"Exceptionalism?"

Apparently the new mantra of the Right and Republican leadership - that America is somehow morally and even spiritually special or "chosen" among nations and peoples. What the hell does that mean?

______________________________________________________________________

Bitter Revenge

Like many "moderate progressives" I've always been hopeful that moderates would prevail in both parties to work toward a consensus on some major issues. But it's become increasingly clear that the Republican party has been captured and dominated by extremists who not only won't cooperate, but who are dedicated to destroying the "other side". A complete scorched earth policy. Never mind our own legitimate rights and voices in the process. While I might have normally agreed with other moderates that Nancy Pelosi should step aside, I've come to believe that like the school yard bully, the Right will never appreciate our rights until they are smacked in the face with a 2x4. We can play obstructionist "hell no" just as well as they can. And Pelosi is talented enough to do it - and we should demand it of her. The country clearly needs consensus, but we can not be run over by bullies.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Managed Email Content Service, provided by Verizon Business.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

NOTICE: This message, including all attachments transmitted with it, is for the use of the addressee only. It may contain proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print or copy any part of this message. If you believe you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender immediately by reply email. Thank you.

Myopic Self-Destruction

An accurate description of the paranoia that underlies the GOP crusade on immigration:

Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 11, 2010; A17
As Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans explain it, their sudden turn against conferring citizenship on anyone born in the United States was prompted by the mortal threat of "anchor babies" -- the children of foreigners who scurry to the States just in time to give birth to U.S. citizens.

The Republican war on the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is indeed directed at a mortal threat -- but not to the American nation. It is the threat that Latino voting poses to the Republican Party....
READ THE WHOLE PIECE HERE

Why I'm Rooting for the Teabaggers!

Direct from a well respected conservative, Michael Gerson, on the risks the conservative nutjobs pose to the Republicans (or ultimate benefits to Democrats):

For the GOP, a risky wave to ride or turn back

By Michael Gerson
Friday, July 9, 2010; A19

The Republican Party is ascendant, emboldened -- and on the verge of debilitating mistakes.

There is little doubt about Republican ascendance. In June 2008, Democrats enjoyed a nearly 20-point lead in the generic congressional ballot; today they are behind. Approval for President Obama among independents has fallen below 40 percent for the first time in his presidency. Vice President Biden recently protested that he saw no "grand debacle" coming in November for Democrats, thereby giving a name to Democratic fears. A debacle seems precisely what's in store.

But the problem with political waves is that they generate misleading momentum and exaggerated ideological confidence. Parties tend to interpret shapeless public discontent as the endorsement of their fondest ambitions. Obama mistook his election as a mandate for the pent-up liberalism of his party. Some Republican activists are intent on a similar but worse mistake.

The Republican wave carries along a group that strikes a faux revolutionary pose. "Our Founding Fathers," says Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, "they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact, Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

For the whole piece.... - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804274.html

And More Wingnuts

And in the news.....

Arizona congressional candidate fires guns in ad; Idaho awaits the apocalypse

Arizona voters who don't pull the lever for Republican congressional candidate Pamela Gorman have this to consider: She just might shoot them.
Gorman, in a new ad, fires a machine gun and pistols scores of times as a goofy sounding announcer calls this year "our best shot at changing Congress. 'Course that all depends on the caliber of our candidates."
Gorman, identified by the announcer as a "conservative Christian and a pretty fair shot," is seen blowing up the word "TAXES" in a graphic. "Gorman, she can take care of herself," the voice says.
A soft, feminine voice then says: "I'm Pamela Gorman and I approve this message." The ad ends in a hail of gunfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA&feature=player_embedded

*******
Seems the good folks of Idaho have been watching too much Glenn Beck.
The Idaho Republican Party has just come out with a special new Armageddon-edition platform. Among its planks: A loyalty test for candidates, a recommendation that Idaho withhold federal taxes, restricting marriage to "naturally born" men and women (in vitro babies need not apply?), and, best of all, proposing that residents stock up on gold and silver as a sensible precaution for the coming apocalypse.

This is delicious.....and telling about the electorate

Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, May 26, 2010; A02

Republicans want to take over the House in the fall, but there's a problem: They don't have an agenda.

So on Tuesday, they set out to resolve that shortcoming. They announced that they would solicit suggestions on the Internet, then have members of the public give the ideas a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Call it the "Dancing With the Stars" model of public policy.

Republicans were very pleased with their technological sophistication as they introduced the Web site, America Speaking Out a ceremony at the Newseum. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who created the program, said that to get software for the site, "I personally traveled to Washington state and discovered a Microsoft program that helped NASA map the moon."

Using lunar software is appropriate, because the early responses to the Republicans' request for ideas are pretty far out:

"End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."

"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."

"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

House Republicans, meet the World Wide Web.

GOP leaders seemed to have something else in mind as they rolled out their new site. "I would expect the ideas that come out of this Web site and the involvement of our members will lead to ideas that we can attempt to implement today," House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) proclaimed. "We want to continue to offer better solutions to address the problems that America is facing, and we see this as a giant step forward, directly engaging the American people in the development of those solutions."

Such as?

"Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there." That was in the "national security" section of the new site.

"Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also." That was in the "traditional values" section.

"I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution." ("American prosperity" section.)

"Don't let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. . . . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet 'I' on their chests -- for 'illegal'!!!" (Filed under "job creation.")

The Republican leaders attempting to demonstrate their technological savvy at the Newseum brought to mind former Alaska senator Ted Stevens's observation that the Internet is a "series of tubes."

The Web site not only "has cutting-edge technology," asserted Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), "but a winsome design that is easy for people to interact with."

Lest you think Republicans are just discovering the Internet, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) let it be known that "House Republicans have tweeted five times as many as the House Democrats. Leader Boehner has almost five times as many Facebook fans as Speaker Pelosi." Boehner grinned and gave a double thumbs-up.

Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) contributed to the discussion by twice giving out the wrong address for the new site.

House Republicans had experimented with reality-show-style policymaking before. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) has been having Internet users vote on which government programs to cut, but that experiment was more tightly controlled.

This one, McCarthy said, would do nothing less than "change the course of history." The Web site filters out obscenity and the like, but it hasn't kept out hundreds of ideas: some serious, some offensive and some so wacky they surely must be Democratic sabotage.

"Let kids vote!" recommended one. "Let's make a 'Social Security Lotto,' " proposed another. "What dope came up with the idea of criminalizing a parent's right to administer corporal punishment?" a third demanded.

Some contributors demanded action to uncover conspiracies involving the 9/11 attacks and the "NEW WORLD ORDER." One forward thinker recommended that we "build the city of the future somewhere in a non-inhabit part of the United States, preferably the desert."

Some of the uglier forces of the Internet found their way to the House Republican site. "I oppose the Hispanicization of America," said one. "These are not patriotic people." Another contributor had parody in mind (we hope): "English is are official langauge. Anybody who ain't speak it the RIGHT way should kicked out."

But Republicans might want to take a hard look at the suggestion that "we need to reframe the discussion" about the BP oil spill to counteract the "environmental whackos" worried about wildlife. Republicans, this person proposed, should argue that "BP is creating a new race of faster dolphins. These fish are unable to compete against the fish of other countries, but now their increased lubrication will allow them to fly through the water. Faster fish = good."

In Rand Paul's Wake

This is especially important message:

Bipartisanship shouldn't be a political death sentence

By Ron Wyden
Friday, May 21, 2010; A17

The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week's primaries and Utah's recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party's most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob's party thought that his working with a Democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for Republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose, and vice versa.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, legislating is treated as if there is a giant congressional scoreboard that will ultimately determine which party gets to be in charge. What one side is for legislatively, the other is unalterably against. Many believe that is the only way to achieve clear victory.

While it is certainly true that legislating can be (and is) turned into a zero-sum game, despite what you hear on cable news, not every issue has diametrically opposed Democratic and Republican ideologies. In fact, not only are there policy areas on which Democrats and Republicans agree but when it comes to legislating, many issues present opportunities to build on the best ideas of both parties. No single party has a lock on all the good ideas.

I still think I had a pretty good idea for health reform -- despite its rejection by significant Democratic and Republican leaders -- but so did Bob Bennett. I was on the Senate floor three years ago when Bob walked across the center aisle to tell me he was willing to work with me on health reform. I had been meeting with him and other Senate colleagues for many weeks to talk about the Healthy Americans Act and what I believed was a historic opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.

Ideologically, Bob and I couldn't be more different. He's pro-life. I'm pro-choice. He voted for the Iraq war; I didn't. If Bob has ever seen a tax break he didn't like, I am unaware of it. But one thing Bob and I have in common is our fundamental belief that we were elected to do more than just get reelected, that once elections are over we have a duty to try to govern even if it means working with people with whom we don't always agree.

While I'll let others debate what became of the Wyden-Bennett health-reform bill, our effort married the best, most principled ideas that both parties had been promoting for decades. Like most Democrats, my fundamental principle was guaranteeing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Like most Republicans, Bob felt strongly that market forces be used to promote expanded consumer choice and competition. Our legislation did both. As long as I would help Bob achieve his marketplace principles and avoid bigger government, Bob said he could back me on getting everyone insured.

Working in a bipartisan fashion can lead to watered-down legislation, yes, but principled bipartisanship can also lead to a value-added, better result. Personally, I believe that both sides can get much more of what they want by working together than by simply trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. By working with those with whom we don't necessarily see eye to eye, we are forced to work harder, to test our ideas and to consider solutions that we may never have thought of on our own. Moreover, if Democrats and Republicans ever stop fighting each other, they might finally find the strength to defeat the interest groups that all too easily exploit the partisan divide.

Bob Bennett is one of the most conservative men I have ever known, but he is also one of the best. Even in defeat, he told me that he doesn't for one minute regret working with me to try to do something important for the country, which is why I consider his loss so tragic. The country needs more senators who think like Bob Bennett, not fewer.

While it may be tempting to read the recent elections as a rejection of principled bipartisanship, polling shows that the majority of the American people are sick of the status quo, and the status quo is a Washington obsessed with legislating as though Congress's sole function is to play a wholly partisan, zero-sum game. The American people want us to put our nation ahead of party allegiances. They want us to do more than devise ways to gain and maintain power. They want us to be constructive with that power.

The regrettable irony of what transpired in Utah's Republican convention is that a small number of hyperpartisan activists have just ensured that Utah's contribution to the Senate will be less bipartisanship and more of the status quo in Washington. If that is the change that partisans are offering the nation, let's make certain the American public understands.

The writer is a Democratic senator from Oregon.

Compassion, Predjudice & Muslims

A nice piece that humanizes and puts to shame the prejudice American Muslims must face.....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404677.html

More Evidence!

At the risk of elevating my snobbishness....the paper had another great example of the civic stupidity of the American public. It seems that a poll from the Pew Research Center finds that about six in 10 adults approve of Arizona's new immigration law granting local police greater authority in combating illegal immigration.

The law has sparked protest from those who oppose several of its provisions. But the Pew poll suggests these measures are broadly popular. Nearly three-quarters approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying that they are in the country legally, two-thirds said police should be allowed to detain those who cannot prove their status, and 62 percent favor allowing police to question those they suspect of being illegal immigrants. Overall, 59 percent say they approve of the law, while 32 disapprove.

Are there really so many pathetically stupid people?!?!

The Health Care Vote

As we reach the final vote on health care reform, a couple of columns that put the event in perspective:

As passage of health reform nears, a historic chance to help fix Washington, too

By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, March 19, 2010; A19

It's shaping up to be a great weekend here in Washington.

I'm not just talking about the spectacular weather or another upset-filled NCAA basketball tournament. I'm talking about the prospect of a quasi-climactic vote in the House that would finally have the United States join the rest of the industrialized world in offering health insurance to all its citizens.

Sometimes, those of us who live here and participate in political life can get a bit cynical. We tend to focus on the process or the gamesmanship or the unsavory compromises. Which is why it is important at moments such as this to get your head out of the weeds, look at the Capitol dome in the distance and remember how lucky you are to have a front-row seat to one of the world's longest-running historical dramas.

What strikes me about the lead-up to this weekend's health-care vote in the House is how quiet things actually are. (Full column with the link below)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031805315.html

AND.....

Democrats discover the benefits of taking a stand on health reform

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, March 19, 2010; A25

If health-care reform finally staggers across the finish line, it will be because President Obama and congressional Democrats recognized -- at long last -- the truth that has been staring them in the face for more than a year: They'll be better off politically if they just try their best to do the right thing.

No matter what the Democrats attempt or how they go about it, Republicans are going to complain, obstruct and attack. That's the inescapable lesson from this whole exercise, and it's hard to fathom why it took so long to sink in. The Democrats looked ridiculous, sitting around the campfire and singing "Kumbaya" while the opposition was out in the forest whittling spears and arrows.

As if to prove my point, some Republicans are already talking about trying to repeal the reform bill even though it hasn't been passed. This hardly seems in the spirit of bipartisanship -- which the GOP, with cynical but skillful rhetoric, has elevated into some kind of saintly virtue.

(Full column at the link here) - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803044.html

The Current Zeitgeist

A number of excellent columns have cropped up lately defining the national mood, its problems and remedies; particularly as it relates to populist expectations and disappointments and, to me more importantly, the actual culpability of the public at large. First a nice feature by that excellent writer Anna Quindlen, that appeared in Newsweek, followed by a piece by George Will that ran in the Washington Post.

The first few lines - followed by a link to the full story:

"By the time the current political cycle is over, the term "populist" will have become a buzzword so misused and abused that it will be leached of all real meaning. The dictionary definitions refer to the agrarian political party of the late 19th century, then segue into the use of the term that modern politicians have learned to embrace: "a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/232833/output/print

Populism's Problems

This is an excellent piece by George Will; not really for the headline of Sarah Palin (which is true) but more for the problems faced by populism and it's prospects. The link to the full story is below, but two really great paragraphs....:

"America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832......

"Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation. "

Full Column- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021703507_pf.html

The Resolved Elitist

I've come to the conclusion that I'm an unabashed elitist. While the conventional mood that somehow Congress and the President aren't paying enough attention to the mob....this populist uproar over every manner of perceived error; from bailouts to spending, etc....I think they're paying TOO MUCH attention to them. The mob has no clue about what the issues are and how they're addressed. And worse, they're led astray by all manner of partisan charlatans with a political agenda. Case in point; in the recent senate election in Massachusetts, of all the people who voted for him because they wanted to stop health care reform, 41% of them couldn't explain why!!

Temper Tantrums

I was struck recently by the disillusionment by some friends over the unfulfilled promises of President Obama; namely the lack of C-Span coverage in every meeting, the involvement of lobbyists in the administration, etc. These folks are 1) not involved in politics or policy and 2) not educated or have ever been involved in management - which explains much of their frustration. I want to say, "well, duh!!" It's not their cynicism that bothers me. It's their naivete turned anger.....or maybe idealism and innocence. They remind me of little kids who find out there's no Santa Claus and teenagers who get their hearts broken. It's rough when you find out the world is a cruel, cold place and that reality is much more pragmatic than the public myths.

Those Right-Wing E-Mails

I recently received one of those mass distributed e-mails with a snide right wing mantras about 'conservatives are for freedom; liberals want to take it away' with a series of banal examples (Unfortunately, I deleted it). On the face of it, one could just as easily contrive an inaccurate and misleading comparison from a liberal perspective. "Liberals believe women should have reproductive privacy; conservatives believe the government should be in your bedroom. Liberals believe everyone should be entitled to a working wage; conservatives believe corporations come before people. Liberals believe people should be free of religious tyranny; conservatives believe government should promote religion. Liberals believe people should have access to health care; conservatives sick people should die quickly. Etc...you get the picture.

But what's more revealing is that this message was ever sent at all. It is a common observation among many on the left that these crude, baiting, provacative stink bombs are invariably thrown into mixed company by those with cartoonish right wing agendas. Rarely, if ever, do you see or hear unsolicited liberals broadcast tirades or characitures. Perhaps that is because most liberals' interpersonal and social habits reflect their politics; with a strong dose of empathy, sensitivity and even just plain old good manners. That's why most don't pop off at a neighborhood party or e-mail their entire address book with some personal, simple-minded political spitball.

And maybe the lack of those traits are why these things always come from right-wingers. That's what these e-mails really say.