Vive La Difference -- What a Difference Between Obama's Swift, Vigorous Response to the Gulf Oil Spill and Bush's Pathetic Response to Katrina

No "Nice Job, Brownie" in the Gulf Oil Spill

From Media Matters for America --- April 30, 2010:

Timeline contradicts "Obama's Katrina" claim

A timeline of events following the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill belies the absurd media claim that the spill represents "Obama's Katrina."

April 20 (10 p.m.): Oil rig explosion. An April 21 ABCNews.com article reported, "An overnight explosion in the Gulf of Mexico rocked the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the Louisiana coast, sending spectacular bursts of flame into the sky. The fires were still raging today." The U.S. Coast Guard's National Oil and Hazardous Substances Response System assigns primary responsibility for cleaning up oil spills to the spiller as the responsible party.

April 21: Deputy Secretary of Interior, Coast Guard dispatched to region. An April 22 White House statement noted that following a briefing with President Obama, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen, Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, "Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes was dispatched to the region yesterday to assist with coordination and response." The Coast Guard announced that four units were responding to the fire, with additional units en route.

Search and rescue efforts begin for 11 missing. An initial focus of the response was the search for 11 missing crewmembers. The search was called off April 23.

BP confirms U.S. Coast Guard was "leading the emergency response" In an April 21 press release, British Petroleum stated that it was "working closely with Transocean and the U.S. Coast Guard, which is leading the emergency response, and had been offering its help - including logistical support."

CNN.com: "The U.S. Coast Guard launched a major search effort." An April 22 CNN.com article reported:
The U.S. Coast Guard launched a major search effort Wednesday for 11 people missing after a "catastrophic" explosion aboard an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico engulfed the drilling platform in flames.

Another 17 people were injured -- three critically -- in the blast aboard the Deepwater Horizon, which occurred about 10 p.m. Tuesday. The rig was about 52 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, said Coast Guard Senior Chief Petty Officer Mike O'Berry. As of late afternoon Wednesday as many as six firefighting vessels were working to contain the massive fire caused by the explosion.

"It obviously was a catastrophic event," O'Berry said.

April 23: Coast Guard "focused on mitigating the impact of the product currently in the water." On April 23, the Coast Guard stated:

The Department of the Interior, MMS [the U.S. Minerals Management Service], and the Coast Guard continue to support the efforts of the responsible parties to secure all potential sources of pollution. Both federal agencies have technical teams in place overseeing the proposals by BP and Transocean to completely secure the well. Until that has occurred and all parties are confident the risk of additional spill is removed, a high readiness posture to respond will remain in place.

Although the oil appears to have stopped flowing from the well head, Coast Guard, BP, Transocean, and MMS remain focused on mitigating the impact of the product currently in the water and preparing for a worst-case scenario in the event the seal does not hold. Visual feed from deployed remotely operated vehicles with sonar capability is continually monitored in an effort to look for any crude oil which still has the potential to emanate from the subsurface well.

"From what we have observed yesterday and through the night, we are not seeing any signs of release of crude in the subsurface area. However we remain in a 'ready to respond' mode and are working in a collaborative effort with BP, the responsible party, to prepare for a worst-case scenario," Landry stated early Friday morning.

April 25: Response team implements plan to contain oil spilling from source, weather delays cleanup.

Storms delay response efforts. An April 25 Associated Press article reported, "Stormy weather delayed weekend efforts to mop up leaking oil from a damaged well after the explosion and sinking of a massive rig off Louisiana's Gulf Coast that left 11 workers missing and presumed dead." AP further reported:

The bad weather began rolling in Friday as strong winds, clouds and rain interrupted efforts to contain the spill. Coast Guard Petty Officer John Edwards said he was uncertain when weather conditions would improve enough for cleanup to resume. So far, he said, crews have retrieved about 1,052 barrels of oily water.

Oil recovery and cleanup were to resume after adverse weather passed. On April 25, the unified command team responding to the spill stated: "The unified command is implementing intervention efforts in an attempt to contain the source of oil emanating from the wellhead at the Deepwater Horizon incident site Sunday".

The unified command has approved a plan that utilizes submersible remote operated vehicles in an effort to activate the blowout preventer on the sea floor and to stop the flow of oil that has been estimated at leaking up to 1,000 barrels/42,000 gallons a day.

Also, BP is mobilizing the DD3, a drilling rig that is expected to arrive Monday to prepare for relief well-drilling operations.

Additionally, the oil recovery and clean-up operations are expected to resume once adverse weather has passed. These efforts are part of the federally approved oil spill contingency plan that is in place to respond to environmental incidents.

April 26: Response crews "to resume skimming operations." On April 26, the response team stated, "Sunday, an aircrew from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sighted five small whales during an over flight in the vicinity of the oil spill, which currently measures 48 miles by 39 miles at its widest points with varying levels of sheening, and is located 30 miles off the coast of Venice, La." The command team further stated, "Following adverse weather that went through the area, response crews are anticipated to resume skimming operations today," including 1,000 personnel, 10 offshore vessels, 7 skimming boats and more than 14,000 gallons of dispersant. At that point 48,384 gallons of oily water had been collected.

April 28: Federal officials realize spill was far more severe than BP led them to believe. An April 28 New York Times article reported, "Government officials said late Wednesday night that oil might be leaking from a well in the Gulf of Mexico at a rate five times that suggested by initial estimates." The Times further reported:

In a hastily called news conference, Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry of the Coast Guard said a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had concluded that oil is leaking at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day, not 1,000 as had been estimated. While emphasizing that the estimates are rough given that the leak is at 5,000 feet below the surface, Admiral Landry said the new estimate came from observations made in flights over the slick, studying the trajectory of the spill and other variables.

An April 30 Associated Press article reported, "For days, as an oil spill spread in the Gulf of Mexico, BP assured the government the plume was manageable, not catastrophic. Federal authorities were content to let the company handle the mess while keeping an eye on the operation." The article continued:

But then government scientists realized the leak was five times larger than they had been led to believe, and days of lulling statistics and reassuring words gave way Thursday to an all-hands-on-deck emergency response. Now questions are sure to be raised about a self-policing system that trusted a commercial operator to take care of its own mishap even as it grew into a menace imperiling Gulf Coast nature and livelihoods from Florida to Texas.

April 29: Napolitano declares spill "of national significance"; BP insists its "plan can handle this spill." On April 29, BP official Doug Suttles appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and stated, "At this point, I believe our plan can handle this spill, and that's what we're doing." That day, Napolitano declared the spill "of national significance," explaining that "we can now draw down assets from across the country, other coastal areas, by way of example; that we will have a centralized communications because the spill is now crossing different regions."

EPA preparing for oil to hit shore. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson commented at an April 29 press briefing: "[A]s the oil does hit the shoreline, EPA will provide support to assess the impacts on the coastal shoreline and play a key role in implementing the cleanup. As a daughter of the Gulf Coast, I know that it is our job to ensure people that we will be eyes and ears working with the states who have valuable and vital resources to monitor air, water and land quality." Jackson also stated that the EPA has deployed air-monitoring aircraft "that is gathering information on the impact of the controlled burn on air quality, both in the area of the burn, and, of course, further away."

AP: "Air Force sends planes to help with Gulf oil spill." An April 30 Associated Press article reported: "Two Air Force planes have been sent to Mississippi and were awaiting orders to start dumping chemicals on the oil spill threatening the coast, as the government worked Friday to determine how large a role the military should play in the cleanup."

WSJ: Navy joins Obama's "robust response." An April 30 Wall Street Journal article reported that "The U.S. Navy said it will send more than 12 additional miles of inflatable oil booms to the Gulf, as well as seven towable skimming systems and 50 contractors with experience operating the equipment."

The article continued: "The Navy is making two large facilities available to the Coast Guard personnel and BP-employed contractors who are currently taking the lead in fighting the spill. Military officials said the booms and skimmers were being sent to a Naval construction base in Gulfport, Miss. The Navy also opened its air base in Pensacola, Fla., to the effort."

FOX "News" is the Propaganda Broadcasting Station of the Republican Party

From Media Matters for America --- April 28, 2010:

Roger Ailes claims "I don't do politics, I do the news" -- but Fox openly engages in political advocacy

As TVNewser noted, The Naples Daily News (FL) reported on an April 26 speech that Fox News president Roger Ailes gave in Florida and quoted Ailes stating of how Republicans could win in the fall: "I can't help 'em. ... I'm not in politics anymore. I don't do politics, I do the news." Yet Ailes' news organization regularly engages in open and blatant political advocacy on a regular basis. The following are just a few examples.

Fox News openly advocated against health care reform. During the debate over health care reform, Fox News openly advocated against the Democrats' efforts. In addition to routinely misinforming viewers, Fox News hosts, reporters, and contributors announced their opposition to reform; urged viewers to tell congressmembers to "vote no"; pushed anti-reform protests; and solicited donations for ads opposing reform and for Republicans opposing pro-reform Democrats.

Fox personalities set goals to "get rid" of administration officials, "take the administration down." Fox News' Glenn Beck has boasted about working on a project that he thinks will "take the administration down" and has asked his followers to dig up information on administration officials. Other Fox News personalities have also attacked numerous Obama administration officials and nominees and called for at least 19 of them resign, be fired, or have their nominations blocked.

Fox heavily promoted April 15, 2009, tea parties. Fox News heavily promoted and advocated for the April 15, 2009 tea parties, which it characterized as a response to Obama administration policies. Fox News frequently aired segments -- from both "opinion" and "news" personalities -- publicizing the protests and encouraging viewers to get involved with them. In many instances, Fox News provided attendance and organizing information, such as dates, locations and website URLs. In early April, Fox News announced that four hosts from the network -- Beck, Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity -- would appear live at four tea party sites and would broadcast the protests live throughout the day. At one point, Fox News even referred to the tea parties as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties," and the Fox Nation also hosted its own "virtual tea party."

Fox personalities campaign for GOP candidates. Media Matters has extensively documented, Fox News contributor Dick Morris and host Mike Huckabee asked Fox viewers to donate to various political action committees and political organizations that oppose legislation proposed by Democrats or raise money for Republican campaigns. Also, Fox hosts and personalities have raised millions of dollars for Republican candidates, bolstered the efforts of Republican candidates or causes in 49 states, and have actively campaigned for them on and off the air

Republicans Filibuster and Fight to the Death to Defend the Right of Big Banks and Investment Companies to Rob the Public

From The Washington Post -- April 29, 2010:

Democrats had embraced the GOP filibuster as an opportunity to portray Republicans as defenders of powerful special interests, in particular major banks and investment houses. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had threatened to keep the Senate in session overnight Wednesday to reap maximum political benefits.

Speaking at a rally in Quincy, Ill., an economically depressed Mississippi River town, President Obama hailed the bill's advancement and assured an exuberant audience of 2,300 people that the financial sector would face tough new restrictions. "It was one of those heads, they [win] -- tails, you lose" situations on Wall Street, Obama said. "What was working for them was not working for ordinary Americans."

Cruising

Dearest Casey, Brandon, Ray Gun, Anon 2, Various and Assorted Anonymouses, and all my other devoted Pen Pals:

Tomorrow I head off on a two-week cruise from LA to the glorious Hawaiian Islands.

I know how concerned Casey has been in the past when I drop out for a few days, and I greatly appreciate Casey's concern.

So, please let me re-assure you all that I am perfectly fine --- just cruising on a Summer (almost) Afternoon.

I'll try to chime in with a few comments from time to time, while At Sea.

Meanwhile, I hope you will all keep the faith, and continue with your frank exchange of opinions.

"Frank Exchange of Opinions" is a phrase which emerged at the United Nations during the height of the Cold War when the USA and the USSR threatened to nuke each other. "A Frank Exchange of Opinions" was considered the final phase just before "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Good Luck, Everybody. Keep Up The Good Fight.

CJP

Conservatives and Anti-Abortionists are America's Terrorists

From Salon -- April 9, 2010:

Is America heading toward a "dirty war" at home?

Media-inspired death threats against politicians, and real extremist violence, pose a bloody threat to democracy

BY JOE CONASON

Bart Stupak says he will retire from Congress after nine terms because he wants “to spend a little more time with my family” -- and who are we to question his reasoning? He says anyone who thinks he was intimidated by the death threats, harassing phone calls and assorted other abuse, or the vow by tea party activists and other Republicans to unseat him, simply doesn’t know him very well. The Michigan Democrat is a former state trooper from the Upper Peninsula, so there is no reason to assume he's a wimp.

But Stupak wouldn’t have to be wimpish to worry about the blasts of violent rhetoric (complete with little drawings of nooses and racial invective against President Obama) directed toward him since he voted for healthcare reform. As a target of verbal and potential physical assault, he is not alone, of course. Today’s Washington Post reports that the number of threats against members of Congress has tripled since last year, with several cases deemed sufficiently serious for investigation by the Capitol Police or the FBI.

Many if not most of these threats come from obsessive losers like Gregory Giusti, the Fox News fan who made a series of disgusting threats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (The pathetic Giusti, now under arrest, was just following the lead of wealthier and more celebrated but otherwise oddly similar figures in the media, such as Glenn Beck, who once “joked” about poisoning Pelosi.) But the growing extremism of the right is a combustible force that could easily combine with the personal pathology of an individual winger in a violent tragedy. As reactionary anger is amplified and encouraged by the Republican noise machine, in fact, the likelihood of political assassination is increasing.

Threats and violence culminating in murder has long been an accepted strategy among antiabortion extremists, and they have long allied themselves with the most extreme elements in the reviving militia movement. Both have significant followings in Stupak’s home state, and as a former law enforcement officer, he must be well aware of the potential danger from those groups. When the antiabortion zealots threaten to kill you, they often mean it -- as they have proved over and over again during the past three decades.

The irony in Stupak’s resignation under fire did not escape his critics in the reproductive rights movement. Some of them have long memories. Wendy Norris remembers one of the first votes cast by a certain freshman Democrat:

Death threats. Insults. Stalking. Harassment.

The same types of intimidation that are commonplace for many women's health care providers, clinic escorts and patients.

Which leads to some interesting contrasts with a long ago vote cast by Stupak, then a freshman lawmaker from tiny Menominee, Mich., and his more recent health care line-in-the-sand demands as an 8-term congressman.

In one of his earliest floor ballots as a new federal lawmaker, Stupak voted against the landmark 1994 Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) that set federal criminal sanctions for violent acts, threats and commercial interference by protesters at abortion clinics and churches.

During the House FACE Act debate in 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered by anti-choice militants. Five months later, Mobile, Ala., physician George Patterson's death by shooting was widely suspected to be related to his work. Within months of the bill's May 1994 passage, Dr. John Britton and clinic escort James Barrett were gunned down and two Boston-area clinic receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in a shooting rampage.

Soon after, the "Nuremberg Files" Web site, a thinly-veiled hit list that targeted physicians with wanted-style posters, personal dossiers and monetary rewards, was posted online to aid vigilantes in tracking potential victims.

The horrible echo of those dark years was recalled in the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller and months later through the angry bile vented at congressional town hall meetings and Tea Party protests — some of which was directed at Stupak himself.

The terrorism still comes in unrelenting waves. Since 1994, more than 4500 violence acts and 148,851 disruptive incidents have been reported by clinics, according to the National Abortion Federation.

Now, some 16 years after the law to protect clinics was signed by President Clinton, the Justice Dept. and FBI are currently involved in at least three FACE Act cases involving threats to abortion providers in Texas and Colorado and an on-going conspiracy probe of Tiller's murder.

The dirty war against reproductive choice continues to be fought by coercion and brutality rather than democratic debate. The question that those who call themselves conservatives must face is whether other elements within their movement -- and in the tea party groups they hope to recruit -- now tolerate and even blatantly encourage the use of violence to achieve their aims. It is a bloody, brutal, authoritarian style of politics that we were taught to believe this country had long ago left behind.

Since Marijuana is Less Dangerous than Alcohol, It's High Time to Give Pot the Same Legal Treatment as Alcohol

From Salon -- April 9, 2010

Making the case for marijuana

It's time for reformers to play up the safety claim for pot: It's less dangerous than alcohol

BY DAVID SIROTA

When choosing between frugality and security, history shows that America almost always selects the latter. To paraphrase President Kennedy, we'll pay any price and bear any burden to protect ourselves.

No doubt this was why the economic case against the Iraq invasion failed. To many, the war debate seemed to pose a binary question: debt or mushroom clouds? And when it’s a scuffle between money arguments and security arguments (even dishonest security arguments), security wins every time.

Call this the Pay-Any-Price Principle -- an axiom that has impacted all of America's wars, and now, most poignantly, its War on Drugs. When faced with criticism of budget-busting prosecution and incarceration costs, law enforcement agencies and private prison interests have successfully depicted their cause as a willingness to pay any price to jail dealers of hard narcotics.

Of course, data undermine that storyline. In 2008, the FBI reported that 82 percent of drug arrests were for possession -- not sales or manufacturing -- and almost half of those arrests were for marijuana, not hard drugs.

Fortunately, these numbers are seeping into the public consciousness. Gallup's latest survey shows record support for marijuana legalization, as more Americans see the Drug War for what it really is: an ideological and profit-making crusade by the Arrest-and-Incarceration Complex against a substance that is, according to most physicians, less toxic than alcohol.

Considering both the public opinion shift and the facts about marijuana, this should be the moment that drug policy reformers drop their budget attacks and flip the security argument on their opponents -- specifically, by pointing out how safety is actually compromised by the status quo.

The good news is that some activists are making this very case.

Last week, students at 80 colleges asked their schools to reduce penalties for marijuana possession so that they are no greater than penalties for alcohol possession. It's a request with safety in mind: According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol use by college kids contributes to roughly 1,700 deaths, 600,000 injuries and 97,000 sexual assaults every year. By contrast, "The use of marijuana itself has not been found to contribute to any deaths, there has never been a single fatal marijuana overdose in history (and) all objective research on marijuana has also concluded that it does not contribute to injuries, assaults, sexual abuse, or violent or aggressive behavior," as the group Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation notes.

"It's time we stop driving students to drink and let them make the rational, safer choice to use marijuana," said one student.

Now the bad news: Not every reformer is on message.

In California, where polls show most citizens support cannabis legalization, the New York Times reports that backers of a legalization ballot measure "will not dwell on assertions of marijuana's harmlessness" but "rather on [the] cold cash" pot can generate for depleted state coffers.

The problem is not these advocates' facts -- California officials confirm that legal marijuana could generate more than $1 billion in tax revenue. The problem goes back to the Pay-Any-Price Principle.

By downplaying the argument about giving society a safer alternative to alcohol, California's legalization advocates are letting drug warriors reclaim the language of security, to the point where even liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign now trumpets her opposition to the initiative on the grounds that "she shares the [safety] concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials."

A career politician, Boxer understands that if this battle reverts to the old tax-revenue-versus-safety fight, voters will choose safety. In other words, she gets the Pay-Any-Price Principle.

To maximize this opportune moment for drug policy changes, every reformer must appreciate that principle, too -- and finally confront it head-on.

Conservatives Are Proud of Being Ignorant

From The Atlantic - April 7, 2010:

Proud Of Being Ignorant

By Ta-Nehisi Coates -- a senior editor of The Atlantic, who writes about culture, politics, and social issues for TheAtlantic.com and the magazine.


A lot of you have e-mailed me to note that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell has decided to honor those who fought to preserve, and extend, white supremacy. I don't really have much to say. The GOP is, effectively, the party of willfully unlettered Utopians. It is the party of choice for those who believe global warming is a hoax, that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, and that homosexuals should work harder at not being gay.

That the party of unadulterated quackery also believes that Birth Of A Nation is more true to the Civil War than Battle Cry Of Freedom, is to be expected. Ignorance does not respect boundaries. It is, at times, qualified and those who know more, often struggle to say more. But people who believe that the Census is actually a covert attempt to put Americans in concentration camps, are also likely to believe that slavery was incidental to the Civil War.

This is who they are--the proud and ignorant. If you believe that, if we still had segregation we wouldn't "have had all these problems," this is the movement for you. If you believe that your president is a Muslim sleeper agent, this is the movement for you. If you honor a flag raised explicitly to destroy this country, then this is the movement for you. If you flirt with secession, even now, then this movement is for you. If you are a "Real American" with no demonstrable interest in "Real America" then, by God, this movement of alchemists and creationists, of anti-science and hair tonic, is for you.

Conservatives Oppose Protecting The Public from Predatory Bank Lending Practices

From Consumers' Union -- April 8, 2010:

The banks love fine print and loopholes. That’s how they managed to hike millions of Americans’ credit card interest rates before a new law went into effect in February clamping down on their abusive tactics.

But that new law can still help customers — in it, Congress told the banks to review those interest rate hikes and bring unfair rates back down for responsible cardholders. Of course, the banks are trying to make sure that the Federal Reserve Board’s regulations don’t really rollback rate increases.

We need your voice now to counter the banks’ efforts! The Senate is preparing to vote on reforming oversight of the banks and Wall Street — send Senators a strong message that credit card rates need to come back down as part of the reform package.

Email your Senators to include strong credit card rate rollback in bank reform. Give customers a fighting chance!

The financial reform bill is our last, best chance to give Americans’ socked with last year's interest rate hikes a legitimate way to get their concerns addressed. Credit card interest rates cover lending risk, but when the banks can borrow money for close to 0%, why are they charging good customers who pay on time upwards of 30%?

The financial reform bill should stop the unbridled greed and dangerous risk-taking on Wall Street that tanked our economy, destroyed home values and retirement accounts, and eliminated millions of jobs. The bill needs to:

Prioritize a strong, independent consumer protection watchdog with no loopholes;
Help reverse credit card rate hikes for responsible cardholders;
Stop taxpayer bailouts of ‘too big to fail’ banks or other big financial companies.

Take a second to email your Senators now! They need to hear from you, not just from the banks!

Wall Street and financal institutions spent nearly $200 million lobbying Washington last year, so we've got our work cut out for us. After you send an email, please forward this to 10 other people so they can lend their voices, too.

And you’ll be hearing from us in the coming weeks on more ways you can help make sure financial reform works for hard-working Americans. Thanks for all you do!

How Conservative De-Regulation Policies are Wrecking the Capitalist System

From The Washington Post --- April 8, 2010:

Rescuing Capitalism from Wall Street

By Matt Miller

At what point does the ubiquity of the undeserving rich become so corrosive in a democracy that it sparks a backlash that wrongly discredits capitalism altogether?

That's my question for Bob Rubin and Charles Prince, both formerly of Citigroup, when they testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on Thursday. Though first I'd put it this way: How'd you guys make so much money running Citigroup into the ground and leaving it a ward of the state?

Prince earned at least $120 million for running Citi for four years, during which time $64 billion in market value vanished. Rubin made at least $115 million (plus stock options) between 1999 and 2008, before the feds had to inject $45 billion and then guarantee $300 billion of the firm's liabilities to keep the place afloat.

Rubin told the Wall Street Journal in November 2008 that he was worth every penny -- and then some. "I bet there's not a single year where I couldn't have gone somewhere else and made more," he said.

This sense of entitlement to the lucre from rigged compensation systems seems to pervade finance: Ken Lewis of Bank of America, Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch and Kerry Killinger of Washington Mutual (to name just three) walked away from the ruins as very rich men. This pattern explains much about the crisis that wrecked our banks, left 15 million people unemployed, vaporized trillions in output, saddled government with crushing debt and shredded America's economic credibility. (I was in Shanghai last week, and trust me, the Chinese are happy to copy our DVDs, but they don't view American-style capitalism as a model just now.)

At least Akio Toyoda apologized. Our masters of the universe feel exempt from accountability or shame. The toxic mind-set of American financiers has emerged unscathed from the toxic assets they unleashed. Being Bob Rubin means never having to say you're sorry.

The mystery of the financial crisis is this: How could problems in a relatively small class of assets, such as subprime mortgages, bring down the economy? Losses on the trillion or so dollars of subprime loans reached perhaps $300 billion. How could that sum threaten a $15 trillion economy that's fifty times larger? Let alone a global economy of $60 trillion? On its face, this calamity shouldn't have been possible.

So why was it? A big part of the answer is that this small poison in the system spread because of side bets and leverage. New sectors of "derivative" finance, whose sole purpose was to gamble on the fates of these loans, sprang up. Supposedly savvy institutions borrowed big time to make these bets. It's important to be clear on this: Borrowing heavily to go to the casino -- an activity normally scorned by decent people -- is the way Wall Street's "best and brightest" did their work.

Meanwhile, the ratings agencies meant to judge the soundness of the loans that backed these bets were too sleepy, lazy or compromised by the profits they made selling their seal of approval to do their job.

Beyond these shenanigans lies the real heart of darkness: the fact that a few thousand senior people across Wall Street could remain (or get) very wealthy even if the house of cards collapsed. And this, in turn, was possible only because of pay practices that showered bonuses right away even if the mortgage-backed securities on which these bonuses were based were fated to implode -- and because the public ownership structure of major firms meant that all the borrowing and bets were done with other people's money. Wall Street's old privately owned investment partnerships would never have wagered their net worth on so much risky junk.

In "The Big Short," a brilliant look at the crisis through the eyes of quirky, farsighted investors who bet against the conventional madness, Michael Lewis observes that the problem was the system of incentives that channeled Wall Street's workaday greed. "What's strange," Lewis says, "is that pretty much all the important people on both sides of the gamble left the table rich."

"The CEOs of every major Wall Street firm . . . were on the wrong end of the gamble," Lewis writes, of the subprime implosion. "All of them, without exception, either ran their public corporations into bankruptcy or were saved from bankruptcy by the United States government. They all got rich, too."

This is not how free markets are supposed to work. This is the scam the Angelides commission and Congress have to scream about -- and fix. If you believe (as I do) that intelligently regulated market capitalism is the best hope for spreading prosperity, it's essential to rescue the U.S. economy from Wall Street's "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" perversion that threatens to discredit America's model altogether.

Nathan Bedford Forrest -- Founder of the Klu Klux Klan -- Is the True Leader of Today's Republican Party

From The Washington Post -- April 7, 2010:

What's up with the GOP?

By Jonathan Capehart

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell's (R-Va.) sanitized celebration of Confederate History Month got me thinking about a sanitized version of a common question that I'd like to ask the Republican Party: what the frig?! By itself, McDonnell's seven-paragraph insult could be written off as the actions of a pandering politician currying favor with his local base. Unfortunately, it is one more piece of evidence that there's nothing grand about the Grand Old Party these days.

There's the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party movement. The legitimate concerns of Americans worried about skyrocketing deficits and the role and size of government have been hijacked by birthers, truthers and 10th Amendment types. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) added that requisite anti-immigrant spice at the February confab in Nashville. And when a crowd of these folks stormed the Capitol last month, Republican members of Congress egged them on. I can understand GOP leaders wanting to ride this bucking bronco. Their passion and enthusiasm could lead them to electoral gold in November. But there are long-term consequences for pursuing this strategy.

"I do not recognize myself in the Republican Party anymore," lamented Chris Currey, who describes himself as a "worried, old, middle of the road Republican" on FrumForum. "We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and yet we act and behave as if we are the party of Nathan Bedford Forrest." He concludes, "If nothing happens, we might win an election or even two, but in the long run we will lose America." And they'll deserve to if they keep this up. Still, ultimately, it will be America that loses. The republic is ill-served by a two-party system in which one of the parties is bereft of a positive alternative to the majority party and is enthralled by a shrinking and increasingly reactionary base.

By Jonathan Capehart | April 7, 2010; 4:42 PM ET

Pat Dorinson Tells It Like It Is -- Right On, Patty Baby!

Patrick Dorinson, Commentator and Publisher of The Cowboy Libertarian :

"Republicans and Tea Party folks wear sheets and hoods to their meetings, are racists, and they hate Obama because he is black."

You got that Right, Patty Baby. Let's Hear It for Pat. Hip Hip, Hoorah! No one could say it plainer or more accurately than Pat.

Obama's Efforts to Save America From The Jaws of the GOP Party of Nope

From The Washington Post -- April 5, 2010:

Obama's Uphill Battles Continue

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Toward the end of the health-care battle, a beleaguered Obama staff member sent me an e-mail that ended with the words: "Sisyphus was a sissy compared to what we've been through!"

Yes, the fight for health reform seemed very much like the Greek myth: Every time the White House found itself on the verge of rolling the health-care stone up the hill, some event -- say, Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts -- would force it to start over with a new strategy.

Alas for President Obama, this will not be the last moment that invites comparisons with Sisyphus. His health-care victory marked the beginning of a new phase in the administration's political struggles, not a final triumph.

It is still, of course, an enormous achievement, and it alters the political terrain in ways that are favorable to Democrats. By creating new facts on the ground, health reform complicates the Republicans' task.

Already, the GOP's early calls to repeal the bill look problematic. The insurance reforms in the bill are widely popular, and even its tax increases (a large share of which hit the very wealthy) are tied to benefits that would flow to middle- or lower-middle income Americans.

In addition, Republicans concede a great deal when they say they would "replace" the plan and not simply return to the pre-reform status quo. Their slogan makes clear that all future arguments about health care will be premised on a more active government role. The debate will never be the same again.

Moreover, the Democrats' ability to hold together and pass health reform may encourage some Republican senators to seek compromises on other issues rather than stand aside yet again and thereby limit their impact on final outcomes.

But the outlines of the next phase of this year's election argument are becoming visible.

Sophisticated conservatives have begun to argue that Democratic proposals across a range of issues are designed to make the United States more like Europe. Without shouting "socialism," they claim that programs to guarantee greater economic security (such as health reform) and to impose more stringent rules on finance and banking would make the American economy less entrepreneurial and less inclined to take risks.

In fact, Europe is hardly a scary place. But progressives can insist that their program is entirely within the American tradition, an effort to restore some of the security and predictability that defined the economy before the erosion of employer-provided benefits that began in the 1980s.

They will also have to make a strong case that the new rules on finance are not aimed at reducing genuine private risk-taking. Their purpose is to end a system that allowed a small number of financiers and firms to make fortunes by taking enormous risks with taxpayers covering most of their losses. Reform is designed to reduce the exposure of taxpayers and those outside the financial system, not to create a risk-free private economy.

The trickiest political problem confronting the administration and its allies is rooted in rising concern about the deficit. Here, Republicans will be able to engage in their own kind of risk-free politics. As the party out of power, they can condemn deficits, attack "big government" in the abstract and oppose tax increases -- all at the same time, and without facing the consequences of how their policies would work in practice.

And because any plausible policy for dealing with long-term deficits will necessarily involve tax increases of some sort, Obama and the Democrats are looking at an unpalatable election-year choice. Endorsing substantial tax increases now would be politically suicidal, but failing to do so opens Democrats to charges from deficit hawks that they are not serious about the red ink.

In the short term, Democrats can argue reasonably that raising taxes or slashing programs before the economy has recovered would be bad policy. And they can assert that the commission Obama has named to grapple with the deficit will clarify the trade-offs between tax increases and program cuts. This, in turn, will open the way for a more rational argument about deficits.

It would be nice if things worked out this way. But between now and then lies an election season likely to be characterized more by anger than reason, and in which the opposition has the advantage of not being in charge at a moment of great discontent. Sisyphus would understand. And Obama will have to get used to it.

The Republican National Committee and "Fiscal Responsibility"

From The News York Daily News -- March 31, 2010:

Report: Big donors jumping ship from Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, over spending

BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN

A new report suggests Michael Steele and the RNC are losing donors, thanks to wasteful spending.

GOP fires RNC staffer over $1,946 bill at Hollywood topless club Voyeur

RNC ran up almost $2K at Hollywood strip club

The RNC may be in need of some TLC.

In the wake of an embarrassing spending spree of nearly $2,000 at a risque strip joint, which led to one staffer being fired, a new report suggests donors are abandoning the Republican National Committee - and have been for a while.

"There are a whole lot of troubling things going on," a major GOP donor told The Daily Caller.

The source claims prominent Republican donors have stopped handing their money over to the RNC. Instead, they're pouring their pocketbooks into the coffers of the GOP's Senatorial Committee.

Daily Caller reports that Federal Election Commission filings show at least eight top donors, including Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, have declined to contribute for more than a year.

Since 2009, the records show, they have instead given funds to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee or individual campaign committees.

This shift in big money contributions may suggest unhappiness with Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC.

"I think the party loses any moral standing to talk with credibility about how Democrats are spending taxpayer money when the RNC is being arguably as reckless with donor money," Mark DeMoss, chief executive of an Atlanta-based public relations company, told the Daily Caller.

A recent analysis by Politico.com found that under Steele, RNC spending on private jets had doubled, limo trips had tripled and meal expenses jumped from $306,000 to $599,000 compared with the same period in 2005.

President Obama Ventures Where Dubya Bush, Spiro Agnew and Conservatives Would Never Go

From The Washington Post -- April 5, 2010:

Obamas celebrate Easter in SE Washington church

By Eli Saslow and Hamil R. Harris

President Obama made it his goal Sunday to quietly attend an Easter service with his family, planning a secret trip in which he made no public remarks. But presidents don't blend in, especially in neighborhoods plagued by crime and unemployment. A crowd began to form outside Allen Chapel AME Church in Southeast Washington just before 3:30 a.m.

First came the men wearing suits and the women in high heels, followed a few hours later by 30 police officers who barricaded nearby roads. Then came the Secret Service, the news helicopters, the city politicians and the bomb-sniffing dogs. By 11:04 a.m., when Obama arrived for his most substantial trip yet to Southeast, hundreds of onlookers lined the streets.

As Obama worshipped with 700 others for two hours, the parishioners and preachers made him a focal point of the service. His mere presence was historic, they said. In Ward 8, the District's poorest, Obama's arrival was at once regarded as a reminder of the neighborhood's problems -- the unemployment rate is 28.5 percent -- and a reason to maintain hope.

"This is a monumental moment for us as a community," said the Rev. Dr. Michael E. Bell Sr., the church pastor, soon after Obama sat down. "Ward 8 has not been forgotten, not when the president would come here at a time like this."

Until Sunday, Obama's trips to Southeast Washington consisted of a visit to a charter school and a stop at a burger joint near Nationals Park. He had attended services in Washington five times since his election, usually to accept a blessing or make a speech.

The visit "galvanizes the black people in Ward 8," said Garry Brown said before the service.

Maybe, said Joseph Cobb, "it will bring some other politicians down here."

"Most of the time, we're forgotten about," said Earl Day.

When he left home Sunday in a 22-car motorcade, Obama's four-mile trip took him past the throngs of cherry blossom tourists and across the Anacostia River. He passed a housing project, boarded-up buildings and a mural decorated with his portrait. The limousine turned onto Alabama Avenue and into Ward 8, where four people were killed in a shooting last week and 40 percent of the residents live in poverty -- the part of the city, Obama once said, that "everybody forgets."

Even before the president arrived, regular churchgoers remarked that Allen Chapel seemed temporarily transformed by his visit. Two metal detectors guarded the entrance to the church, and a tent had been erected behind the building to facilitate a private arrival for Obama's limousine. Parishioners entered the service an hour early. Then a fire marshal blocked the entrance, leaving several hundred people lingering outside.

The congregation had started to sing alleluia by the time the first family entered, walking past the choir to a reserved pew in the front of the church. D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Ward 8 council member Marion Barry (D) also attended but did not interact with the Obamas.

The president clapped and stomped his foot to the beat. Michelle Obama, wearing a scooped-back beige dress, danced next to him. When the song finished, a woman from the choir grabbed the microphone and pointed to the Obama family, telling them that Allen's congregation liked to get up and move during the service.

"If you came in here to sit and be still, I'm sorry. Move down the street," said one associate minister, drawing a loud cheer. "Excuse me, first family, but we like to get crazy up in here. You might see shoes flying, hair flying. But we are praising the Lord."

It was the kind of spirited service Obama attended for years as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and he did his best to blend into the crowd. He read along during the hymns, nodded his head repeatedly during the sermon and spent a few minutes bouncing the pastor's grandchild on his lap.

During one song, Obama nudged his older daughter, Malia, and tried to persuade her to dance. "Come on," he said. Then he swayed his shoulders and clapped his hands with exaggerated enthusiasm until Malia started to laugh.

Few who sat behind Obama looked as relaxed. Two Secret Service officers occupied the pew behind the first family and acted as a moving shield, standing when they stood, swaying when the Obamas swayed, sitting when they sat. Ten ushers stood in the center aisle, wearing black suits and white gloves. Secret Service agents wore headsets and kept lookout from the church balcony. Some parishioners held cellphone cameras above their heads to take pictures of the president.

Most speakers also focused, at least momentarily, on Obama's attendance. Bell, the pastor, called him "the most intelligent, most anointed, most charismatic president this country has ever seen." Then he looked at Obama and said: "God has his hands all over you."

But Obama never responded to the attention. He offered no grand wave or parade of handshakes. He never turned around to look at the congregation behind him. His first significant movement came at the end of the service, when he walked to the pulpit to kneel and take Communion with his family. As a bishop recited the Lord's Prayer, Obama ate a wafer and drank and thimble-sized glass of grape juice.

"Mr. President, we know you are going to do great for this country," said Bishop Adam J. Richardson, leader of the second Episcopal district of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

Obama nodded and walked out the side entrance. A few minutes later, the congregation filtered out the front door. The tent for Obama's arrival had been disassembled. The Secret Service had left. Police had taken down barricades and reopened the streets to traffic. Several dozen parishioners lingered outside, sharing their hazy digital photos of Obama and talking about what his visit had meant.

Then his motorcade traveled back across the Anacostia and past the cherry blossoms, delivering him back home after two hours at church.

Republican and Conservative Obstruction Strikes at the Heart of America Again

From Common Dreams -- April 5, 2010:

More Than 200,000 to Lose Jobless Benefits Monday With Congress Out

by Walter Alarkon

Starting Monday, more than 200,000 unemployed Americans won't see jobless benefits they're expecting because Congress failed to act.

The interruption in benefits will last two weeks at a minimum, according to Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), since lawmakers return from spring break on April 12.

As the two-week recess began, Congress was at an impasse over how to extend the emergency unemployment insurance program and other expiring provisions, including increased COBRA health insurance subsidies for the unemployed, the Medicare doctor payment rate and federal flood insurance.

Senate Republicans said the $9.3 billion, 30-day extension preferred by Democrats should be paid for, while Democrats said the bill's cost didn't need to be offset because the program was "emergency spending."

Under the jobless benefits program that ends Monday, Americans out of work are eligible for up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. The program, aimed at helping jobless Americans stay afloat when new jobs aren't readily available, gives an unemployed worker more than the 26 weeks of unemployment insurance normally available. But with the program ending, those out of work for as few as six months will see an interruption in their benefit checks.

"Odds are they have burned through savings, already asked for loans and gifts from family and friends if needed, so going for two weeks without a paycheck, especially if those two weeks are a time when rent or mortgage is due, is going to be hard," Conti said.

Those who will miss unemployment checks may see them in the future.

Senate Democrats said they'll try to pass an extension of the program that can be applied retroactively once Congress is back in session. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a vote on cloture to end debate on the short-term extension for April 12.

Democratic and Republican leaders both claim the higher ground, confident that the public will blame the other side for causing the gap.

Democrats blamed Republicans, who objected to a quick Senate vote on a short-term unemployment benefits extension, for blocking relief to those seeking work.

Republicans said House Democrats are to blame. When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and other conservative GOP lawmakers made clear they wouldn't allow swift passage of the 30-day extension if its cost wasn't offset, Senate GOP and Democratic leaders discussed a brief, one-week extension. But House Democrats said they wanted the one-month extension.

Senate Republican aides sent a memo to reporters with media reports suggesting the short-term deal was "quashed by Democrats."

Coburn said he and other GOP lawmakers were willing to work through the recess to find a way to extend benefits without increasing the $12.8 trillion federal debt.

"I think it would have been a good idea to stay here and work this out," Coburn told reporters. "Unfortunately, we chose not to do that... because we didn't want to make difficult choices about where we cut spending and eliminate additions to the debt."

Senior Democrats said their enthusiasm for Friday's Labor Department report showing a net 162,000 jobs created in March was tempered by the fact that 15 million Americans were still unemployed.

"With so many families in Nevada and across the country still struggling to find work and make ends meet, it is imperative that Senate Republicans stop blocking the extension of critical unemployment insurance and health benefits," Reid said in a statement. "Their obstruction endangers the economic certainty of millions of families."

The AFL-CIO said it will be "doing events, writing letters, making phone calls" this week to press Republicans to go along with an extension.

"One thing is crystal clear, Republican obstruction is going to cost hundreds of thousands of working families their benefits," said Eddie Vale, spokesman for the AFL-CIO. "So we will be loudly and publicly calling them out."

The partisan debate over jobless benefits and their cost will likely last beyond next week. Senate and House Democrats are planning to extend the emergency unemployment program and increased COBRA benefits to the end of 2010. The Senate version, which also included extensions of business tax breaks, cost about $150 billion, more than $100 billion of which wasn't offset.

FOX News Lies and Distorts to Con Conservative Sheep About America's Economic Recovery

From Media Matters For America -- April 4, 2010:

Brit Hume accuses White House of "economic illiteracy" by pushing economic myths.

Fox News contributor Brit Hume relied on dubious claims to accuse the White House of "economic illiteracy," pushing the myth that March employment gains were primarily driven by "government jobs" and the discredited claim that the stimulus has failed. But March job growth at private employers was the largest in nearly three years, and economic analyses have concluded that unemployment would be higher and GDP lower without the stimulus.

During the April 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Hume stated:

HUME: This is an administration that seems beset by kind of an economic illiteracy. I don't think the president nor those immediately around him really have a grasp -- surprisingly -- have very little grasp of what the private -- how the private sector works, how incentives work, and how disincentives work.

Hume's accusation is based on discredited and dubious economic analysis.

Hume: "So many of the jobs were these government jobs." Discussing March's unemployment numbers recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Hume commented: "Just as in the past, so many of the jobs were these government jobs which have either been saved, as they like to say, or created." He continued, "This is, in jobs terms, an exceedingly feeble recovery."

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Private employers added 123,000 jobs in March. In the most recent monthly employment survey, BLS reported that total nonfarm payroll increased by 162,000 employees in March; private employers added 123,000 employees in March, the Largest One-Month Gain Since May 2007.

Hume: "I think the stimulus has been remarkably ineffective." During the discussion, Hume also stated: "They talk about the effect of the stimulus. I think the stimulus has been remarkably ineffective."

Independent analysts agree with White House: Unemployment would be higher, GDP lower without stimulus. In a quarterly report issued January 13, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated: "As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1½ and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies." From CEA's quarterly report:

In the same report, CEA stated: "The CEA estimates suggest that the Act contributed between 2 and 3 percentage points to real GDP growth in the second quarter; between 3 and 4 percentage points in the third quarter; and between 1½ and 3 percentage points in the fourth quarter. The estimates imply that as a result, it has raised the level of GDP at the end of 2009 by about 2 percent, relative to what otherwise would have been." CEA noted that "private sector estimates" of the stimulus effects on GDP were "generally similar":

What a Shame Ted Kennedy Was Not Around to See Obama's Health Care Triumph

Only shame is Ted Kennedy wasn't around to see health care reform dream fulfilled

By MICHAEL DALY

From New York Daily News -- March 23rd 2010:

His clan seemed to suffer another cruel twist of fate as Sen. Edward Kennedy lay buried beside his murdered brothers while the critical fight for what he called the cause of his life raged in the Capitol within view of his grave.

Then, just as the fight came to where it would be won or lost, just when he was needed most, his spirit seemed to swoop down across the Potomac to the White House and the President he had declared to be the true inheritor of his brother John's legacy.

It was not the spirit of John so much as of Edward that spurred Obama to cease seeking to conciliate and again speak with actual passion about what was really at stake in health care reform.

"If you think that somehow it's okay we have millions of hardworking Americans who can't get health care and it's all right, it's acceptable, in the wealthiest nation on Earth that there are children with chronic illnesses that can't get the care that they need - then you should vote 'no' on this bill," he told the Democratic congressional caucus on Saturday.

Otherwise, he told them, they should vote "yes," whatever the political pressures.

"Every once in a while, a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country."

The Kennedy spirit was joined by echoes of Lincoln.

"We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine."

Passion became action and even the "pro-life" Democrats who held out for a last-minute deal were really just looking for a way to join in making history.

Some say the bill Obama will sign today did not go far enough, but Kennedy would be cheering it as a big step forward after so many frustrating and disheartening years of going nowhere at all.

"The shame is he wasn't around to see it," Dr. Jack Geiger said yesterday. "Even though he's gone, he deserves a lot of the credit because he was the one who kept this alive for year after year."

Geiger speaks as a doctor who co-founded a community health clinic in a tough part of Boston that first inspired Kennedy to embrace the cause back in 1966. Geiger and his co-founder, Dr. Count Gibson, had been medical workers with the civil rights movement down South.

Kennedy immediately understood when he visited this clinic up North that the principle behind it was that health care is no less a matter of justice.

"He spent most of his time talking to the patients," Geiger recalled. "Yeah, he wanted to understand the concept and the structure, but he was most interested in the effect it had on the people."

Kennedy later spoke of meeting women who otherwise had to ride the bus three hours to the nearest medical facility and then wait in long lines with no place even for the pregnant ones to sit. He said the clinic was "where it all started," where he embarked on "the cause of my life."

Kennedy kept up the fight through his final hours. The struggle was then left without its most passionate and untiring champion, and Geiger was among those who worried all might be lost.

As the decisive moment neared, Obama filled with that spirit as surely as if it swooped down from across the river.

The doctor who helped kindle that passion in Kennedy decades ago now lives in Brooklyn. He has no doubt Kennedy would be a deeply happy warrior today.

"He'd want more, and if he'd been around we would have gotten more, but it's a real start," Geiger said. "At last!"

The Republican Crackup -- 'Bye, 'Bye, Fellas -- We Hate To See You Go

The Republican Crackup

By Matt Miller

From The Washington Post -- March 31, 2020

Has anyone else noticed that seemingly well-adjusted Republicans have been driven insane by the passage of Obamacare? You can catch them muttering under their breath, whimpering on editorial pages and howling to the moon that this Democratic victory is the death knell for much that we cherish in American life. When I first saw a Republican friend jump out the window in this fashion, I assumed it was an isolated incident, or even politically motivated play-acting. Now that I've seen countless others follow suit, however, it's a phenomenon that merits deeper psychological inquiry.

As a matter of objective reality, after all, this Republican derangement seems an absurd overreaction. How could taking Mitt Romney's health-care plan national be seen by any balanced person as the beginning of the end? Still, everyone knows that too many big, stressful changes at once -- such as getting divorced, changing jobs and moving homes -- can push even sturdy people over the edge. Three sudden emotional shocks likewise explain the Republican crackup.

Shock 1: Losing big. For starters, Republicans simply have not lost on an issue this big in decades. Media coverage features so many breathless political ups and downs that it's easy to assume each party tastes victory and defeat in equal measure. But as a matter of ideology, these overheated fights take place between the 45-yard lines on a field that conservatives shrewdly tilted to their advantage several decades ago. That President Obama could move the debate to the 40-yard line and win is something the modern GOP has never experienced. Republicans mauled President Clinton when he tried to do the same; after 1994, Clinton's "wins" were trumped-up and tiny. Republicans have so successfully framed the debate for so long that they don't know what it feels like to be thoroughly beaten. Who wouldn't feel disoriented and angry?

Shock 2: The quest for security. The next blow is the dawning awareness that the quest for economic security in a global era is reshaping politics. The instant premise of Republican analysis -- that the public will never tolerate Obamacare's repeal once it is implemented -- concedes the point that health reform will bring a measure of security that families crave. The Republican psyche is having so much trouble digesting this reality, though, that the party is resorting to the kind of condescending arguments for which they normally damn liberals. Who's got more contempt for the average American? Liberals who say everyday Kansans vote Republican because they're too dumb to grasp their own economic self-interest? Or conservatives who now say voters are too dimwitted to see that Obamacare will devour their freedom?

Deep down, Republicans know they haven't developed serious policy responses to the economic anxieties of the middle class. This (rightly) scares them.

Shock 3: The death of the tax issue. The final shock is the cruelest of all: the demise of the tax issue that's defined the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan. There's been no shortage of conservative carping since the health-care vote that we're now doomed to have a value-added tax to fund the runaway welfare state. Well, earth to GOP: Taxes have always been destined to go up as baby boomers retire and we double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead -- and the scale of that retiree commitment is far greater than the tab for Obamacare. Trying to blame health reform for the higher taxes in our future is another species of the denial that has left GOP tax talk almost comically detached from reality. But this is just the GOP acting out its fears. When a party discovers that core aspects of its political identity no longer offer meaningful answers to the nation's problems, the torment is acute. Yet what else can we say of the GOP now that "rugged individualism" won't suffice to save American workers from competition from China and India, and when taxes are sure to rise, no matter how many Republicans we elect?

The signposts in the Republican universe have been abruptly altered. So don't let yourself become desensitized to the sight of conservatives stumbling, lost in the night, the way you avert your eyes when passing poor homeless souls on the sidewalk. Suffering is subjective. There are people on the street who really think they are Jesus. There are Republicans in our midst who really think Obama's version of Romneycare equals socialism. There but for the grace of God -- and maybe a little less sloppy thinking -- go we.

Go, Tony, Baby, Go -- Conservatives Eat Their Own

From Politico -- March 31, 2010:

Tony Perkins urges Conservatives to Stop Giving Money to RNC

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential social conservative, is urging his members to stop giving money to the Republican National Committee, POLITICO has learned.

"I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it: Don't give money to the RNC," Perkins will tell FRC members in the group's next e-mail newsletter. "If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values."

Perkins' move comes two days after it was disclosed that the committee spent nearly $2,000 at a lesbian bondage club near Los Angeles — a revelation that has revived Republican griping about Chairman Michael Steele and the national party.

"This latest incident is another indication to me the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people they are seeking financial support from," Perkins writes.

His move comes a few weeks after Mark DeMoss, a prominent Christian conservative P.R. executive and donor, said after the disclosure of the RNC's controversial fundraising presentation that he would stop giving to the national party.

In his missive, Perkins also lamented that the RNC had touted their hiring super-lawyer Ted Olson to represent them in a campaign finance case.

"Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California," Perkins writes. "The outcome of Olson's challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

These actions raise a potentially more serious threat to the RNC than the mere embarrassment of using party money to pay for a night out at a establishment dubbed Voyeur West Hollywood. The committee has $9.46 million in the bank and already likely won't be able to offer the congressional committees and GOP candidates the sort of financial help they have in the past. If social conservatives — the core of the party base — withhold contributions, the RNC's money problem could become far worse.


Those Lesbians could spell the Death of the Republican Party. Who'da thunk it? Thank you, ladies. All of America thanks you.

Tom Toles Takes On the Tea Partiers

From The Washington Post -- April 1, 2010

By Tom Toles (Prize-Winning Political Cartoonist):

You Can't Be Serious

The sketch I put up today (not the main cartoon, the rough sketch after the jump -- I know, it's complicated) deals with the seriousness of the Tea Party types. Lord knows their anger is real, but are their ideas? Getting angry is a fine, traditional American pastime, and we're all for those. The whole system is designed to register and deal with what citizens are concerned about. But what ARE these citizens concerned about?

First, we must put aside the question of race, both the president's and any possible beneficiaries of the president's policies. I don't know how anyone could look at the history of conservatism over the last, oh, FOREVER, and conclude that race could possibly have anything to do with anything.

No, the anger has to do with OTHER things, like deficits. Deficits, like all accounting issues, are well known to get people massively worked up. Look at the furious way Americans respond when someone offers them the opportunity to buy on credit. And deficits particularly matter when one party is in office and not that other party, but we won't name names here.

But being mad at deficits is not a policy. A policy means you look at how to fix the problem. The problem in the deficit, long term, is rising medical costs. Okay, you want to insist that Obama's health-care plan will raise costs rather than lower them. Debatable point. Probably wrong, but debatable. But if it doesn't lower them, what does? If your answer is leaving more and more people without coverage, and care, say so. But say something. The shot clock on being angry without a plan, and being taken seriously, is running out.

Conservatives Are Communists' Greatest Allies

Conservatives may think they are the opposite of Communists, but that's only because Conservatives are a bunch of damn fools. Conservatives are the best friends Communists could possibly hope for.

Unrestrained Conservative policies lead to the destruction of Capitalism and its replacement by Socialism, Communism, or even worse forms of totalitarianism.

Liberal policies preserve Capitalism and save the system from the periodic destruction wrought by out-of-control Conservative policies.

Take, for example, the Depression of 1929 thru 1933 -- or the Near-Depression 0f 2008. The only difference between those two events is that Conservatives remained in power for 3-1/2 more years after the Crash of 1929 and were able to show America and the world what economic Hell is really like.

Today, fortunately, Bush and the GOP were out of office within a year of the 2008 Crash, and Obama and the liberals were able to ride to the rescue.

Too bad the Conservatives didn't remain in power for four more years after the Crash of 2008. Then, all of today's Americans could have experienced a re-run of the economic Hell of the thirties, instead of the economic recovery which liberal policies are already rapidly bringing about.