What Comey Forgot

Not too long ago I wrote about an important book that went under the radar called, The Unmaking of the President 2016.  The book explains quite thoroughly how Comey's clumsy handling of the Hillary email fiasco caused Trump to win the election.  At the time, I got pretty snarky in describing James Comey.  But I do try to be fair, and now that I have heard him analyze the bizarre details of his past couple of years in the spotlight, and have read his book, A Higher Loyalty, I find that I have changed my opinion of the man.

I believe I have referred to James Comey as smug and compared him to Pence and Gorsuch, which would conveniently make them the unholy trinity of vanity, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.  But I don't believe Comey is like that at all.

He seems to be honestly struggling to do the right thing.  He can be self-deprecating, which means he is attempting to be objective and is aware of his own very human fallibility.  He has a sense of humor, which immediately separates him from the humorless Pence and Gorsuch, as well as Donald Trump.  By the way, I have for some time been aware that Trump never smiles or laughs, a feature of the narcissist-in-chief that had also come to Comey's attention.

Comey has a lot to say about bullying.  In his book he describes having been both a victim of bullying and an instance wherein he became a bully in his younger days.  This kind of self-analysis and insight makes his narrative of the election of Donald Trump both personal and relevant to the current political era.

As with all heroes, Comey's greatest strength became his Achilles heel.  The need to be honest and fair brought him to national attention during the Bush years, when he went head to head with Dick Cheney over the reauthorization of the NSA surveillance program "Stellar Wind."  It was a dramatic moment, when Jim Comey dashed to John Ashcroft's hospital room -- in intensive care -- to head off White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Bush chief of staff Andrew Card who were trying to force Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization.

Because of this, Comey had a great deal of respect and credibility when he began the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

In his book, Comey goes into great detail explaining the situation as he saw it, and each step of his decision making.  It is obvious from this narrative that he has not only examined his actions but looked to others of his peers for their analysis.  He is aware that his actions may have influenced the election, and he has admitted that the thought of having a hand in electing the deranged and dangerous Donald Trump makes him "mildly nauseous."

I can appreciate, after the diarrhea of lies that have come from Donald Trump and his swamp creatures, that James Comey is being honest.  I share his nausea over the events that led to the election of Donald Trump.  I value the extent of his self-examination in order to get this account right.

But James Comey has missed an even greater factor in this tragic event.  He has neglected to include the effects of a corrupt Congress in the way this story has played out.

The story goes way back, but it was the republicans in Congress after the election of Barack Obama, and subsequently the Tea Party extremists that took over who represent the bully in the room.

It was minutes after Obama's inauguration that the republican leaders in Congress were meeting to strategize how to defeat the president.  Mitch McConnell famously and unashamedly stated,

John Boehner on the floor of the House led the rage with a cry of "Hell no you can't" as he talked about the proposed health care bill, a bill republicans refused to be a part of constructing, and then told the American people that the Democrats were excluding them from the process.

Republicans in Congress thwarted Obama's every effort to move the near-dead economy, ignored or distorted his successes and magnified out of context the defeats. Remember Solyndra?  Thanks to republican spin and the media echo chamber, all the successes that resulted from government investment in such small businesses were buried under headlines about this one failed attempt. 

That was the way Obama's eight years went under this republican Congress, as they doubled down on lies and false accusations with each electoral success.

While ignoring the hunting down of bin Laden and the winding down of one of our most tragic wars, republicans in Congress did not just refuse to work as partners with Obama in defeating our enemies, they actively opposed whatever he proposed.  Isis?  Syria?  The dynamic and entertaining McCain/Graham duo found fault with it all.  McConnell and Boehner refused to offer any constructive alternatives.  In fact, Congress did not offer any legislation that could be seen as a commitment one way or the other; all they offered was cynical criticism of anything Obama thought might work.  And because he believed that he should be working with Congress, he hesitated to take strong actions in Syria without agreement from Congress.  Although Obama's diplomacy turned out well at the time, he has faced contempt throughout for failing to act when Assad "crossed the red line."

And the whole Hillary project may have begun as an innocent misogynist reaction to the smart and powerful wife of a president, but by the time her intentions to run for president had barely been announced, the same game went into play.  Her every action was criticized, lies were told and then retold by the press, and the Hillary that can't be trusted became the narrative. 

The obstructionism worked, because the republican party united in their loud opposition.  They worked the media, and they played the American people.  They lied and then they lied again.

So, when Donald Trump brought his tantrums and lies to his campaign, the only difference between him and Congressional republicans was the degree and the flamboyance.  And because the media likes to follow shiny objects, like the orange hair, we got to witness every moment of the blowhard's traveling salvation show, with fake miracles and full-blown hate and hysteria.

Sadly, Trump gets full credit for Obama's failure to act more aggressively against Russian election interference.  And surely Trump was by then the bully that controlled the entire show.  He spewed anti-democratic hatred with far more flair than his republican allies.  But without eight years of the bombast and bullying of the republican party and Congressional leaders, Trump would have most likely been dismissed as a crackpot.  Without a Congress that refused to fight for anything other than their own survival, Obama would have fought hard against Russian interference.  But the bullies were harassing and attacking one of the candidates, and the opponent was making shrill accusations of cheating.  Bullies win when they cause the rest of us to lose confidence and to hesitate to do what is right.  The bullies won because Obama did not want to be seen as interfering in the election, as the bullies had already intimated.

And this is where Comey lost the thread of the narrative.  He thought he was cooperating with a responsible branch of government, but Congress was a fully partisan player in destroying Hillary Clinton.  He reported to Congress about emails as though the emails were the issue, and not the defamation of a candidate for president.  And then he went back again, because he had promised he would if anything changed, even though he had no reason to believe anything had changed.

Just as Obama went timidly into these last weeks of this election, Comey went obediently to Congress.  He ignored the advice of his boss and he rationalized ignoring precedent, and he interfered in the presidential election by jumping into an investigation because he was afraid of not opening it, and he reported it to Congress and the American people, because he was afraid he would be seen as dishonest if he didn't.

There are times when one has to take the risk of doing the wrong thing in order to do the right thing.  That last decision point, days before the election, was when James Comey decided it was more important that he be seen as trustworthy rather than that he had followed precedent and law.

James Comey has had to face the reality, through his subsequent dealings and ultimate firing by Donald Trump, that his attempt to be honorable led to a disaster for our democracy.  Out of fear of being seen as dishonorable, he allowed himself to be used by a corrupt Congress and a megalomaniac candidate.  Had he not come forward to announce the reopening of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, the outcome of the election would surely have been different.  But then he would have had to face accusations of partisanship by the other side.  And that is where being honorable would really have come into play.

Which brings me to the point of the whole thing.  We have a Congress that is dirty.  Congressional republicans have proven to be wholly partisan and untrustworthy.  They have chosen to continue to hide facts in order to support a corrupt and unbalanced leader in order to maintain their hold over our democracy.  In Germany in 1933, it took elected members of the republic to give Hitler the power to create a dictatorship.  And today we have lapdogs like Devin Nunes and power mongers like Mitch McConnell paving the way for the illegal and undemocratic acts of the Trump administration.  Today this Congressional majority is not only thwarting efforts to protect Robert Mueller from being fired by Donald Trump, they have undermined the investigation into Russian interference.  And incredibly, we continue to hear from one or the other that they think Congress should reopen investigations on Hillary.

While Trump keeps us busy following his criminal and crazy rants, Congress is truly the arm in which the fate of our democracy rests.  I don't believe we can take another session of republican rule.  Not only have they gutted laws that protect 98 percent of us, they have stood by as Trump signs away our environment and our liberties.  They happily approve federal judges that represent the far right:  big business, big money and the curbing of individual freedoms.  They continue to hope baiting us with Planned Parenthood and the Second Amendment will keep them in power, and are blind to the threats to our democracy.  In so doing, they have become the greatest threat to our democracy.

This is why we must do everything we can to turn over both houses of Congress in November.  The only way we can survive the terrorism of Donald Trump is by electing a Congress that will fight for our democratic principles.

We cannot be passive during this midterm election season.  Be informed.  Volunteer.  Donate.  Spread the word.  Vote.

Our lives and our children's futures depend on it. 

Being Invisible

It was comical after Wednesday's Democratic debate, to watch MSNBC political hosts and pundits dance around the fact that Bernie Sanders has more supporters than Hillary.  They have mostly been ignoring his growing and extremely enthusiastic followers despite huge crowds and numbers -- and amounts -- of donations to his campaign.  They have been ignoring this despite the fact that he is accomplishing this without the celebrity and fortune of Donald Trump.

So when several focus groups agreed that after the debate they would support Bernie over Hillary, the media continued to report Hillary as "the winner" of the debate.  I heard a pundit rationalize that just because people in focus groups say they support someone it doesn't mean they will go out and vote for them.  Okay, I guess that could be said for all the brouhaha about Donald Trump as well as his sidekick, idiot savant Ben Carson.

But look who has noticed Bernie Sanders.  Donald Trump, the following day, called him a "maniac" that is forcing "poor Hillary" to the left -- "this socialist-slash-communist."  And, by the way, this maniac that is pushing Hillary around is just not the "tough, strong leader" that we need.

While we might not call Trump logical or rational, what he does have is a very sharp awareness of threat, and a subsequent instinct about how to attack and manipulate that threat.  Call it his cutthroat business sense, or maybe just his success at being a bully.  So when Trump takes notice and begins to attack Bernie Sanders, it is safe to assume that he recognizes the threat.

When is the media going to get it?  Time and again we have seen the media snowed by the loudest voice, the predominant story, the words of the powerful and/or the wealthy.  Take their focus on candidate Trump.  How many times did we watch segments wherein the media couldn't believe all the attention Donald Trump was getting from the media?  They have their story and by gods they are sticking by it, regardless of the facts.

The facts being that Bernie gets the largest crowds, the greatest number of donations, the most hits on Twitter, the loudest cheers of all the Democratic candidates.  That pundits were reporting Hillary as the winner of the debate after hearing the audience response (remember the old applause meter?) meant that they may have been hearing but they sure weren't listening.

Speaking of applause meters, back in 1980, I would watch Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show.  As the presidential election approached, each night he would ask the audience to clap if they were voting for Carter, and then if they were voting for Reagan.  The applause was always, always far louder for Reagan.  And Carson would look astonished and chuckle.

The media is doing that now for Donald Trump, and I am not finding it all that funny.  My own sense of self-preservation and denial kick in and I think, "Well, that doesn't mean they are going to get out and vote for him."  Yes, sadly, the idiots that can find their way to the town halls and the stadiums to cheer for his hate-filled nonsense can -- and will -- find their way to the polls.  But I am hoping that there is a lot more noise than substance, that those republicans who are embarrassed by Trump are many, and they are not seeking attention.  And that when a strong candidate presents on the other side, all those wackos will stay home and watch Trump and Fox News on TV.

On the other hand, we Democrats aren't comfortable welcoming success to our house.  I have talked with far too many who say they like Bernie but can't vote for him because he can't win.  And yet the enthusiasm among younger voters is very much like that for Barack Obama in 2008.  Are we really willing to reject a candidate we like, refuse to see the groundswell of support he is getting because it does not match our expectations?

When Obama won in 2008, with an increase in the majority of both House and Senate, Democrats were smug in their assumption that the republicans had been put down.  Oh we did laugh when John Boehner said "Hell, no you can't!" in his opposition to the health care bill.  And we were amazed at the gall when Mitch McConnell in the Senate said that the number one goal of the republican party should be to see that Obama did not get a second term.  Well, Obama did not back down on health care, although too many Democrats in Congress did, and the result was that Obama won his second term and became stronger, and the Democrats in Congress were left in the dust.  Not surprisingly the ones most likely to get dumped were the ones most afraid to stand tall as Democrats.

So here's the thing about Bernie.  I'm fine with him being ignored by the media, but he has shown himself to be quite capable of handling the inevitable attacks on his "socialism."  The people know he's out there, and a lot of us are behind him.  Hillary is a fine candidate and would make a fine president, but Bernie is that much better for not ever having to be tempted to be beholding to Wall Street and corporate donors.  He has made it farther than any of us, including himself, thought possible, so who are we to jump to conclusions about the likelihood of his success?

I am 100 percent for Bernie Sanders.  He has as much chance as anyone to win the nomination, and more so if those of us who are worried about whether he can make it stop worrying and vote for him.

If he does not win the nomination, I will throw my support behind Hillary with no reservations.  But until then, I believe that Bernie Sanders is our best possible candidate, and that he can win both the nomination and the election (my god, look who he would be running against!).  And, as Obama did in 2008, Bernie will help us get back a Democratic Congress.

Meanwhile, isn't it wild being the party of the people, fearless and moving forward?

What on Earth Is This TPP?

I have C-Span as my default TV station, so that whenever I turn the TV on, there it is.  That doesn't mean I watch it; in fact, as the republicans have gained more power in Congress, my tolerance for listening to the bullshit has diminished.  Today, for example, when I turned on the tube, there was John Boehner, whining that all the House Democrats are opposing their own president on this bill, and President Obama ought to get his team in line.

I like coming in in the middle.  I play a little guessing game with myself, to see how long it takes to figure out what is going on.  Usually, though, when I turn it on, there is one lone House member going on about something, and without looking, I try to guess whether it's a republican or a Democrat.  I'm pretty good at it, too.  I can do it in about three seconds.  You don't have to know what they are talking about, because they use the same words for everything.  This could probably be a good drinking game.

Anyway, there was that idiot Boehner today, going on about how the President needed to reign in his party.  All of a sudden he was doing kumbaya with President Obama.  I had an idea what it was all about, but other than signing online petitions, I hadn't been all that involved.  But we really should be.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership -- known now as TPP because who has time to say Trans-Pacific Partnership? -- is a trade deal.  If you liked the way NAFTA worked, you will love TPP.  We were told back then the same things we are being told now.  This will be a job creator by increasing exports and will just be super for the economy.  Except what happened with NAFTA was that it allowed businesses in the USA to move to Mexico where labor is cheaper.

Here's another really weird outcome, which I read about in an important book about climate change by Naomi Klein:  This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (a book that the New York Times reviewer said was, "a book of such ambition and consequence that it is almost unreviewable.")

Because of current trade agreements between Canada and foreign governments, Ontario was forced to repeal parts of its 2009 Green Energy and Economy Act, which had in fact created jobs and improved the environment.  The European Union and Japan took Ontario to the World Trade Organization because the Act favored the local economy.  Ontario lost more than the court case.

This makes as much sense for our country as selling roads and parking meters to foreign governments and private corporations to make a quick buck so you don't have to tax the wealthy.  Being too much a part of this new global environment these days means becoming even more vulnerable to the forces of capitalist greed.  It means giving up a community's right to determine it's own fate, sometimes giving up important economic ground, losing the ability to make its own decisions about safety and the environment.

This is not a trade agreement between countries; this is a trade agreement that will be controlled by the big corporations that are sinking millions into our elections so that people like John Boehner can push for trade advantages for the powerful.

This may be good business for John Boehner, but I am heartened that the Democrats are pretty much opposed.  Just as did Bill Clinton, President Obama is being lured into a compromise that will make our economy weaker in order to be beef up his world leader creds.  But just as with the Keystone Pipeline, Obama needs to honestly look at how this agreement could tie the hands of local communities, states, and the federal government in critical environmental and security issues.

Meanwhile, get out a six-pack and try your hand at guessing what's going on on C-Span.

Rambling Thoughts about Republican Bullies

I have been somewhat reluctant to write about the criminal idiocy that is controlling our Congress since the shutdown.  There are so many out there who are speaking out far more eloquently than I might.  Turn on C-Span and listen to the testimony about all the government services lost and all the individuals being hurt by the narcissistic cowards in charge.  Or listen to Jon Stewart's nightly rants on the absurdity.

Unfortunately, the media continues to give legitimacy to this asinine process.  I heard someone on a panel ruminate that Obama would have to give something in return for getting something, that something being the end to the government shutdown and raising of the debt ceiling.  You know, in order for the House republicans to be able to save face.

Basically, this is like handing the school bully a couple of dollars if he agrees not to steal lunch money for a couple of weeks.  In fact, the behavior we have witnessed since John Boehner's first "Hell, no!" is no better than middle school tantrums.

And we -- the administration, the American people, the media -- have been treating this bad behavior in a way that has perpetuated it.  We have first of all paid attention to it, with media focusing on every brat-attack by the Tea Party since their bizarre inception.  Then we have rewarded them by voting their loudest and stupidest into office.  And then our ostensible leaders have all been cowed by the idiots, from Boehner fearing for his Speakership to Obama's early attempts to compromise, to Mitch McConnell's recent comical avoidance of expressing an opinion and our own Lindsey Graham's waving his guns around in attempts to ward off that fearsome "challenge from the right."

Meanwhile, the media appears to not have noticed that the tide is turning.  Big business has noted that shutting down the government in order to kill Obamacare has not been good for their health.  Wall Street has woken up to the fact that government spending is an essential force for the good in our economy and their continuing accumulation of riches.  Even the Democrats are aware that the party of greed and fools has gone too far.

And nearly last on the train is the Americans who cheered on the Tea Party, who have finally noticed that cutting all that wasteful government spending could actually affect them as well. 

Typically looking backwards, and fearing that oh-so-2010 challenge from the right, the radical wing-nuts of the republican party haven't noticed, or have no idea what to do with the fact of their increasing unpopularity.  Like the bully, the only possible response in their limited repertoire is to hit harder.

I imagine they might be surprised to find that the challengers that take them down in 2014 are going to be the moderates, you know, the ones that sound like they want to try to make government work.

And the media will probably realize this just about the same time.

   

Vote for Me

I've been thinking lately that maybe I should run for office.  Any office.

I have a Ph.D. in psychology and I read a lot, but I don't consider myself all that knowledgeable about the issues you need to know a lot about to make laws.  I don't think that would make much of a difference.

I've been listening (not on purpose) to people like Ted Cruz, who I hadn't even heard of a few months ago, and now he has "public service" ads telling you to make your elected officials get rid of the IRS.  Then there are creepy evil characters like Mitch McConnell who I imagine likes to take away his grandchildren's favorite toys just to see them cry.  Speaking of which, there is John Boehner, who cries when he is happy (haven't seen that happen in awhile).  One of my favorites has got to be Louis Gohmert, who can always be counted on to come up with "facts" like, for example,  more people are killed by hammers than guns.

I don't want to make it sound like men in public office have the prize for stupidity locked up.  There was the New Mexico state legislator who introduced a forced pregnancy bill stating that in cases of rape the fetus could be used as evidence.  And let's not forget Jodie Laubenberg, the Texas legislator who stated that if a woman were raped she could go to a hospital for a rape kit, that was like a morning after pill.

My point is, you really don't have to know anything to be an elected official.  In fact, being smart can and will be used against you.  Those Harvard educated wingnuts like Mitt Romney get to call Harvard educated Barack Obama "elite" because Romney has managed to pretty much renounce any intellect he may have had at one time.  William Safire, who despite not making it through college, got to write a column criticizing y'all's use of the English language and call us all snobs at the same time, was also a speechwriter for those two great anti-intellectuals, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

So it's not really how smart you are that determines your success in politics, it's really how convincingly you can kiss up to the truly wealthy and influential.  Look at our own Nikki Haley and Tim Scott.  I can't imagine there is a corporate backer that would have an opinion on which either one would beg to differ.

And then it just becomes a matter of practicing all those well-used arguments about taxes and the minimum wage killing jobs and guaranteed health care and food stamps making people less motivated to go out and work.  And trust me, the more I read, the more I find that today's right wingnuts are only just reinventing the wheel, in their case a square one.  They've been saying the same tired things for decades, and nobody notices they aren't true.

So how hard could it be to run for office?  All you need is a bankroll, and the ability to memorize your lines.

Brains and morals not required.

  

Boehner's Illogic

I just heard Speaker of the House (sigh) John Boehner address the country.  Here is a picture:

Boehner propositions the President

If it sounds familiar, that's because it is.  When he says we must cut entitlements, folks, he's not talking about entitlements to ExxonMobile or ConAgra.  He's talking about our social security retirement age.

The thing he made clear in the midst of his usual obfuscation is that tax cuts for the wealthy 2% will never be on the table under his watch.

How can he do this?  Because he thinks Congress got a mandate along with the President.

I beg to differ.  I know it's confusing, but I think I understand how this bizarre situation with the Republican House happened.

Voters are pretty much stupid.  I'm talking statistically, since that's what we are doing these days.  If you were to do a study, you would find that most of your family, neighbors and co-workers don't know who their representatives are.  They might be able to give you a senator, especially if he just won or lost.  Today they could tell you the vice president's name, but probably not so much a month from now.  They certainly don't have a clue who Antonin Scalia is.

Because they have been accosted with signs and mailings and phone calls for the past month or more, they might be able to tell you the name of their representative in the US House.  Or maybe not.

Regardless, most voters would tell you they like their representative.  Their representative has been telling them that he is voting to cut their taxes and improve government services, and that sounds like a good deal.  He surely wouldn't lie to them.  So you have name recognition and slogans, and then you have people voting for the guy they remember, that seems to like them.

But most voters hate Congress.  Statistically, most voters approve of the Black Plague more than they approve of the job the 112th US Congress has done.  They hear that the debt is getting higher, and that their congressman is going to cut the debt so their children won't have to pay for it which is nice.  But when it comes down to who is preventing them from getting a better job, well, it's the government, and over the past two years, it seems that it's been "Congress."

So John Boehner, with a head for abstract concepts not much better than Paul Ryan's has turned out to be, has decided that, since there continues to be a republican House, the American people have given them the infamous "mandate," or, "I trust you guys, go for it."  Which means he is going to be continuing to do just what he has been doing, but in a more conciliatory tone of voice and with those sincere sad-dog eyes, and telling us that is what the American people want.

Of course, he adds, they really want Congress to work with President Obama since they gave him a mandate too.

And in Boehner's little head, what that comes down to is that it's time for Obama to agree to give the US House of Representatives what they want.

And so, folks, it's deja vu all over again, for another two years.

Not Just About the President

You might think, by watching the "news" that the only important election coming up is that of Obama v. Romney.  And I have to admit, our President could be doing a better job reminding us why those Senate and House races are so important.  Like whenever he is accused of not having done enough in the past four years.

This election season, puppeteers like Karl Rove and the Kochs are busy funneling money into races to defeat those Democrats that have stood the strongest for our democratic values.

But why not?  It's been working for years.

In 2004, Senator Tom Daschle, who was accused by Dick Cheney of being the "chief obstructionist" of the Bush agenda, was up in the polls by 5-7%.  It was reported to be the most expensive Senate race in 2004, and we watched in shock as he was defeated.

This year, Rove's piggybank, Crossroads GPS, has targeted critically important people like Elizabeth Warren, who if elected would surely effect positive change in our financial lives.  Rove, who has gotten away with so many criminal acts, like his part in outing CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, does not even pretend to fund only "issues ads", which is a requirement of anonymously funded superpacs.

Outspoken and ethical Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has been targeted by right wing groups which have spent over 17 million to be rid of him.  The radical and powerful Club for Growth is at the top of opponent Josh Mandel's contributors' list, with Senate Conservatives Fund right behind.

We should be hearing more about these Senate races, because they are so important.  Same is true of the House.

Because when it comes down to why the Obama agenda has struggled to succeed, we only need look to Congress.  The Mitch McConnells and John Boehners have twisted and perverted the function of this institution, not just since Obama came to the White House, but since the Democrats won control in 2006.

The proof is in Mitch McConnell's proud goal in the Senate:

where filibusters made it necessary to have 60 votes rather than a mere majority for any bill that reflected the Democratic agenda.

And let's not forget the oft-teary-eyed John Boehner, and his shout-out over the voices of the Democrats in the House over  Obama's health care bill:

Yes, I'm talking about the "jobs, jobs, jobs" John Boehner who began introducing anti-abortion bills to the House on his first day, and only stops to play a few rounds of golf with his moneyed constituents.

If we don't change the composition in our Congress this year, a re-elected Obama will face another four years of frustrated goals.  On the other hand, Romney is getting his rubber stamp warmed up just in case he wins, because, per the king of the tax cut and the Republican Party Grover Norquist, all they will need come November is a president that will sign any bill a Republican Congress will send.

Cut taxes for the rich and cut social services and safety nets for the rest of us.  Gut Medicare, ban birth control, increase spending on defense, and watch the debt rise like we haven't seen since the days of "W".  And send in the Scalia clone to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because what that Republican Congress wants, is what Romney will give us.

So let's not forget how important all those other people that are running for office on November 6 really are.  Because this is what it really comes down to:

Some Things Never Get Old

It was with some surprise and sadness that I flipped a page on my ACLU 2012 calendar and saw this cartoon:

The great political cartoonist, Herblock, penned this one in 1981.  If you were lucky enough to have been around then, that was when the radical right realized they could make great hay by using the religious right to put them in office.

And so it goes.  Today I heard a news clip wherein John Boehner replied to a question about Romney's now infamous rant on the worthlessness of the 47% by saying, "This election is about jobs."  "Jobs," he added.  And then he repeated, "Jobs."

Yeah, I thought, it's about you keeping your job.  And, recalling the actual 112th House of Representatives, it's about abortion.

The Deafening Silence

I remember -- it wasn't all that long ago -- when the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were screaming about Obama creating high gas prices that could be cured by cutting taxes and approving immediately the Keystone Pipeline.

And let us not forget Newt and his campaign photo ops:

BUT WAIT!  Did I really just pay $3.03 per gallon?  Could the price of gas really be plummeting?  Without the pipeline???

In fact, Reuters just predicted lower prices into 2013.

So apparently that means that, if Obama was responsible for the high price of gas, it must be time for him to take a bow.

Yet, not only have I, not surprisingly, heard nothing from the Republican herd, I have heard nothing from the Obama camp.  This would be the time for a few well-placed wisecracks about the president being responsible for the price of gas...

...wouldn't it?

The Moral of DeMint's Fairy Tales

I was pleased to see our own Senator Jim DeMint take center stage for two whole pages in Thomas Frank's slender new book, Pity the Billionaire.


He very clearly describes DeMint's twists and turns in attempting to create a reality that conforms with his own self-serving belief system.


DeMint sings his eternal chorus of "socialism bad -- capitalism good" when he invents Europe's decline after World War II due to the adaptation of socialist programs (like national health care).  As Frank points out, France, Italy, Belgium and Sweden actually thrived during those postwar years.


But how can this be???  Simply, to Jim DeMint, it can't be, because it is not supposed to happen that way.  His reality is that Europe declined after their move toward socialism.


And Frank notes that DeMint does not ever offer proof of his claims; he merely tosses out inflammatory accusations to which his followers respond predictably, with fear and anger, and of course, loyalty to DeMint and his cause.


We see it over and over in the republican right wing.  Facts are shunted aside like an annoying gnat, while the rhetoric is repeated, as though the repetition makes it so.  And Senator DeMint, while not the brightest star in the firmament, like ex-President George W. Bush, knows how to tell a story.


As Frank says, DeMint's "fondness for fairy tales" combines simplicity (or simple-mindedness) with a moral rigidity that becomes ever more rigid as its tenets are questioned.


The success of this method is apparent as voters continue to support and elect those whose policies have failed, and which policies have torn down institutions we have for generations held as essential to our American democracy.


How do we fight this wave of delusion?


Fighting the fallacies will only work to a point.  President Obama, turning the tide of his presidency in the past several months, has demonstrated how to convince people that he, and not Boehner and DeMint and the rest of the right wing-nuts, is protecting our rights and freedoms.  He has done it through action.  Upon action upon action.  From recess appointments to enacting programs that will help turn the economy around and protect the American people, Obama has proven through his actions that he believes this is the way to get us back on our feet, and subsequently, it is working.


And, ironically, by standing up to the moneyed interests, he has also increased confidence and growth in the business community.


So we have learned something important from idiots like W. and DeMint.  We have learned that we too need to speak loudly and clearly about our values, and we need to act towards making those values once again central to our Democracy.

War and Politics

Congress is upset at President Obama for not getting input from them before involving the U.S. in Libya.  That's right, the Congress that did nothing in 2010 until they were threatened with losing Christmas vacation.  The Congress that doesn't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if the government shut down.  The Congress that wants to cut food and health care and heat for the poor out of the budget.


The Congress that takes a week off every three weeks.


The game plan appeared to be the same.  Lay low until Obama does (or doesn't do) something, then howl about how whatever he did (or didn't do) was wrong.  But the media kept going on and on about Obama not consulting Congress before proceeding to war with Libya.


So of course, John Boehner, and assorted Democratic characters, had to take a stand.  They stood up for... debating whether or not we should help the Libyans in their struggle against Gaddafi.  I don't know if as many Libyans would have died while waiting for the debate to end as did during the health care fiasco, but it's a pretty safe bet that we would be leaving the Libyans, as well as our allies, out there hanging from that limb without us for a very long time.


Meanwhile, the hot air rising from Washington would have been more toxic than the radiation on the west coast that is coming from Japan.


So, while our President is willing to stay out of the fight between working class America and our corporate-owned government, at least he appears to be willing to take a stand for what is right on the world stage. 

An(other) Open Letter to Lindsey Graham

Senator Graham, on Casual Day

I admit, I enjoy this kinda sorta correspondence I have going with Senator Lindsey Graham.  For years I would send him emails, or put my name on petitions for various causes, and all I would get back would be those expensive form letters, sparing no expense to let me know, via snail mail, that he was glad I had contacted him, and then going on to explain how his beliefs are more valid than my beliefs, so he is going to continue to damn well do what he's been doing all along.

That was frustrating and disappointing.

When I emailed him asking him to please stop spending my money on postage, he at least ignored me and didn't send me a letter in the US Mail telling me he was happy to hear from me, but it didn't matter a wit.  It just simply didn't matter a wit, without the letter.

When Progressive Change Campaign Committee put me on television asking Senator Graham to please don't extend the social security retirement age, I believe that was what they call a game changer.  I had his attention.  He didn't send me a letter, but that's all right.  The ad caused one of the editors of Charleston's Post and Courier to have a conniption, and that was good enough for me, even if Senator Graham hadn't been watching when Keith Olbermann aired the ad on his last episode of Countdown.

So, now that my 15 minutes of fame appears to have expired, I was happy to receive an actual email response from Senator Graham about an email I had sent:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.

In spite of the high volume of mail I receive daily, I look forward to reviewing your correspondence and providing a personal response as soon as possible.

As we continue our work in the 111th Congress, I look forward to supporting our troops in the War on Terror, repairing our economy and creating jobs, strengthening Social Security, lowering the tax burden on American families, and making the federal government more accountable and efficient.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance to you or your family, and if you need immediate assistance, please call my office at 202-224-5972.  If your correspondence pertains to a scheduling request, please fax your request to (202) 224-3808.

Sincerely,

Lindsey Graham

Granted, it had the same sentiment as all those snail mail communiques, but at least he wasn't wasting my tax dollars on postage.

So I sent a reply.

Which was promptly returned by the evil Mailer Daemon.

I like this back and forth that I am pretending to have these days with Senator Graham, so I decided to just send it to him through my blog:

Dear Senator Graham:

I am glad you are responding by email these days, and saving us a few pennies.  I do need to say, though, that I am feeling cynical about your stated goals.  In actual fact, your tax cuts have resulted in me paying an additional $5 of my $175 weekly income, while social security continues to be raided so that my benefits (and those of my children) are being threatened.  I also wonder how invading a woman's privacy and condoning murder of abortion doctors creates jobs (not your fault, that honor goes to Mr. Boehner).  I have yet to understand how slashing the programs we need is going to make the federal government more accountable and efficient -- it sure hasn't worked here in South Carolina.  And finally, the only war on terror ("War on Terror") y'all seem to be conducting is the one where you terrorize the middle and lower class citizens of this country.

I'll just continue to be cynical, and hope you prove me wrong.

By the way, when I went to the mailbox later in the day, there were two letters from Senator Graham, which I never opened.  So apparently they haven't got that government accountability and efficiency thing down yet.

Boehner's Jobs Avoiding House

You might be wondering why HR 3 has nothing to do with creating jobs.  I would have been confused about this just a short while ago.  But in a horror-movie kind of way, the more I see it, the more inevitable the right-wing strategy becomes.


Just as the republic party screamed about reducing the deficit, except when they were screaming about cutting taxes for the wealthy, and about abolishing the estate tax so that people who did not earn the wealth of the wealthiest .05 percent get to keep every penny.  Just as those right-wing critics who attacked Obama for the Wall Street bailout fight him with every breath over every proposed reform of Wall Street.  Just as Boehner and McConnell and friends insist on stretching the poor and middle classes ever further beyond the ablity to live, much less live well, while insisting on huge corporate entitlements for oil, pharmaceutical, insurance, banking industries.


And before their less well-healed constituents can say, "Wait just a minute, what about the deficit?", in comes the vote to repeal Obamacare, in which the republic powers that be just plain old refuse to believe the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's finding that it would save rather than waste government money.  Because the health care "debate" in the summer of 2009 brought so much fear and confusion to the issue, it will continue to be a popular song in the republic playlist.


Which has to be followed by an anti-abortion bill.  Again, no fan of the facts, it creates the falsehood that abortion is a scourge of the country, made common by government funding (which in fact does not exist).  Not relevant of course, that abortion has been on the decline, affecting less than 20 out of 1,000 women.  We need to keep beating this dead horse, because it fuels the fears and anger of the right-wing contituency.  Without ever addressing the fact that inadequate income, housing, health and education are the primary factors in unwanted pregnancies, not the availability of abortion services.


So why this strategy?  First of all, fanning the flames on social issues, in other words, that the sins of the poor are what are bringing down the country, always take attention away from the sins of the wealthy.  And, most important, it is the wealthy that pay for protection from Congress.


As long as we have a Supreme Court that gives corporations the rights of individuals without the responsibility, as long as lobbyists are payed grand salaries to deliver grand promises to our congress, until we elect an honest politician to fight for campaign finance reform AFTER the election, we will continue to see the party of wealth and power attack the freedom and wellbeing of the poor and powerless.  It is an easy fight to manipulate, and it seems to win every time.

Toning Down the Rhetoric

Words really can't express the horrific nature of the violence wrought in Arizona over the weekend, although everyone wants to keep trying.  But for every politician or pundit that sincerely talks about toning down the rhetoric, there is at least one other one that makes sure to stand his/her ground, re: how wrong the other side is and how hard they have to keep fighting to make sure the other side doesn't do horrible things to our democracy.

For example, on This Week with Christiane Amanpour yesterday, fake Tea Party windbag Dick Armey, in response to the question about toning down the angry rhetoric, went on and on ad nauseum about "the important critical issues of public policy that must be sorted out", and that "this incident is no basis by which anybody who sees their duty to America to stand down from their duty but to redouble it".  And if that garbled nonsense wasn't clear enough, he added that we "must do out duty to defend our liberties in this great country."

And to what liberties are you referring, Dick?  Maybe the freedom to call the President of the United States names and accuse him of lying?  Or how about creating paranoia by claiming the proposed health care bill would create death panels?

Politico.com talks about John Boehner's efforts to calm and reassure Americans as well as colleagues in Congress during a massive conference call:

“At a time when an individual has shown us humanity at its worst, we must rise to the occasion for our nation and show Congress at its best,” Boehner said on the call.

I can't help but be cynical.  Not that Boehner et al are not being sincere.  But we have had the Kumbaya moments, the most notable being on the steps of Congress after 9/11.  And that ended up with Democrats linking arms with Republicans all the way down the road to Iraq, with the Patriot Act guiding the way.

Let's not forget that Boehner is leading the party that believes in cooperation, as long as you go along with their plan.

So listen carefully.  Lots of people are going to be singing the song about getting together and loving each other right now.  But let's hope we don't end up on another wild ride because we wanted to prove we trusted people who are really not saying anything different.

I do have a suggestion for Mr. Boehner.

How about changing the name of that idiotic "Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act"?  While the rest of us may have seen it for the nonsense it is, there are some who may have truly been scared and angered by the violent rhetoric.  Just to give an example.

 

Let's Give It a Try

The voters have spoken.  We now have a republican House and an even less democratic Senate than we had last year.  The philosophy of the lawmakers will govern the land.

So I think we should be more philosophical about this.  And less rigid.  And, as Speaker Boehner has put it, we should start acting like grown-ups.

So I propose that we all adopt the republican economic plan within our own families.  After all, they really believe it will work, so in the spirit of cooperation, we should give it a try.

Children need to stop assuming that they are "entitled" to all those extras, like education and health care.  When you make those things readily available, they will start to expect that you will provide bikes, movies and clothing.

Teenagers are just going to have to grow up and contribute their fair share.  Maybe an extra after school job.  Cut back on the number of years of teenage social security, moving it from 18 to, say, 12.  They will need to pay a more reasonable share of their income toward household expenses, for example, the mortgage and groceries.  Increased productivity will certainly improve the overall wealth of the family.

Which leaves the most important family members, the CEO's if you will.  If the above all goes according to plan, the parents, the people with the most worth, will be free to expand the family interests.  They will have the economic freedom to buy that new car, take that vacation, invest in that summer home.

And that wealth will of course trickle down to the rest of the family.

But, you argue, the middle and lower classes will end up with less education and possibly poorer health.  They will be less likely to reap the financial rewards of their parents.

Not true.  Because, since we have republicans running Congress, we can be assured that when Mom and Dad die, the kids will get every penny that's left.

Real Tears

Steven Loeb's headline is "Weeper of the House".  I wish I had thought of that.   Rachel Maddow's article on John Boehner's propensity to burst into tears was interesting and welcome.  Yes, there is nothing wrong with crying.  Yes, we do have to listen to the words as well.  In some cases, though, we need to also pay attention to the tears.

Boehner continues to speak emotionally of his rough childhood, his hard work climbing up the ladder to success.  The getting choked up business, though, means that he has lots of issues surrounding this fact of his life.

Many of us have to fight our way up.  Many of us fight hard and don't make it.  Many of us make it and lose it, often through no fault of our own.

John Boehner has never gotten past the narcissistic narrative of his having fought and won.  In fact, he treats each battle as another that he has to win in order to succeed.  The battles are not about the middle class, or those who have suffered through a bad economy through no fault of their own.  The battles are about fighting for those who have fought and won.  In other words, the battles are for John Boehner.

This is why Boehner is passionate about the government not taxing the wealthy.  It is HIS money, and he worked hard for it.

John Boehner is incapable of empathy, although he does tend to use the word without shedding a single tear, as he did in July when he stated that three of his eleven brothers were unemployed, although he did not know for sure whether they had found jobs yet.

Okay, folks, read that last part again.  Millionaire John Boehner throws out the word "empathy" as in, "See, I empathize with you unemployed because I  have three brothers who are unemployed."  Period.  End of concept of what John Boehner thinks is empathy.  Because he follows that bit about three unemployed brothers with the totally unironic statement that he has no idea if they are currently employed.

What is at the bottom of all those tears, then?  Could it be rage, that there are others out there who have not worked as hard, or succeeded as well, yet want the government to help them out?  I'm totally imagining a family in which you either made it, or you had hell to pay.  No handouts in the Boehner household.

And now the House is the Boehner household.  So don't expect any handouts.  Or sympathy.  Or especially empathy.

And for pete's sake, stop crying.

Only that Simple

During a moment of frustration at work today, actually, as the frustration built up, as I learned more and more dicta and policy changes that were coming down from on high, I imagined a day when I wasn't dependent on my job.  I imagined walking up to the director and saying, simply, "You know, you're really kind of creepy."

I got just enough pleasure from that thought to make it through the day.

And as I was catching up on news a little while ago, as Rachel Maddow was talking about the DADT perpetual state of idiocy, I imagined having the opportunity to walk up to John McCain, and just as he was about to shake my hand (thinking I was a voter of course), looking him in the eye and saying, "You know, you really are a jerk."

Then I thought about John Boehner, who has apparently in solidarity to those of us who are not millionaires given up the tanning beds, and what I would say to him:  "You know, you really are a whiny spoiled brat."

Jim Demint:  "You know, you really are dumber than dirt."

I know, that last one wasn't as constructive a criticism as the others, but why toss your pearls before swine, if you know what I mean.

Well, I feel a lot better now, even though we still have all those self-absorbed idiots in high places.

Boehner Brings Me to Tears, Too

 

John Boehner, like Dick Nixon and myself, was born to humble beginnings.  Like Dick and myself, Boehner worked hard to pull himself up, and the fact that he has "made it" to Speaker of the House, brings him to tears.  The thought that I might run out of savings before my social security kicks in, if John Boehner and his cronies don't get to it first, is what brings me to tears.

I was taking a little peek at Boehner's expenditures.  I was impressed.  The man spent $25,000 in one year at the Bighorn Golf Club in Yucca Valley, California.  If you don't have a map handy let me just say that that is nowhere near Washington, D.C.  And I had only gotten to the B's.  Even though the small print was making my eyes blurry and I had had to cancel my opthalmologist appointment because I couldn't make the co-pay ($20 plus whatever else Blue Cross can figure out how to not pay for, $60 last appointment), I decided I really needed to know how much the man spent for golf.  So I went back to OpenSecrets.org and went throught the whole list, and came up with $15,562 to Firestone Country Club in Akron, Ohion, and a whopping $34,646 to Wetherington Golf and Country Club in Westchester, Ohio.  Also, when someone takes his golf that seriously, you would expect that he would spend at least $803 at Par Golf Supply.

Now I'm really not a rube.  I learned that these events were not for the hard-working John Boehner's pleasure.  Each one of them was for a fund-raising event of some sort.  Which I guess makes it tax deductible, at the very least.  But Boehner has worked hard all his life and deserves not to pay taxes whenever he gets the opportunity.

And if they happen to let him on the golf course for a few holes, or whatever they are called, at no charge, that is just business.  Because John Boehner knows how hard it is for small businesses to survive in this dog-eat-dog country.

I'm not saying that John Boehner has done anything wrong.  What I'm saying is, 1) the amounts of money the man spends to be a congressman blows my mind, and 2) if the republic party is going to be going over every penny President Obama spends, I'm sure they won't mind if we take a look at their expenditures, and 3) I got my information on the internet, so I know it's true.

And I want to conclude by saying that anyone who spends $1,660 on valet parking at Sharp's Valet Parking cannot possibly be in touch with what people like me have to do to get by.  You may have started out like I did, Mr. Boehner, but you sure lost touch along the way.