A Better Way Forward

Earlier today while you were busy at work or taking care of yourself or your family at home, a sea change occurred in Washington, D.C. that will affect your life in a very positive way for years to come. Today, the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives officially, and the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was elected.

Not only will Boehner's self-effacing, emotional, heart-on-his-sleeves style be in stark contrast to the blathering and blustering that American has suffered through over the past four years with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's post, but the concrete results that the country will begin to see over time will  be even more profound.

Back in November, the American voting public sent a clear message to lawmakers that the controlling Democratic Party led by Pelosi and President Barack Obama had grossly overstepped their bounds in beginning to lead the country down a path towards Socialism. No longer would irresponsible bailouts to big business, massive increases in government control of our daily lives, and repressive taxation be permitted to continue.

In taking the gavel of Congressional power today, Boehner promised to return government to the people with a renewed focus on the Constitution and the principles of transparency, honesty and accountability. Of course in actuality it was we, the people, who had returned government to ourselves
by putting Boehner into power with the landslide electoral victories of November 2010.

Speaker of the House Boehner recognized the fact of the people's expressed will when he stated in today's speech "The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin to carry out their instructions." Those instructions include making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for every American, rolling back the socialist Obama health-care behemoth, ending the practice of "earmarks" in legislation initiatives, and returning America to it's Constitutional roots.

The Republican Party itself has not been a very good steward of these values when it has had the opportunity in the past. In fact, there is really only one major difference in today's Democratic and Republican Party. That difference is the people who make up the two parties out here in the homeland. The majority of Republicans at the grass-roots levels want a national government that keeps taxes low, keeps spending low, promotes personal and familial responsibility, that keeps us safe here at home, and that never inhibits the faith that is at the very foundation of our nation.

Democrats, on the other hand, generally want a government that lets anyone do what they want, when they want, except when it bothers them specifically as an individual, in which case they want the government to step in with regulation and control and penalties. They want an ever-expanding nanny state that takes care of them from the cradle to the grave, and want those who have been historically hard-working, the job creators, the builders, to pay for it all.

Oh, and they want to have sex without fear of any parental consequences, and so they push for the murder of babies under the guise of a "choice" for women. Never mind that the poor little baby gets no such choice in the matter at all. Hey, mommy couldn't keep her legs closed. Hey, daddy couldn't keep it in his pants. So sorry kid, but you gotta go. (insert sucking vacuum sound here)

John Boehner and the Republicans who took office today know one thing for certain, that they are being watched. No, I'm not talking about being watched by and Dem politician or liberal media outlet. I'm not talking about being watched by some hack comedian or some self-righteous television talk show host. I'm talking about being watched by us, the very same people who elected them in November.

The elections of November 2010 are only the beginning. There are more congressional offices to take, more Senatorial offices to flip. More state houses to make a move on in the future. And then, of course, there is the big one in 2012, when it will be time to topple the faux Messiah himself.

A better way forward has been forged, not by politicians, but by the people of the Republican Party. The politicians who took office today, particularly the new Speaker of the House John Boehner because of the importance of his public position and the power that he now wields, are only our instruments. We will be listening closely to the tunes they play in the coming months and years.

What Do the People Want?

As a new Congress is seated, one that has a tidy GOP majority in the House and a slimmer Democratic majority in the Senate, one of the big questions will be -- what do the people want?  John Boehner and Eric Cantor have made much of the fact that the GOP won "big" -- that is won the House in the most recent election.  This, they believe, gives them a mandate to undo all the bad things the Democrats did in the last Congress, which in their opinion the American people didn't want.  Well, if I remember correctly, in the previous (2008) election, the American people gave the Democrats, at least for a time, a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and an overwhelming advantage in the House -- plus they gave the White House to the Democrats.  So, you would have thought that 2008 gave the Democrats a mandate.  But, if you thought that -- according to Republicans -- you would be wrong. 

The way the Republicans seem to look at the 2008 elections is very different.  Consider that they keep on insisting, quoting Sean Hannity almost verbatim, that the Democrats "shoved down the throats of the American People" a health bill they didn't want.  Truth be told -- the poll numbers are much more complicated than many have been led to believe.  A sizable number don't like the Bill because it doesn't go far enough -- that is, they didn't like the compromise.  But if you take those who want a better, more far reaching bill, plus those who like the fact that a Bill got passed, and put them together you have a majority of Americans who favor government involvement in health care -- because they don't like the former system (now being fazed out).  Oh, and if they didn't want health care reform why did the American voters overwhelmingly support President Obama's bid for office.  I seem to remember him saying quite clearly that one of his top agenda points was health care reform!  Maybe I misheard him, but I think he made that clear in a debate with John McCain. 

Then there's the tax issue.  The Tea Party folks, which in my mind still seems to be a small but very loud minority, wants you to believe that all taxes are bad and that we should make the government really small -- sort of like it was at the beginning, back when Thomas Jefferson was advocating pretty much unfettered freedom.  What people seem to forget was that Jefferson came out of an Agrarian context much different from today.  When the Republic was founded the Industrial Age had yet to even hit America.  Folks -- things have changed a lot since 1800!  

People want services.  They want safe food, they want safe roads and streets, they want quality health care at an affordable price, they want good schools, but they're not thrilled about paying for them.  Read just the other day that a majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthiest Americans before budget cuts are made.  

So, Republicans, watch out -- you may be claiming the mantle of the people, but the people may have already moved on!   

Obama and the Democrats Still Don't Get It - Fix the PR & Messaging, and Pick the Right Battles

The Midterm (S)elections ended pretty much as expected. Confused Americans tired of gridlock in Washington DC, voted for more gridlock. This is frustrating because I know many of those white Republican voters are poor working class and middle class people. Many have been greatly impacted by the economy. I don't understand how they believe Republicans will make their lives any better. Afterall, a Republican White House was at the helm when the economy crashed. Republicans will aim to cut projects and services that many of their own constituents depend on... food stamps, medicare, unemployment insurance, S-chip, infrastructure investments, money for Police and Teachers...you name it. The next two years will be very constraining for President Obama, due to a Republican House of Representatives that will block his remaining agenda.

I have been annoyed and dejected about politics and the direction of the Country (still going in the wrong direction) over the past several weeks and have not been motivated to write anything. Voters and the Country have been disappointing more often than not over the past several years. Things started to go downhill politically in the late 1990's when Republicans and Ken Starr turned the Clinton affair into a circus. Then the U.S. made a number of foreign policy mistakes... under Clinton, which didn't help the U.S. at all...and caused more harm. That was followed up by the 2000 elections. A year later... we had the 9/11 catastrophe. The U.S. hasn't been the same since. Every major negative event that happened after 2000 and 2001 can be traced back to the major events of those two years (the Election of Bush/Cheney, and 9/11)....every major negative event. The nation is still licking its wounds from 2000 and 2001.

What annoyed me most about the Democrats, Post-election, was the fact that there didn't seem to be any effort whatsoever to understand what helped lead to the sharp losses. There was no recognition at all of Progressive/Democratic Party strategy. It was back to business as usual. The first major sign that the Democrats didn't get it was the fact that they chose Nancy Pelosi to continue as the Party's leader in the House of Representatives. This would have been a good opportunity to start fresh with a new leader. Pelosi, in my view, was never very effective as Speaker. Not only does the choice of Pelosi provide more motivation for Republicans over the next two years, but it sends the signal that Democrats are, to some extent, tone deaf. Democrats never seemed to have their finger on the collective pulse of the American public. Despite the need to focus on jobs and the economy.... Democrats chose Healthcare. That in of itself was not the fatal blow. It was the way that they went about selling Healthcare Reform that sunk them. Democrats never seemed to understand the importance of messaging and PR... how to grab and maintain the initiative in the information war. As a result, they lost the information war early on and were never able to regain control of the debate. Democrats also failed to grasp the fact that the U.S. is a centrist to center-right nation, and that governing may sometimes require a centrist approach. However, this is also a nation, as centrist as it may be, where people like populist ideas...some of which are Progressive ideas. In other words...large complicated bills that few people understand are often frowned upon due to costs and the image of too much government. But when you separate Progressive ideas into smaller slices, Americans often like them.... the populist side of the Country kicks in. Democrats failed to exploit the way that Americans understand and perceive policy. It's as if Democrats didn't bother gauging public sentiment at all to determine the best strategy for proceeding.

They were able to pass a bill....many observers, including myself, predicted that. But the cost was probably too high...politically and otherwise. A better strategy might have been passing the bill in pieces which would have been less confusing. They should have focused on passing (and branding) the popular aspects of reform....making it difficult for Republicans to confuse and misinform voters.

President Obama himself doesn't seem to get it. Not only doesn't he seem to understand the larger issues that I mentioned regarding Democrats... he also doesn't seem to understand how his position and approach as President will have to change. During his post-election press conference, the President once again extended an olive branch to Republicans and talked bipartisanship. This was after (Speaker elect) John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, made it clear that they had no intentions on pursuing a bipartisan approach.

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

McConnell made similar statements, basically saying that his priority would be to make sure that Obama is defeated in 2012. The only way to do that is to sabotage the remaining two years of Obama's Presidency....which is exactly what they plan to do. It's the same approach that they used during his first two years in office.

The Republican plan is basically to continue the approach of obstruction...and run out the clock on Obama's time in office. They don't want to allow Obama to claim credit for anything positive. They are even reluctant to allow Obama to sign the New START Treaty. The START Treaty is part of a family of Treaties going back to the SALT Treaties under Ford and Carter. They have been the cornerstone of arms control & arms reduction between the U.S. and Russia for four decades. Senate approval of these treaties is usually a formality. All out delays, opposition, sabotage & interference is extremely unusual... not just over the past four decades, but throughout the history of the Republic.

Is Obama tone deaf? He doesn't seem to understand that Republicans have declared war on his Presidency. He also doesn't seem to understand that Democrats/Progressives are in the midst of an information war...and they are losing. I can understand his desire to remain cordial. That's the professional thing to do... but behind the scenes he has to have a two track strategy if he wants to avoid being a one term President.

There is a way that Obama could minimize Republican obstructionism and even put pressure on Republicans. I'm not very optimistic, because the Obama strategy team and the strategy approach of the Party as a whole has been so ineffective over the past two years. But he could position himself to be competitive in 2012, if (along with the Democratic Party) he takes the following approach:

1. Vastly improve the messaging and PR. This has been dismal lately. Work to establish a media infrastructure and communications network for Progressives that could rival the Republican media apparatus (which dominates TV news, and Talk Radio, and has a growing presence on the net). The Democrats and the Obama Administration also must understand the importance of branding. Also, re-establish the PR response effort that was in place during the 2007-08 campaign. Dismantling this after the election was a huge mistake. Put the PR war room back in place.
Without making strides in the information war... Obama's re-election could be in doubt. You can have the best ideas in the world.... but if you have no way to get your message out... no way to compete on the airwaves, no way to combat and prevent distortions... then it doesn't really matter.

2. Keep making efforts to work with Republicans, but behind the scenes, rely on a two track approach. The real approach should be to cut out Congress altogether when necessary.... earlier than usual. Instead, talk directly to the American people about proposals. Talk to Americans during prime time (yes... interrupt them) once or twice a month to provide regular status updates. Tell them what legislation you want/and that the nation needs and point out when Republicans are blocking those efforts. Focus on popular pieces of legislation at least initially. This could work to basically turn the tables on Republicans and force them to govern ...and make tough decisions. Call their bluff on debt issues... make them explain the painful cuts to programs that people depend on. Make them explain why tax cuts for the rich were more important than a poor family's unemployment benefits or food stamps... down to earth, real world programs that people depend on to keep food on the table. Programs that people are depending on more than ever now...ironically due to an economic collapse that took place under a Republican President. Some of those people that will be impacted by Republican cuts are going to be white, working class Republicans. If Republicans block everything (even popular, sensible legislation)...the hope is that American voters will notice and at the very least give Obama another four years. Not that i'm a huge Obama fan (never was)....although I am proud. The reality is... there is no alternative. The idea of a President Romney, Gingrich, Barbour or the ultimate nightmare Sarah Palin, scares the daylights out of me.

3. Obama has to bring in a more effective, more creative strategy team. It's almost a full month after the elections and I see no improvement on the media/PR front.

4. Democrats have to choose their battles more carefully...concentrating on issues that the American people are most concerned with, keeping their fingers on the collective pulse of the nation, and choosing battles that would give them a chance to be effective and to win. Once a battle is chosen... stand up and fight for the Democratic/Progressive position....but be open to compromise when practical and sensible, and when the other side is acting in good faith (which is almost never). But the hope is...by choosing populist positions, the public will be on the side of Progressives, making Republican obstructionism much more difficult. This is why it is important to explain proposals in terms of how they would make life better for average Americans.... how a proposal would create jobs...etc. Speak in terms that middle America can understand.

5. Democrats/Progressives should invest heavily in a public/voter education initiative, both through public school curriculum's and through not-for-profit groups. Such a campaign should be a sustained long term effort, lasting years.

Why Did Americans Jump on the Republican Bandwagon?

1. Republicans are much more effective when it comes to PR and branding. Republican marketing/PR is so strong that they could sell just about anything. It's all in the packaging. Republican strategists understand how to use information or misinformation to change, and control public opinion. Yes, it's manipulative....but it works for them. They were basically able to convince enough voters that the economic pain that they were feeling was somehow the fault of President Obama (not because of the jackasses who came before, who were asleep at the wheel for 8 years). Yes, the Party controlling the White House typically loses seats in Congress after Midterm elections, however, the losses this year were made worse by deliberate efforts by the GOP (and its allies) to confuse and misinform voters.

2. Well I will let Pollster founder Charles Franklin say it. Sadly he's right. He basically says what I have been pointing out for years. I don't bring this up as a way to make fun of voters. Quite the contrary. I don't believe it's necessarily their fault. It's easy to fall victim to misinformation, especially in the digital/internet age. It's that much easier to fall victim when you may not have all the tools to navigate through the nonsense and lies, and to determine what good information is vs. bad information. Public School systems and colleges don't put enough emphasis on basic civics, government, political science, history, geography, and cultural instruction. This is why voter education has to be a fundamental part of the Democratic Party's strategy.

The Emerging Evangelicals -- Sightings

Trying to define the true nature of evangelicalism has never been easy.  Consider that in the 18th century both Whitefield and the Wesley's were called evangelicals, but despite similar methodologies, their theologies were quite different.  One was Calvinist and the other Arminian.  In Germany Evangelical means Protestant.  And so, when pundits and critics of the Religious Right equate evangelism with either Fundamentalism or the Religious Right they're only getting part of the description correct.  There are many different varieties of evangelicalism, something that Donald Dayton has been proclaiming for several decades.   Being a product of Fuller Seminary, I knew quite clearly that there was a difference between the kind of evangelicalism that was present there and that found to the south at Talbot Seminary. 

In this edition of Sightings Jenny Rae Armstrong suggests that there is a movement underway in evangelicalism that has embraced not just salvation in the next world, but a commitment to social justice and systemic transformation in this world.  She calls them Emerging Evangelicals, though as many can attest, even that term is subject to controversy.  Nonetheless, her analysis of the current political climate and the changes that are going on within the evangelical movement are worth considering.  The point being -- not all evangelicals are Republicans, and that is especially true in the under 40 set!

*********************************


Sightings 11/18/2010

The Emerging Evangelicals

- Jenny Rae Armstrong

The recent GOP rebound has been regarded by many as a victory belonging to rifle-toting, SUV driving, born-again Christians. But to oversimplify evangelicals in this manner is to ignore a growing rift within their ranks. Few mainstream evangelicals have attempted to link laissez-faire capitalism with the teachings of Jesus. Even though some claim to base their vote on issues such as abortion, single-issue voting doesn’t seem to be enough to keep younger evangelicals within the Republican fold.

Dubbed “The Joshua Generation” by the Obama campaigners who courted them vigorously, the voting practices of younger evangelicals have been shifting steadily to the left. One third of white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 supported Obama in the 2008 elections, compared to the 16 percent who voted for John Kerry four years earlier, according to a Newsweek article published on January 17, 2009. Increased evangelical concern for social justice, coupled with growing discomfort with the “anti-gay, anti-poor, and anti-environment” stance of the religious right described by progressive Christian leader Tony Campolo, spurred many of them to vote for a democrat for the first time in their lives. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine and author of the book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, expressed the growing discontent among his fellow evangelicals: “Many of us feel that our faith has been stolen (by the religious right), and it’s time to get it back… How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American?”

Self-described “Red Letter Christians” (social activists who take Jesus’s teachings on poverty, mercy, and justice literally) such as Campolo and Wallis have been making an impact, not just on evangelicals’ voting habits, but on their very self-image. A decade ago, if you asked an evangelical to sum up her faith, she likely would have quoted Romans 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Nowadays, if you ask the same question, you would be more likely to hear Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

This cultural shift is well-illustrated by the recent publication of the book Radical: Taking Back your Faith from the American Dream by David Platt. Social justice manifestos penned from the fringes of evangelicalism are hardly new fare for the Christian publishing industry (think Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution), but Platt is pastor of a Southern Baptist mega-church in Birmingham, Alabama. As unappealing as his hellfire-and-brimstone views may be to the less “radical,” it is difficult for even the most conservative Christians to brush off his equally fiery insistence on “taking up the cross” of sacrificial living and concern for the poor as bleeding-heart liberalism. Social justice has become a centerpiece of mainstream evangelicalism.

Ironically, the high-profile rise of economically-focused groups such as the Tea Party could drive an even greater wedge between the GOP and evangelicals, who were drawn to the Republican Party more as a reaction against legalized abortion than an affinity for libertarianism. In fact, evangelicals have always expressed concern for the less fortunate, and are among America’s most generous givers, with almost 24 percent of them donating at least 10 percent of their income to charity, according to the Barna Group. But a growing number of young evangelicals are coming to the conclusion that it is going to take more than a carefully calculated tithe dropped into an offering plate to effect real, positive change for the poor and oppressed, and are willing to think, act, and vote accordingly.

References

Tony Dokoupil, “Faith Beyond His Father’s,” Newsweek, January 17,2009. 

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/16/faith-beyond-his-father-s.html

Barna Group, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, but Giving to Churches has Declined,” April 25, 2005.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/180-americans-donate-billions-to-charity-but-giving-to-churches-has-declined

David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Multnomah, 2010).

Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: How the Right Gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn’t Get It (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005).

 

Jenny Rae Armstrong is a freelance writer who writes about faith and social justice for a variety of evangelical publications.

 

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The Ignorance of Christine O'Donnell & The Tea Party on Full Display

This is why America is in serious trouble. In the following video O'Donnell demonstrates her profound ignorance about American history, the Constitution, and a number of other things. She apparently has no clue about what is in the Constitution, and completely humiliated herself during a debate with Democrat Chris Coons.

This rise of ignorance is a reflection of a wider intellectual rot in America, particularly among voters.

This is what stupid & fickle Americans (yes I said it) will be voting for collectively in November. The most frustrating part for me is knowing that Democrats/Progressives are losing to this idiocy, despite facts being on their side. Much of the problem has to do with the fact that there is a huge media imbalance and Democrats/Progressives do such a terrible job when it comes to PR, messaging and their overall communications strategy. There is really no Progressive media infrastructure that can compete with the right. Furthermore, Democratic strategists are clueless to the fact that they are in an information war with the right, and therefore, they have not put much of a priority on PR and messaging (one of their core problems over the last decade to decade & a half...which is a main reason why they lose). The fact that these Republican Tea Party candidates are taken seriously speaks volumes.



Related

Most Americans Can't name a single Supreme Court Justice

71% of Americans Fail Civics Test. See here and here.

Americans Have Little Understanding of Religion

A Glimpse of a Republican Tea Party America

Wondering what a Republican Tea Party America will look like? Look no further than Obion County Tennessee. A utopia of low taxes and Tea Party Republicanism.... life is just great down there. To Hell with collectivism... it's every man for himself. They have taken life back to the old traditions of self reliance and they want the same for the rest of the Country.

When I heard about this on NPR on Tuesday I couldn't believe it. But when they mentioned that this occurred in Tennessee... bells went off in my head. I remembered that there was something about Tennessee...and I had posted about Republican craziness in that State recently...but I couldn't pinpoint it. I was at work, so it was stuck in the back of my head most of the day. So when I got home, I did a quick search...and there it was. It should be no surprise that this kind of craziness is going on there. This is also where American Muslims are currently being ostracized and antagonized. What is it about Tennessee?

Related

I have mentioned before that the whole anti-tax nonsense is largely a myth driven by right wing media. Actual data doesn't jive with their rhetoric. See my post "Tea Parties & Make Believe".

Vote Republican By Roy Zimmerman

Great skit... hat tip to: Freakoutnation



Sadly... I think many Americans are asleep.... under the spell of the Tea Party, Glenn Beck & much of the other Republican media nonsense.

Much of that is the fault of Progressives/Democrats because they have failed to build a PR/media infrastructure that they can use to present their arguments and to fight back.

Reagan Budget Director Basically Says Republican Pledge is a Joke - Trashes Idea of Permanent Tax Cuts for the Rich

Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman tells the truth about the Republican Pledge to America in interview with NPR this past week. Although he also criticized Democrats (naturally). I think his suggestion that TARP was a complete waste/failure isn't quite correct.... especially since we now know that the final bill is far less than the hundreds of billions that had been anticipated.

But I love how he exposes the phony act that Republicans have been putting on regarding taxes and their economic proposals.

Related

Jon Stewart's segment on the Republican's non-plan for the Country is classic! Same Republican BS.

Meg Whitman Is a Symbol of Republican Hypocrisy on Immigration

Meg Whitman has been working overtime to explain away her maid problem.

But the story is larger than Whitman. It is a symbol of the Republican hypocrisy that is at the heart of the entire immigration debate. The irony is always in the background.

Migrants would not be pouring into the U.S. if there were no employers hiring them. Most of those who take advantage of undocumented workers are business owners - construction contractors, rural farmers, manufacturers, restaurant owners, etc. And the vast majority of them are Republican/Conservative.

They use undocumented immigrants as a way to maximize profits. It is part of the business model for some of these people. For them, it is a way to take advantage of defacto slave labor, with little risk of facing any consequences. Having undocumented workers allows these employers to avoid paying minimum wage, avoid dealing with the IRS (can pay workers under the table in cash), can avoid paying workers the exact amount they are owed for their work, can avoid paying workers compensation expenses, can avoid OSHA regulations, can avoid State and Federal labor regulations, etc. The result is that many of these migrants are in work environments where they are subject to all sorts of abuse.

When will the media start using the term "illegal employers"? When will the focus shift towards those who hire undocumented workers, despite available E-verify technology that can prevent the vast majority of the problem? One main reason is because Republicans in Congress, and their rich Conservative supporters in the business community, really don't want to see any kind of enforcement that targets employers. It is no coincidence that the Chamber of Commerce- basically a Republican group - supports the GOP. The business community wants to maintain the status-quo. I am amazed by the fact that this always seems to be left out of the discussion.

It is interesting to see Republicans on one hand using immigration to rally their base by stirring up xenophobia & racism against Latinos, but on the other hand not really tackling the problem in any meaningful way through immigration reform (obstructing anything Obama proposes on the issue) because what they really want to do is maintain the status quo. Republicans in Congress want to make sure that their benefactors in the business community can continue to reap the benefits from the defacto slavery that currently exists for migrants... because the savings (profits) are just too enticing for them.

This is the elephant in the room that the media never seems to focus on when it comes to immigration. The Republicans are playing the hell out of both sides, and they have been doing a pretty good job fooling the public on this for a long time.

Republican 'Pledge to America' Authored By Lobbyist for AIG, Big Oil

The Republicans unveiled their Snake oil today... their "Pledge to America". Based on what is in "the Pledge" the Republican answer to our economic situation is to extend tax cuts for the rich (the top 3% of American taxpayers) and that will take care of everything. Absent were specifics about controlling deficit/lowering national debt, what to do about jobs going overseas, specifics on exactly how to create jobs, etc. But the Pledge does promise to repeal healthcare reform. And on the subject of Social Security, Boehner couldn't answer reporters questions, but from what he had to say, privatizing Social Security is still on the table for them (of course it is... that's what they intend to do, but he was afraid to say it). the pledge was critical of special interests.... ironic since the man behind the "Pledge to America" is a professional corporate lobbyist for such great companies as AIG and Exxon, among others. Basically the Republican program was authored by a corporate shill by the name of Brian Wild.

From The Huffington Post:

The Republican Party's 21-page blueprint, "Pledge to America," was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation's most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.

In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list "Wild, Brian" as the "Author." A GOP source said that Wild -- who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner's payroll -- did help author the governing platform that the party is unveiling on Thursday. Another aide said that as the executive director of the Republican leadership group American Speaking Out, Wild's tasks were more on the administrative side of the operations.

Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.

More here

For those who may have missed an earlier post regarding what the Republican Tea Party stands for.... Here is Their Basic Platform.

From Think Progress - No real mention of controlling the earmark pork spending in Congress:

As the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports, the GOP’s new “Pledge to America” was directed by a staffer named Brian Wild, who until early this year, was a lobbyist at a prominent DC firm that lobbied on behalf of corporate giants like Exxon. Moreover, the insurance industry is the leading contributor to Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican who led the effort. Consistent with its desire to placate lobbyists, the 21-page “Pledge” omits any mention of a key Republican mantra: a ban on earmarks.

Lobbyists have long supported the practice of “earmarking,” a maneuver that allows lobbyists to cajole members of Congress to add pet projects to appropriations bills. While it’s no surprise that the lobbyist-authored document drops any discussion of “earmarking,” it is nevertheless an interesting pivot for Republicans.

On March 11, 2010, House Republicans adopted a one-year moratorium on all earmarks, urging Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in Congress “to follow their lead.” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) touted the decision as “an important step toward showing the American people we’re serious about reform.” While Democrats announced a ban on earmarks for private companies the day before, Boehner wanted to “put [all earmarks] on the line to win” the November elections. Republicans touted their measure as a message that they were going to “cleanse themselves” of corruption and bring about “a culture of change”:

See full commentary from Think Progress.

Two great commentaries on The Republican "Pledge to America"

One from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Another from the Examiner.

St. Louis Area Tea Partier Under Investigation for Threatening Obama Takes Hostage

When Federal Agents went to question him, he took a hostage and held police and agents at bay for 8 hours. He wanted to start a religious war and apparently hated Muslims and the President.

TPM has an excellent breakdown of events.

This doesn't surprise me. I am only surprised that it doesn't happen more often, especially here in St. Louis. As if Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh aren't enough to inspire these nuts, there is the St. Louis Tea Party. The St. Louis Tea Party chapter is one of the most virulent out of all of the Tea Party groups around the Country.

Jim DeMint Admits Gridlock is Republican Goal In U.S. Senate

Another Republican basically spills the beans on Republican tactics. I guess they are getting comfortable talking about because there has been no public backlash. Not only has there been no backlash....but the strategy has been working pretty well for them so far.

They are going to keep this up all the way through November 2010 and even until 2012. The mainstream media and the Obama Administration have done a horrendous job of highlighting this for voters.

I have mentioned the situation here plenty of times. I even posted graphs and stats showing that it really is different this time (comparing the current political obstruction and use of the filibuster to previous periods in American political history).

Tea Party Republican Pastor Gets Starkest Warning Yet About Planned Quran Burning

Obama: Quran Burning Could Incite ‘Individuals Who’d Be Willing To Blow Themselves Up In American Cities’

On ABC's Good Morning America, President Obama described the planned Quran burning by Tea Party Republican pastor Terry Jones as "destructive" and "contrary to the values of Americans".

as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan.

This is a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda. You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities.

watch clip



Notice the silence from Republican political leaders. I am annoyed whenever a TV news idiot claims that there has been wide condemnation of Terry Jones in the U.S. (when hearing this nonsense, I am thinking "No there hasn't... the Republican leadership hasn't said or done much of anything").

And you want to know why? Because the Republican leaders in Congress, in the RNC, and among those who wish to run for President, are afraid of challenging the Tea Party or those recognized and well liked by the Tea Party. They can't afford to come out against it. It's the same reason why Michael Steele is afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Limbaugh, his Lieutenants Beck & Hannity, and the nuts in the Tea Party wing of the GOP are in control the Republican Party and its agenda, and the Republican establishment knows it. But there is a thing called courage... and clearly it is lacking among Conservatives. (And they compare themselves to Reagan?... they are nothing like Reagan). This isn't your grandfather's Republican Party.

Republican Policies Would Be Worse For The Economy

A newsweek article from last week didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know. But it is a good read, and it dealt with Republican claims point by point.

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge
Newsweek
Andrew Romano 
August 27, 2010

Nothing is more important to Republican politicians these days than jobs and the deficit—at least according to Republican politicians. As House Minority Leader John Boehner put it in a "major economic address" on Tuesday, President Obama is "doing everything possible to prevent jobs from being created" while refusing to do anything at all "about bringing down the deficits that threaten our economy." Elect Republicans in November, Boehner assured his audience, and we will put an end to this insanity.

There's only one problem with Boehner's message: so far, the things that Republicans have said they want to do won't actually boost employment or reduce deficits. In fact, much the opposite. By combing through a variety of studies and projections from nonpartisan economic sources, we here at Gaggle headquarters have found that if Republicans were in charge from January 2009 onward—and if they were now given carte blanche to enact the proposals they want to—the projected 2010–2020 deficits would be larger than they are under Obama, and fewer people would probably be employed.

The math is pretty straightforward. Let's start with the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's stimulus plan is projected to increase budget deficits over the next decade by $814 billion. That's a big number. But Republicans opposed the legislation refused to provide an alternative, and now insist that it's been a total failure. So let's be generous and subtract it from their side of the equation. The Obama deficit: $814 billion. The GOP deficit: $0.

Next up is health-care reform. Obama passed it; Republicans want to repeal it "lock, stock, and barrel." The reason, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explained in July, is that "we all know that it's going to increase the deficit." Unfortunately for the GOP, though, nonpartisan experts tend to disagree. Just this Tuesday, for example, the CBO released a letter saying that Obama's health-care-reform legislation would "reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” while repealing the law would generate "an increase in deficits ... of $455 billion ... over that [same] period." Factor those figures into the equation and the Obama deficit falls to $784 billion. The GOP deficit, meanwhile, rises to $455 billion. Getting warmer.

Read the rest here...

What the Republican Tea Party Stands For

Americans have a clear choice to make in November. There should be no confusion about what they will be choosing. Many will be voting on alternatives to incumbents, some will be voting based on local issues... but it is clear that collectively, they will be turning back the clock.

What the Republican Tea Party Stands for/their Platform:

1. Pro-Big Business (big business over working people).

2. Against meaningful government regulation and oversight of private industry.

3. Anti-Tax (yet they love war and want their trash picked up on time every week and they want the police to respond quickly when they call).

4. Anti-Federal Government

5. Prefer States rights over Federal authority (code for allowing States to do as they wish regarding voting rights, discrimination/basic civil rights, worker rights, etc).

6. Anti-Women's Rights

7. Anti-Labor Rights

8. In Favor of merging religion with government (They would love a Christian Theocracy)

9. In favor of a large military and large defense industry, although they claim they want small government. (not only are they crazy/unaware of facts... but they are also confused.)

10. Pro-war

11. In Favor of Tax cuts for the rich.

12. Xenophobic

13. Identify with Southern Politics - sympathetic to the old Confederacy and would like to see some form of it restored.

14. View non-whites as a threat to "the real America". This is one of their core beliefs and fears. It is at the heart of their existence and it is why they view anyone who is different with suspicion.

15. Supporters of big oil.

16. Against unemployment benefits for those who are struggling to survive. They believe that Americans who are struggling are annoying whiners.

17. Against healthcare for children and hope to rollback S-chip...or kill the program altogether.

18. Support insurance companies (over people).

19. Against Healthcare reform...and would like to reverse/repeal reform legislation.

20. Would like to eliminate or privatize Social Security. If they can't eliminate it, they would at least like to see some of the money gambled on Wall Street like Casino chips.

21. Believe Tax cuts can solve all economic problems.

22. Fiercely anti-Obama and have a general animus towards minorities.

23. Anti-Mexican

24. They flirt with racism and they openly associate with racists and extremists. They do little to condemn racist behavior or purge racist members from their ranks. They will only do so when they are caught/exposed by the media.

25. Against Comprehensive Immigration Reform

26. Have blocked bills in the Senate that would provide assistance for small business.

27. Against progress for the nation - against embracing and pursuing advances in science, energy, medicine, education, etc.

28. Supports a future of obstruction, political gridlock & national stagnation.

29. Generally not in favor of civil rights, basic Constitutional protections, etc.

30. Generally against the Department of Education and many would like to eliminate that department altogether, as well as the Department of Labor and other useful government departments, agencies & resources.

31. Against financial industry regulation.

32. They are not in favor of investing in the nations future and creating jobs at home.

33. Anti-collectivism is core belief.

34. Claim to be fiscally responsible and concerned about debt, yet when President Obama attempted to create a bi-partisan national debt commission with teeth... with the full support & power of Congress, to finally put together a serious plan to reign in the debt... the Republicans blocked the effort. The President had to work around the obstructionism with an executive order.

35. Have a strong dislike for the Judicial branch of government, and would like to seek ways to undermine the Courts.... (some of the ways they like to do this include - withholding or constraining the funding that the Federal courts need in order to function -essentially bullying & controlling one of the 3 branches of government, blocking judicial nominees, pushing legislation that challenges the decisions of judges and longstanding legal precedent, threatening/intimidating judges, and launching anti-court campaigns through their Republican media apparatus to create a negative perception of Federal judges and the role of the Court system in an attempt to influence -for political purposes- an American public that they know is open for that kind of PR/media manipulation).

36. Deep down inside... many Republican/Tea Party Conservatives do not believe that Blacks, Hispanics or other non-whites are real Americans.

37. They are opposed to the very existence of the UN and they would push to limit or eliminate the U.S. portion of its funding. They are also opposed to many forms of international cooperation and would likely curtail many of the positive things that the U.S. does around the world.

38. They would like to eliminate the few social safety net programs that Americans have (if they could get away with it) - social programs that many poor white Americans benefit from, such as food stamps.

* This is the Republican Tea Party plan for America. This is essentially their platform. And this is what Americans will be voting for in November.... to turn back the clock... to turn the U.S. into Japan (or something worse). I think we might be lucky if we end up like a stagnant Japan. While progress is being blocked, the U.S. will continue to fall behind.... deflation fears will rise, jobs will continue to be hard to come by, economic growth will be flat, and this will actually require the Country to go deeper into debt much faster...no matter how much spending the Republicans try to cut.

When a platform like this can become a winning strategy for a political party, it is a sign of a nation in trouble. Whenever you can win the national argument with this kind of plan for the Country, it is an indication of just how distorted politics have become...how perverted the media has become, and just how misguided American voters are. Americans are clearly responding positively to the Republican position. It is also an indication that Conservative media efforts to misinform and confuse the public have been extremely successful, which will embolden them to not only keep doing what they have been doing, but to ratchet it up to new levels of insanity. As long as Progressives have no answer for this kind of a strategy (and they don't....and don't plan to counter it... which is one of the core problems for Progressives) then this will be the trend for the next two decades.

Bigots at Tea Party Rally

More isolated incidents.... taken from a rally last year in California. America is in denial about what the Tea Party and the GOP stand for.

Republicans Vote Against Supporting 9/11 Heroes

But these are the same jackasses who love to tout their patriotism and love to throw 9/11 around when they are cheerleading for more war...all while claiming to support the heroes. In fact, the images and memories of 9/11 have been at the core of the Republican brand since September 11th, 2001. They have turned that disaster into slogans for their campaigns...time and time again. There were several years where you couldn't get them to stop campaigning on 9/11.... you couldn't avoid it if you were at a Republican event. Oh the irony.

I bet these lying, hypocritical pieces of scum sleep well at night. I don't know how they do it... but I bet they do.

The bill was the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Read more from Huffpo.

Congressman Anthony Weiner lashed out at Republicans. (This man should be Speaker of the House, Majority Leader, or Whip - with all due respect to Hoyer & Clyburn).

Loved his response...where he basically told a Republican to sit _______ down. Most of the Dems in Congress are spineless...can't say I have seen this much passion before out of any of them. They are far too passive.

Gingrich 2012 Prez Run Now Plausible

Unless or until he announces at some point that he is not running, I am coming out two years early in support of Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. Here is the first of a series of articles regarding this potential Republican hopeful, a true Conservative who, if he really wants it, is the best person for the job in this man's opinion.

Let me first do what some in this business fail to do: Reveal a potential conflict of interest and remind readers that I served as Newt Gingrich's political chairman before and while he was speaker of the House. I've known him 30 years. But those who follow this column, including Gingrich, have not always enjoyed my views on some of his words or actions.


Newt knows I am an independent thinker, and while I'm not on his level of political genius, I might be a bit more in touch with the daily grind that faces most Americans every day.

So what's my take on this week's disclosure from Newt that he might run for president in 2012? First comes an initial, perhaps superficial reaction: Mitt Romney seems more charismatic, better organized and hungrier for the job than any other potential 2012 candidate. Sarah Palin is attractive, also charismatic and an ambitious potential candidate. Even Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is not well known, has a lot of "curb appeal" as a young candidate on the rise.

But I don't discount a Gingrich run. The presidential campaign of 2008 was about style over content. John McCain won GOP the nomination because Mike Huckabee, who shocked the Republicans by winning in Iowa, was viewed as perhaps too socially conservative. Romney seemed stiffer and "slicker" that year. He was too closely aligned with the unpopular George W. Bush camp. The GOP voters went for the image of "the maverick" in John McCain. It didn't work.

As for the Democrats and ultimately the nation, the elegant, charming and oratorically gifted Barack Obama represented a "change" as much in style as in substance. Oh, yes, there ultimately was plenty of substance in the change Obama brought to the nation as president. It just has not been the kind of change that many independent voters who supported him were expecting.

I have seen Newt Gingrich reinvent -- or perhaps better to say, "evolve" -- many times in his career. First, he was the bright new Republican conservative thinker in an overwhelmingly majority Democratic House in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s, he was the bomb-throwing, take-no-prisoners fighter who helped oust Speaker Jim Wright from power. By the mid-1990s, he was still a "revolutionary," but one with a detailed plan of action and a band of Republican "brothers and sisters" in the House willing to follow his lead to a huge 1994 electoral takeover of that chamber.

Then there were the years in the "wilderness," a term once used to describe Winston Churchill after his having led his nation through World War II, only to be later tossed out of power, at least for a while. Gingrich resigned after much internal GOP fighting. Yes, there is always the "he has baggage" argument. But years have passed, and Americans have short memories and forgiving hearts.

Now we see Newt Gingrich the "elder statesman." When Gingrich speaks, not only do cable news, talk radio and conservative popular news and opinion sites take note, so too does the "media establishment" that once ruled the airwaves and print journalism in America.

No, Gingrich will never match a Palin or Romney in a contest of style or youthful appearance. But in 2012, he will be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency for the first time. In that contest, the dashing John Connally and the elegant George H.W. Bush were viewed as the early frontrunners in the GOP race, along with other younger stars like Howard Baker.

Remember how Reagan moved from being viewed as an elder conservative also-ran to frontrunner status. It was one debate held in New Hampshire where the establishment GOP tried to keep Reagan from speaking. "I paid for this microphone," Reagan blasted as the moderator attempted to have him silenced.

And while I often discount the power of debates, it was the CNN/YouTube debate late in 2007 that catapulted Mike Huckabee toward a win in Iowa. And if you really want to reach back in time, I can name several presidential contests in which the debates turned the tide and the outcome of the election.

I can see Gingrich potentially playing roles like these. He is not an unappealing man. His grey hair and the calm manner in which he analyses issues gives those who view him a sense that there is still around at least this one bright, able -- and stable -- statesman. Do you really think any of the Republican contenders -- to say nothing of Barack Obama -- would want to debate Newt Gingrich?

A Gingrich run is more plausible than many think. Depending on an assortment of factors, it could just work for the Republican Party.

WRITTEN BY: Matt Towery at Human Events with the original article available by clicking on the title of this entry

Michael Steele Caught Lying About Afghanistan - Faces Calls to Resign

This is why I love the idea of Progressives taking their video cameras to Right wing events. I'm not sure if this was the case in this situation, but it shows that such a strategy could yield political treasure. Catching these hucksters in their macaca moments, or when they are telling lies should be an important part of Progressive efforts to get off of defense and take back the PR initiative.

Propaganda and lies are a huge part of the GOP strategy. That goes for the Tea Party as well. They have to lie. So it should be the duty of Progressives to catch them when they do.

Steele made a huge gaffe at a recent Republican event.... his biggest gaffe of all, according to Chris Good of the Atlantic. And the calls for Steele to resign have started to pour in. Steele stuck his foot....and leg in his mouth by making the claim that the war in Afghanistan was a war of Obama's choosing. Of course it was a war perpetrated by George W. Bush in 2002 and heavily supported by Republicans ever since. Steele's attempt to make the invasion Obama's idea now that it's becoming unpopular is amazing.

He went on to slam the war effort. Ironically, in his attempt to lie and mislead, Steele ended up accidentally telling a few truths about how daunting a task Afghanistan is and how the effort to nation build may be unrealistic. OOppps!
But once he was caught...he turned around and released a phony statement that basically said he didn't mean it, and he gave assurances that he supports the troops and the war effort. Hilarious.



Qoute From the Atlantic:

Keep in mind, again, our federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not, this is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in. It was one of those, one of those areas of the total [horde?] of foreign policy...that we would be a background sort of shaping the changes that were necessary in afghanistan as opposed to directly engaging troops. But it was the president who tried to be cute by...flipping the script deomonizing iraq while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways that we can engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops...
And so now for our candidates, whether they're running, you know for, Congress or the United States Senate, there is a whole text of resources available to them through our office, through the RNC, through the congressional committees, the senatorial congressional committees, and even some of the think tanks that help frame those arguments so that you know you don't get stopped on, 'Well, George Bush--' you know, fill in the blank. I think that that's going to be very helpful...

He also describes the McChyrstal fiasco as "comical".

Read more from CBS.

Republicans Let Their Racism Show in Attack On Thurgood Marshall

I guess Elena Kagan is such a blank slate that Republicans have to find others to attack.... even the dearly departed. They were apparently so desperate this week that they dug up a class paper that Kagan wrote decades ago, before she even entered law school. Of course they failed miserably with that effort.

But what annoyed me most was the way that Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee used Kagan to attack Thurgood Marshall - a giant and American hero. Listen to the highlights of the hearings from last week, where Marshall is repeatedly brought up, attacked and diminished by Republicans. The effort was led by Senators Lindsey Graham, John Kyl, and Jeff Sessions. Their racism was plain to see and it was clear that they were playing to their base - their white Southern audiences back home. By targeting Marshall, they were attacking civil rights, desegregation, and equal justice...all the things he stood for. In their attacks (in front of at least one Marshall family member) they painted Marshall as a radical...as a judicial "activist". Marshall's opinions as a judge -upholding the idea of fairness, equal rights, etc- were out of the mainstream (although there is no evidence of that whatsoever). What they were really criticizing was Marshall's career before he became a judge. They were basically saying that Brown v. Topeka Board of Education was not decided correctly and was a result of Marshall's work as an attorney & agitator, and a result of an activist Supreme Court which overturned years of segregation. They suggested that since racism, esp. Jim Crow, was the law of the land, and was well established, settled law.... someone like Thurgood Marshall was a radical and activist because he came along and stirred things up by daring to challenge what had been legal precedent prior to May 1954. In other words, these Senators were sending the not-so-subtle message that Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld segregation in schools, should have been allowed to stand as it was settled law. Racist to the core.

Why has the national corporate media allowed this to go almost unchallenged? I saw the segments on MSNBC...but I have not heard much from any other outlet. Unreal.

Senator Al Franken provided a pretty good rebuttal - see video.
Besides Al Franken.... few Senators/House members have spoken out against this blatant racism.

See Thurgood Marshall Jr's response. Hear an interview with Thurgood Marshall Jr. from NPR.

This comes on top of efforts by racist jackasses like Glenn Beck who want to hijack the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington as a way to mock Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights struggle. Beck says he wants to "restore honor" and dignity to America..... as opposed to MLK, advancements in Civil Rights, and that nigra being elected President.