|
Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost |
|
|
Friday, 24 February 2012 09:28 |
|
Excerpt: "Throughout this entire process, the spectacle of these clowns thrashing each other and continually seizing and then fumbling frontrunner status has left me with an oddly reassuring feeling, one that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on. In my younger days I would have just assumed it was regular old Schadenfreude at the sight of people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suffering, but this isn't like that - it's something different than the pleasure of watching A-Rod strike out in the playoffs. No, it was while watching the debates last night [Wednesday] that it finally hit me: This is justice."
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, October 27, 2010. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)

Conservative Chickens Come Home to Roost
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
24 February 12
ow about that race for the Republican nomination? Was last night's debate crazy, or what?
Throughout this entire process, the spectacle of these clowns thrashing each other and continually seizing and then fumbling frontrunner status has left me with an oddly reassuring feeling, one that I haven't quite been able to put my finger on. In my younger days I would have just assumed it was regular old Schadenfreude at the sight of people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich suffering, but this isn't like that - it's something different than the pleasure of watching A-Rod strike out in the playoffs.
No, it was while watching the debates last night that it finally hit me: This is justice. What we have here are chickens coming home to roost. It's as if all of the American public's bad habits and perverse obsessions are all coming back to haunt Republican voters in this race: The lack of attention span, the constant demand for instant gratification, the abject hunger for negativity, the utter lack of backbone or constancy (we change our loyalties at the drop of a hat, all it takes is a clever TV ad): these things are all major factors in the spiraling Republican disaster.
Most importantly, though, the conservative passion for divisive, partisan, bomb-tossing politics is threatening to permanently cripple the Republican party. They long ago became more about pointing fingers than about ideology, and it's finally ruining them.
Oh, sure, your average conservative will insist his belief system is based upon a passion for the free market and limited government, but that's mostly a cover story. Instead, the vast team-building exercise that has driven the broadcasts of people like Rush and Hannity and the talking heads on Fox for decades now has really been a kind of ongoing Quest for Orthodoxy, in which the team members congregate in front of the TV and the radio and share in the warm feeling of pointing the finger at people who aren't as American as they are, who lack their family values, who don't share their All-American work ethic.
The finger-pointing game is a fun one to play, but it's a little like drugs - you have to keep taking bigger and bigger doses in order to get the same high.
So it starts with a bunch of these people huddling together and saying to themselves, "We're the real good Americans; our problems are caused by all those other people out there who don't share our values." At that stage the real turn-on for the followers is the recognition that there are other like-minded people out there, and they don't need blood orgies and war cries to keep the faith strong - bake sales and church retreats will do.
So they form their local Moral Majority outfits, and they put Ronald Reagan in office, and they sit and wait for the world to revert to a world where there was one breadwinner in the family, and no teen pregnancy or crime or poor people, and immigrants worked hard and didn't ask for welfare and had the decency to speak English - a world that never existed in reality, of course, but they're waiting for a return to it nonetheless.
Think Ron Paul in the South Carolina debate, when he said that in the '60s, "there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care." Paul also recalled that after World War II, 10 million soldiers came home and prospered without any kind of government aid at all - all they needed was a massive cut to the federal budget, and those soldiers just surfed on the resultant wave of economic progress.
"You know what the government did? They cut the budget by 60 percent," he said. "And everybody went back to work again, you didn't need any special programs."
Right - it wasn't like they needed a G.I. Bill or anything. After all, people were different back then: They didn't want or need welfare, or a health care program, or any of those things. At least, that's not the way Paul remembered it.
That's all the early conservative movement was. It was just a heartfelt request that we go back to the good old days of America as these people remembered or imagined it. Of course, the problem was, we couldn't go back, not just because more than half the population (particularly the nonwhite, non-straight, non-male segment of the population) desperately didn't want to go back, but also because that America never existed and was therefore impossible to recreate.
And when we didn't go back to the good old days, this crowd got frustrated, and suddenly the message stopped being heartfelt and it got an edge to it.
The message went from, "We're the real Americans; the others are the problem," to, "We're the last line of defense; we hate those other people and they're our enemies." Now it wasn't just that the rest of us weren't getting with the program: Now we were also saboteurs, secretly or perhaps even openly conspiring with America's enemies to prevent her return to the long-desired Days of Glory.
Now, why would us saboteurs do that? Out of jealousy (we resented their faith and their family closeness), out of spite, and because we have gonads instead of morals. In the Clinton years and the early Bush years we started to hear a lot of this stuff, that the people conservatives described as "liberals" were not, as we are in fact, normal people who believe in marriage and family and love their children just as much as conservatives do, but perverts who subscribe to a sort of religion of hedonism.
"Liberals' only remaining big issue is abortion because of their beloved sexual revolution," was the way Ann Coulter put it. "That's their cause - spreading anarchy and polymorphous perversity. Abortion permits that."
So they fought back, and a whole generation of more strident conservative politicians rose to fight the enemy at home, who conveniently during the '90s lived in the White House and occasionally practiced polymorphous perversity there.
Then conservatives managed to elect to the White House a man who was not only a fundamentalist Christian, but a confirmed anti-intellectual who never even thought about visiting Europe until, as president, he was forced to - the perfect champion of all Real Americans!
Surely, things would change now. But they didn't. Life continued to move drearily into a new and scary future, Spanish-speaking people continued to roll over the border in droves, queers paraded around in public and even demanded the right to be married, and America not only didn't go back to the good old days of the single-breadwinner family, but jobs in general dried up and you were lucky if Mom and Dad weren't both working two jobs.
During this time we went to war against the Islamic terrorists responsible for 9/11 by invading an unrelated secular Middle Eastern dictatorship. When people on the other side protested, the rhetoric became even more hysterical. Now those of us outside the circle of Real Americans were not just enemies, but in league with mass-murdering terrorists. In fact, that slowly became the definition of a "liberal" on a lot of these programs - a terrorist.
Sean Hannity's bestseller during this time, for Christ's sake, was subtitled, Defeating terrorism, despotism, and liberalism. "He is doing the work of what all people who want big government always do, and that is commit terrorist acts," said Glenn Beck years ago, comparing liberals to Norweigan mass murderer Anders Breivik.
And when the unthinkable happened, and a black American with a Muslim-sounding name assumed the throne in the White House, now, suddenly, we started to hear that liberals were not only in league with terrorists, but somehow worse than terrorists.
"Terrorism? Yes. That's not the big battle," said Minnesota Republican congressional candidate Allan Quist a few years ago. "The big battle is in D.C. with the radicals. They aren't liberals. They are radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz: They're not liberals, they're radicals. They are destroying our country."
In Spinal Tap terms, the rhetoric by the time Obama got elected already had gone well past eleven. It was at thirteen, fifteen, twenty …. Our tight little core of Real Americans by then had, over a series of decades, decided pretty much the entire rest of the world was shit. Europe we know about. The Middle East? Let's "carpet bomb it until they can't build a transitor radio," as Ann Coulter put it. Africa was full of black terrorists with AIDS, and Asia, too, was a good place to point a finger or two ("I want to go to war with China," is how Rick Santorum put it).
Here at home, all liberals, gays, Hispanic immigrants, atheists, Hollywood actors and/or musicians with political opinions, members of the media, members of congress, TSA officials, animal-lovers, union workers, state employees with pensions, Occupiers and other assorted unorthodox types had already long ago been rolled into the enemies list.
Given the continued troubles and the continued failure to return to good old American values, who else could possibly be to blame? Where else could they possibly point the finger?
There was only one possible answer, and we're seeing it playing out in this race: At themselves! And I don't mean they pointed the finger "at themselves" in the psychologically healthy, self-examining, self-doubting sort of way. Instead, I mean they pointed "at themselves" in the sense of, "There are traitors in our ranks. They must be ferreted out and destroyed!"
This is the last stage in any paranoid illness. You start by suspecting that somebody out there is out to get you; in the end, you're sure that even the people who love you the most under your own roof, your own doctors, your parents, your wife and your children, they're in on the plot. To quote Matt Damon in the almost-underrated spy film The Good Shepherd, they became convinced that there's "a stranger in the house."
This is where the Republican Party is now. They've run out of foreign enemies to point fingers at. They've already maxed out the rhetoric against us orgiastic, anarchy-loving pansexual liberal terrorists. The only possible remaining explanation for their troubles is that their own leaders have failed them. There is a stranger in the house!
This current race for the presidential nomination has therefore devolved into a kind of Freudian Agatha Christie story, in which the disturbed and highly paranoid voter base by turns tests the orthodoxy of each candidate, trying to figure out which one is the spy, which one is really Barack Obama bin Laden-Marx under the candidate mask!
We expected this when Mitt Romney, a man who foolishly once created a functioning health care program in Massachusetts, was the front-runner. We knew he was going to have to defend his bona fides against the priesthood ("I'm not convinced," sneered the sideline-sitting conservative Mme. Defarge, Sarah Palin), that he would have a rough go of it at the CPAC conference, and so on.
But it's gotten so ridiculous that even Santorum, as paranoid and hysterical a finger-pointing politician as this country has ever seen, a man who once insisted with a straight face that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian - he's now being put through the Electric Conservative Paranoia Acid Test, and failing!
"He is a fake," Ron Paul said at the Michigan debate last night, to assorted hoots and cheers. And Santorum, instead of turning around and laying into Paul, immediately panicked and rubbed his arm as if to say, "See? I'm made of the right stuff," and said, "I'm real, Ron, I'm real." These candidates are behaving like Stalinist officials in the late thirties, each one afraid to be the first to stop applauding.
These people have run out of others to blame, run out of bystanders to suspect, run out of decent family people to dismiss as Godless, sex-crazed perverts. They're turning the gun on themselves now. It might be justice, or it might just be sad. Whatever it is, it's remarkable to watch.

|
|
Can Russ Feingold Push Campaign Finance Reform? |
|
|
Friday, 24 February 2012 09:25 |
|
Intro: "'The president is wrong.' So says one of the newly appointed co-chairs of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. Those four words recently headlined the website of the organization Progressives United, founded by former US Senator - and now Obama campaign adviser - Russ Feingold. He is referring to Obama's recent announcement that he will accept Super Pac funds for his re-election campaign."
Russ Feingold in 2010: an outspoken critic of the Citizens United ruling, the former senator has said the president is 'dancing with the devil' by accepting Super Pac support. (photo: Morry Gash/AP)

Can Russ Feingold Push Campaign Finance Reform?
By Amy Goodman, Guardian UK
24 February 12
 he president is wrong." So says one of the newly appointed co-chairs of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
Those four words recently headlined the website of the organization Progressives United, founded by former US Senator – and now Obama campaign adviser – Russ Feingold. He is referring to Obama's recent announcement that he will accept Super Pac funds for his re-election campaign. Feingold's statement goes:
"The president is wrong to embrace the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United through the use of Super Pacs – organizations that raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations and the richest individuals, sometimes in total secrecy. It's not just bad policy; it's also dumb strategy."
And, he says, it's "dancing with the devil".
In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt said to Congress:
"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
He signed a bill into law banning such contributions in 1907. In 2012, this 100-year history of campaign-finance controls died, thanks to five US supreme court justices who decided, in the 2010 Citizens United case, that corporations can use their money to express free speech, most notably in their efforts to influence federal elections.
After 18 years representing Wisconsin in the US Senate, Feingold lost his re-election to self-funded Republican multimillionaire and Tea Party favorite Ron Johnson. Since then, Feingold has been teaching law, started Progressives United and, while supporting the effort to recall Wisconsin's embattled Republican governor, Scott Walker, has steadfastly refused to run against him or for the US Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Senator Herb Kohl.
Feingold was the sole member of the US Senate to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was a fierce critic of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Although Obama, as a senator, originally threatened to filibuster any legislation that would grant retroactive immunity to the telecom corporations involved with the wiretapping, he reversed himself on the eve of the Democratic Convention in 2008 and voted for the bill. Feingold remained adamantly opposed.
On the war in Afghanistan, Feingold told me:
"I was the first member of the Senate to call for a timeline to get us out of Afghanistan. Even before Obama was elected, when it was between (John) McCain and Obama, I said, 'Why are we talking about a surge?' … Sending our troops over there, spending billions and billions of dollars in Afghanistan makes no sense. And I think it was a mistake for the president to do the surge, and I think he's beginning to realize we need to get out of there."
Feingold opposed Obama's Wall Street reform bill, saying it was too weak, and supported the state attorneys general, like New York's Eric Schneiderman and another of the new campaign co-chairs, California's Kamala Harris, who, at first, opposed the proposed settlement with the five largest banks over allegations of mortgage-service fraud and "robo-signing". Feingold's reaction to the $25bn settlement that the White House pushed through?
"We were among the few that refused to do a little dance after this announcement … whenever it ends up being Wall Street, somehow there's always a clunker in there."
As I interviewed Feingold, just hours after he was named one of the 35 Obama campaign co-chairs, I asked him if he was an odd choice for the position. Feingold responded:
"How about a co-chair that's proud of him for bringing us healthcare for the first time in 70 years? How about a co-chair who thinks that he has actually done a good thing with the economy and helped with the stimulus package, and we've had 22 months of positive job growth? How about a co-chair for a president that has the best reputation overseas of any president in memory, that has reversed the awful damage of the Bush administration, who in places like Cairo and in India and Indonesia has reached out to the rest of the world.
"Believe me, on balance, there's no question. And finally, how about a co-chair of a president who I believe will help us appoint justices who will overturn Citizens United?"
Until then, as the Obama campaign "dances with the devil" of Super Pacs, perhaps campaign co-chair Russ Feingold will help us follow the money.

|
|
|
FOCUS: The Predictable Presidency |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 23 February 2012 13:32 |
|
Pierce writes: "Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that's the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard."
Has Obama actually walked away from his campaign promises? (photo: Jason Reed/Reuters)

The Predictable Presidency
By Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine
23 February 12
ver this past weekend,I had some fun hosting a book salon over at the Firedoglake site with Thomas Frank on the topic of his new book, Pity The Billionaire. As you can see, the dialogue got a little spirited when the topic of the president came up. Bear in mind, I have my own problems with the way business has been done by this administration over the past three years. Rahm Emanuel never should have been let near the White House, and that passel of Wall Street people never should have been let near the nation's fiscal policy until some of their old lunch buddies had done some serious time.
This president has attached himself too closely to the Bush Administration's policies on terror. His signature health-care law is so full of compromises, duct tape, thumbtacks, and rubber bands, and chewing gum that it's vulnerable to 100 different attacks from 110 different directions. He should not have needed kids in drum circles halfway through his presidency to tell him who his real enemies were. But the fact is, I'm not surprised by any of this. To me, anyway, Barack Obama is pretty much the conciliationist Democratic centrist that I knew I was voting for back in 2008.
(There was only one person back then who looked as though he might walk the whole progressive walk on income inequality and the rising power of oligarchy in the country, and that was John Edwards, and what a field of buttercups that administration would have turned out to be. Yoicks.)
Recently, in a spate of writing on the topic of how the administration has done its business, there seems to be a rising sense that the president underrated the true monomaniacal nature of this opposition while simultaneously overrating both our desire to be together and his own ability to get us there. James Fallows wrote that, "If Obama really thought that America had moved past partisan division, then he was too innocent for the job." All I can say to those folks is, well, welcome to the boat, y'all. Beer's in the cooler.
The people I don't understand are the people who pronounce themselves "betrayed" by what has happened since the president was elected. As hard a political lesson as this is to learn, the politicians we vote for are under no obligation to be who we think they should be. Nine times out of 10, anyone who complains that "This isn't the guy I voted for" either wasn't playing close enough attention at the time they held the election, or was really voting for himself by proxy. If we're very, very lucky, circumstances will conspire with dumb luck and enable a politician to deliver unalloyed by compromise maybe 25 percent of what he promised us when he was running.
There was never any doubt that, in a great many instances, Barack Obama was going to accommodate and compromise because that's the way the man's built. He took a dive on telecom immunity in July before he was elected. That should have been a caveat emptor moment for everyone.
While running for his first term as president, on a campaign speech in Columbus, Ohio, FDR said:
"It was the heyday of promoters, sloganeers, mushroom millionaires, opportunists, adventurers of all kinds. In this mad whirl was launched Mr. Hoover's campaign. Perhaps foreseeing it, a shrewd man from New England, while in the cool detachment of the Dakota hills, on a narrow slip of paper wrote the historic words, 'I do not choose to run.'"
I can't recall Barack Obama's ever saying anything that direct or harsh in 2008, either about the incumbent, or about the situation in which the incumbent was handing over the country to him. (I don't recall him saying anything that harsh and direct about anything or anyone, ever.) The moment of that election desperately needed - hell, demanded - an FDR, but there was no FDR on offer. Anyone who was listening to Barack Obama and thought they heard FDR was tuned into his own private frequencies. Handed an economic catastrophe a month before his election, and then governing through the worst of it in the early days of his administration, he sought consensus because that's the most basic instinct in him, and, alas, consensus was that claque of Wall Street Magi whom he brought aboard. Not good, but entirely predictable.
So what now? There are some signals that the president is realizing consensus is impossible with an opposition made up primarily of Bible-banging pyromaniacs, and that, anyway, consensus is not always a desirable goal in and of itself. (His reflexive proposal to cut the corporate tax today, however, is not a good sign. He's bidding against Mitt Romney on Romney's home turf, on an issue that will not resonate with any great mass of Democratic voters at all.) His chances of being re-elected are better than they were a year ago, but it's still going to be a long pull up a dirt road to get to 270 electoral votes. Once in that dreary effort, I'd like to hear all the eloquence that made him a star edged with the faintest amount of vitriol, just a dollop of scorn to liven it up. The country deserves that. A little more consensus and we might all go down together.

|
|
The GOP's Big Investors |
|
|
Wednesday, 22 February 2012 10:05 |
|
Intro: "Have you heard of William Dore, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons, Peter Thiel, or Bruce Kovner? If not, let me introduce them to you. They're running for the Republican nomination for president. I know, I know. You think Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney are running. They are - but only because the people listed in the first paragraph have given them huge sums of money to do so."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

The GOP's Big Investors
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
22 February 12
ave you heard of William Dore, Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, Harold Simmons, Peter Thiel, or Bruce Kovner? If not, let me introduce them to you. They're running for the Republican nomination for president.
I know, I know. You think Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney are running. They are - but only because the people listed in the first paragraph have given them huge sums of money to do so. In a sense, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are the fronts. Dore et al. are the real investors.
According to January's Federal Election Commission report, William Dore and Foster Friess supplied more than three-fourths of the $2.1 million raked in by Rick Santorum's super PAC in January. Dore, president of the Dore Energy Corporation in Lake Charles, Louisiana, gave $1 million; Freis, a fund manager based in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, gave $669,000 (he had given the Santorum super PAC $331,000 last year, bringing Freis's total to $1 million).
Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam provided $10 million of the $11 million that went into Gingrich's super PAC in January. Adelson is chairman of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. Texas billionaire Harold Simmons donated $500,000.
Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, provided $1.7 million of the $2.4 million raised by Ron Paul's super PAC in January.
Mitt Romney's super PAC raised $6.6 million last month - almost all from just forty donors. Bruce Kovner, co-founder of the New York-based hedge fund Caxton Associates, gave $500,000, as did two others. David Tepper of Appaloosa Management gave $375,000. J.W. Marriott and Richard Marriott gave a total of $500,000. Julian Robertson, co-founder of hedge fund Tiger Management, gave $250,0000. Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman gave $100,000.
Bottom line: Whoever emerges as the GOP standard-bearer will be deeply indebted to a handful of people, each of whom will expect a good return on their investment.
And this is just the beginning. We haven't even come to the general election.
Non-profit political fronts like "Crossroads GPS," founded by Republican political guru Karl Rove, are already gathering hundreds of millions of dollars from big corporations and a few wealthy individuals like billionaire oil and petrochemical moguls David and Charles Koch. The public will never know who or what corporation gave what because, under IRS regulations, such non-profit "social welfare organizations" aren't required to disclose the names of those who contributed to them.
Before 2010, federal campaign law and Federal Election Commission regulations limited to $5,000 per year the amount an individual could give to a PAC making independent expenditures in federal elections. This individual contribution limit that was declared unconstitutional by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in a case based on the Supreme Court's grotesque decision at the start of 2010, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.
Now, the limits are gone. And this comes precisely at a time when an almost unprecedented share of the nation's income and wealth is accumulating at the top.
Never before in the history of our Republic have so few spent so much to influence the votes of so many.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

|
|