinations of the 10 million African slaves brought to the new world between 1501 and 1867:

. 400,000 to the United States
3,500,000 to the Caribbean (Barbados, Cuba, Haiti, and others)
4,900,000 to Brazil

Again, this is no credit to us. Just a different perspective for me (not a great student of history, obviously).

Ralph

Michele the loudmouth

Michele Bachmann, despite her usual nuttiness and occasional deranged commentary, won re-election as a congresswoman from Minnesota. Apparently that emboldened her, along with her success as a rabble-rouser; and now she's floating the possibility of running for president.

One of her favorite memes is the "Obama is weak" one. She outdid herself over the weekend, according to the Spartanburg (SC) Herald Journal:

"Our Peace Prize-winning president is very busy bowing these days to kings. He is bending down to dictators, and he is brown-nosing the elites that are in Europe, and he's babying the jihadists who are following Sharia-compliant terrorism. He is callow and confused and inconsistent in his response to the Egyptian crisis, and to the uprisings in Iran, and to the terrorist threats. . . .And he's accomplishing something nobody thought even possible: He's making Jimmy Carter look like a Rambo tough-guy."

Do we really want Michele in the White House making the decisions about how to respond to the populist uprisings in the Middle East? Taking the 3 AM phone call? Given the apparent success of the Egyptian peaceful revolution, isn't it just possible that Obama did exactly the right thing?

I'm not sure what she thinks our president should do when the delicate balance between two conflicting national interests of ours -- (1) freedom and democracy for all vs (2) stability and keeping Islamic extremists from seizing power in the powder keg of the world -- begin to tip out of balance.

Most serious thinkers give Obama credit for supporting the people's autonomy and condemning violence used against peaceful demonstrations, without leaping into the fray and actively calling for the overthrow of a flawed ally -- until we see that a responsible alternative is available.

We know that, in the Egyptian crisis, Obama did all that could have been productive to pressure Mubarak personally to step down and allow a democratic government to be formed. He did it without flaunting it, so of course he didn't look like Rambo. Nor should he.

But Michele and her rabble-rousing ability know nothing about complexity. It's just the Rambo mentality that excites them -- the strong/weak dichotomy, and of course we have to be the strong one.

Never mind that it was the Bush administration that weakened our position in the world in every way (economically, morally, diplomatically, and even militarily). It's all Obama's fault because he doesn't bang drums and rattle sabers on the world stage like a 12 year old playing war games but, instead, uses wisdom and restraint and does the necessary work behind the scenes.

Ralph

What if the beast you "drown in the bathtub" is also the source of stuff you need?

GOP-elected House freshmen, most with Tea Party support, are acting as if you can address single issues and forget about the collateral consequences. The Wisconsin senator, Ron Johnson, who defeated Russ Feingold, denied that they were over-reaching.

“What we are facing is an American public that is really on the Republican side in their desire, on a macro basis, to cut spending, balance the budget and show real fiscal restraint.”

Yes, but that same American public also wants a lot of those things that you're drastically cutting -- and, remember, the American public says, "Don't mess with my Social Security and Medicare."

Obama has responded to the changed political climate by focusing on spending cuts. His, of course, are more judicious; and he's tried to beef up things that will create jobs. But it is a major swing away from what most economists were saying just a few months ago: this is not the time to worry about the deficit; get control of unemployment, get people back to work, and then tackle the deficit.

As E. J. Dionne, Jr. writes in today's AJC:

You would never know that it's [the conversation in Washington] taking place at a moment when unemployment is still at 9 percent, when wages for so many people are stagnating at best, . . .

No, we are acting here as if the only real problem the Unites States confronts is the budget deficit; the only test of leadership is whether a president is willing to make big cuts in programs that protect the elderly; . . .

Any analysis of the economic struggles many elderly people endure would get in the way of the "greedy geezer" story line being spun to justify big cuts in Medicare and Social Security.

Thanks to the tea party, we are now told that all our problems will be solved by cutting government programs.

Shades of Reagan's "welfare queen," a favorite anecdote about a woman arriving in her limousine to collect her welfare check. Of course it was bogus -- but that didn't matter. It was the perfect "justification" for "pulling the plug" on welfare as we knew it.

Yes, Obama could use his bully pulpit to better effect in educating the public about the basics of deficit spending in a time of high unemployment. But -- let's face it -- the fourth estate has a lot to do with whether they amplify that bully pulpit or muffle it. And the media have jumped full force into amplifying a different message -- the one that's making news as these Tea Party members of Congress make their mark.

Cutting government spending makes intuitive good sense. But who is standing up and demanding that the cuts not disproportionately hurt the lower and middle class workers?

Well, Obama is, for one. But is that the message the media amplifies? Definitely not.

We are in a time of pandering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to "news" on TV. Even the blogosphere is not immune. You can find thoughtful, progressive analysis, but you have to go find it. What grabs the headlines are the antics and the bloviating of the "spending cuts" crowd.

Ralph

"The Greatest Prez?"

Tomorrow being Presidents' Day, Gallop has released a poll of whom Americans consider their greatest ever president. I don't think this has much meaning, since the choices seem heavily related to (1) recent term (name recognition) and (2) party affiliation (shown in analysis of the data but not apparent in the simple results.

A much more meaningful rating would be from a poll of historians of the presidency, who would use more objective measures of effectiveness. But, for what this one is worth, here are the results, from Gallop Poll:

Reagan 19%
Lincoln 14%
Clinton 13%
Kennedy 11%
Washington 10%
F. Roosevelt 8%
Obama 5%
T. Roosevelt 3%
Truman 3%
G.W.Bush 2%
Jefferson 2%
Carter 1%
Eisenhauer 1%
G.H.W.Bush 1%
Jackson >1%
L. Johnson >1%
Nixon >1%

Dubyah and Jefferson equal? Or, rather, perhaps W. is where he should be and Jefferson is way under-rated, probably due to lack of historical knowledge in the people.