Who’s Afraid of Grover Norquist?

I’ve often found myself wondering why so many elected officials of the Republican persuasion live in perpetual fear of their base.  However, most of them are crazy and will primary a relatively calm Republican candidate to replace them with a bat shit crazy one.  No where is the crazy more apparent than with Grover Norquist whose reign of Terror and Greed has basically held Republican Congress Critterz hostage to really bad economic policy. Grover Norquist is a lobbyist for Trust Fund Babies although no one really knows where his money actually comes from.  He makes elder Republican Senators wet themselves.  He simply opposes any and all forms of paying for government. He’s been involved with the Abramoff scandal and yet avoids prosecution because he doesn’t have to report the sources of his funds..  Abramoff named him as one of his first and primary contacts with in the Republican part, yet Norquist continues his quest to ensure his inherited wealth and others cannot be used for any purpose other than gratuitous self-interest funding.

He’s got a new crazy idea.  He wants to impeach Obama if there’s not an extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.  The right to impeach an official is spelled out in our Constitution.  The grounds for impeachment are ” conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  So under which one of these things does not giving the uberrich their supposedly short term tax cuts fall? The link comes from the National Journal (NJ).

NJ At the end of 2012, a number of major tax provisions, including the Bush-era cuts, are set to expire. Do you have any predictions?

NORQUIST We’re focused on the fact that there is this Damocles sword hanging over people’s head. What you don’t know is who will be in charge when all of this will happen. I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right.

If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”

Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].

NJ What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?

NORQUIST Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

NJ The Republicans seem more divided over tax policy than in the past. The House Republicans didn’t want to pass the payroll-tax holiday bill, even though that was a tax cut. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania proposed revenue increases as a super-committee member. Do you think the party is in disarray over its take on taxes?

NORQUIST Those are different things. Toomey is deciding on which unicorn he’d like if unicorns existed, and you’re asking me if I’m unhappy about his choice of a pet? There aren’t any unicorns. The Democrats are not going to make permanent what they said was their nonnegotiable plan for a 25 percent corporate and individual tax rate. The Democratic Party cannot physiologically do that.

NJ So you don’t get mad when Republicans propose tax increases if you feel they won’t come to fruition?

NORQUIST There’s no point in spending any time getting too worked up on imaginary conversations about imaginary things. The disarray you had was the House and the Senate being on different rhythms, and the House not understanding that anyone would lie so completely about what they’d just done.

There are crack pots and then there is Grover Norquist.  The man’s a menace to society.


Friday Reads

Good Morning!

I’m still trying to recover from the flu and the MRSA infection.  I’ve spent a lot of time sleeping. The antibiotics are really nasty. I haven’t been able to stomach my coffee for nearly two weeks.  I wonder if I should just stick with green tea from now on?

There’s an interesting retort by Mark Thoma to a Matt Yglesias article suggesting that Obama supports Mercantilism.  That’s the precursor to Capitalism that was actually the basis of our country’s economy when it was founded.  Contrary to Republican lore, capitalism has its roots in mercantilism but really didn’t develop until the 1800s during the industrial age. As usual, Ygelsias’ understanding of economics is cursory and Thoma has no problem correcting his mistakes.

Here are what I think of as the “tenets of Mercantilism.” I’ll let you decide the extent to which they accord with the president’s policies:

Mercantilists believed gold and silver are the most desirable forms of wealth. They also believed that the wealth of a nation depended upon the quantity of gold and silver in its possession. To maximize their holding of gold and silver, countries should maintain a positive balance of trade (with every country in the early years, but in later years they thought that an overall positive balance of payments was the goal, not a positive balance with every country you trade with).

They did not see lowering costs of production, or production in general, as creating wealth. This was a time when guilds produced most goods, and they were very inefficient. Thus, there was no notion of say, using division of labor and innovation to reduce costs and gain a competitive advantage over other producers (producers were not thought to add any value to production — this was a big part of their belief that economics was a zero-sum game — when they looked at their society and history, they didn’t see much in terms of productivity led growth, or much growth at all, the key was to maximize your share of the wealth that existed rather than try to gain wealth through productive innovations). The key to wealth was arbitrage and astute trading, not production. So trade — and merchants who could win the trade battle — were the focus of attention. Nations became strong by winning the zero-sum trade game.

They promoted nationalism. Since everyone cannot have a positive trade balance – they saw trade as a zero-sum game – a country needs to be powerful in order to compete effectively. This led to a desire for a strong military, a strong navy in particular (many advocated war on land and war at sea as ways to increase wealth).

They promoted protectionism in all its guises to maximize exports and minimize imports.

They supported colonization. This was a source of cheap raw materials, and a captive market to sell the finished goods. This essentially creates monopoly power since they did not let other countries trade with their colonies.

There’s a lot more tenets that have no relation to Obama’s policies or modern economics for that matter.  Why do all these journalists  try to be armchair economists?

The man who said he’d rather be a decent one term president than have a second term says he wants a second term “badly”.

President Barack Obama today signaled an aggressive tact [sic] for his early re-election campaign, critiquing his Republican opponents by name and insisting he’s ready to “fight with every fiber of my being” for a second term.

“How much do you want it?” ABC News’ Diane Sawyer asked Obama during an exclusive interview in Las Vegas.

“Badly,” the president said, “because I think the country needs it.”

“Whoever wins the Republican primary is going to be a standard bearer for a vision of the country that I don’t think reflects who we are,” Obama said.

“I’m going to fight as hard as I can with every fiber of my being to make sure that we continue on a path that I think will restore the American dream,” he said.

Obama pushed back against what he called Republicans’ “rhetorical flourishes,” including Newt Gingrich’s oft-repeated contention that Obama is the “food stamp president.”

“First of all, I don’t put people on food stamps,” Obama said. “People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. No. 3, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in 8 million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government.”

“The larger point is this: that there’s going to be a debate over the next eight, nine, 10 months about how to move the country forward,” he said. “They’ve got an argument. They will make it forcefully. I think it’s an argument that is wrong.”

We’ll have to have Dr. Boomer look at the methodology on this one: Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice.

There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

“Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

“They’ve pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics,” said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. “When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it’s bound to upset somebody.”

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

“The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this,” Nosek said, referring to the new study. “It’s not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists.”

The Republican debate last night opened with a free for all on immigration.

“The idea that I am anti-immigrant is repulsive,” former Massachusetts governor Romney told Gingrich following the former House Speaker’s live accusation. “You should apologize.”

Gingrich and Romney are running ads against one another in the state, where they are currently neck-and-neck in current state polling.

Gingrich and Romney have both committed to heavily campaigning in Florida where 50 delegates are up for grabs for a single candidate in the Jan. 31 primary. (Florida chose to flout Republican National Committee rules and allocate all of their delegates in a winner-take-all system.)

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has chosen not to actively campaign in the state and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has been non-committal regarding whether he will even hold an Election Night party there.

In a rare moment of solidarity in the debate, Santorum and Gingrich voiced support for Romney’s “self-deportation” theory, which suggests illegal immigrants will leave the United States if they can’t find suitable employment.

“I actually agree with Governor Romney,” Santorum said. “We have to have a country that not only do you repect the law when you come here, you respect the law when you stay here.”

Barney Frank has announced his marriage plans with his longtime partner Jim.

Frank and Ready plan to wed in Massachusetts. Frank’s home state is one of six states, in addition to the District of Columbia, that permits gay marriage.

Frank announced in November that he would be retiring from Congress after 16 terms to pursue other opportunities. In 1987, Frank disclosed that he was gay, becoming the first openly gay member of Congress.

Ready and Frank have known each other since they met in 2005 at a fundraiser in Maine, and began a relationship in January of 2007 after Ready’s partner died. Ready works as a photographer and has a small buisness doing custom awnings, carpentry, painting, and welding according to Frank’s office.

Ready, like many political spouses, has occasionally found himself in the headlines. He was arrested in 2007 for growing marijuana outside his Maine home; Frank was present at the time he was arrested. Ready later pleaded guilty to a fine for civil possession, and related charges were dropped.

“I told him that our relationship could not develop if he could not promise me that he would not repeat this. He apologized, with great sincerity I believe, and he made that promise and has lived up to it,” Frank said in a statement in 2010.

Frank’s vows come at a crucial time for the gay-rights movement. In Maryland, New Jersey and Washington, bills that would legalize same-sex marriage are poised to pass this legislative session.

So, that’s some of the headlines that I’m following.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


Live Blog: SOTU 2012

Here’s your SOTU Bingo Card!  Print it out and play along.  As soon as one square has been said once, you have to take a drink for every mention after that!  Those are the House Rules!

I decided against plugging in the “THEME” of the night.  Obama is still channeling Teddy Roosevelt with the idea of Economic Fairness.

President Barack Obama will call economic fairness “the defining issue of our time” in his State of the Union address Tuesday night as he vows to keep fighting for working Americans.

“It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody,” Obama will say, according to excerpts released by the White House ahead of his speech in the House chamber to a joint session of Congress. “Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that does the same.”

The election-year address gives Obama a high-profile platform to counter the GOP presidential candidates who have been pummeling him, virtually unanswered, for months. He will expand on the vision he described in a pivotal December speech in Osawatomie, Kan., that channeled Teddy Roosevelt’s square deal slogan of economic equality.

Obama will lay down markers Tuesday night aimed at making that vision a reality.

That’s always been the deal, hasn’t it?  Obama is very good at stealing another leader’s vision and making it seem like he owns it.  The problem is that he negotiates it away to the right wing and his words never come out as detailed plans.  Will this be the billion dollar fund raising speech it needs to be?  The SOTU will be lived simulcast via the White House Home Page.

HuffPost has a list up for those of you that want to play its drinking game.  Here’s some examples of its offerings.

EVENT ACTION
Obama says “Folks” Poke a hole in the bottom of a can of PBR, put it up to your mouth, open the tab and chug
Obama says he created 3.2 million jobs Take 3.2 sips
Obama mentions the 8.5% unemployment rate Drink 8.5% of a bottle of Jack Daniels (no more, you’re probably unemployed and Jack ain’t cheap)
Only Republicans applaud Obama must have tripped or something. Consolation shot for Barry
Only Democrats applaud Have a glass of water. This will happen a lot and you need to hydrate.
Camera pans to Michelle Obama Drink, but then eat something organic
Obama mentions “Occupy” or the 99% Do one shot and tweet something @ellenbarkin
Obama mentions “Wall Street” or the 1% Pour yourself a glass of 50-year old single malt scotch, throw the glass out, then pour another glass. You have plenty

So, what are some of the Villager’s tweeting?

Instructions on how to get to Beltway Bob’s SOTUS (the cheerleader edition) here:

ezraklein Ezra Klein
You can follow Wonkblog’s liveblogging/tweeting of SOTU here: wapo.st/Ai7QpE

The anti-Beltway Bob antidote (or is that anecdote?)will be here:

YourAnonNews Anonymous
Four things that will not be brought up at #SOTU: #SOPA, #PIPA, #ACTA and #NDAA. Google and read about them all!

Our hero:

SenatorSanders Bernie Sanders
The wealthiest 400 people in America now own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. #SOTU

Looks like somebody got an advanced copy:

KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
POTUS SOTU Conclusion: “An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.”

Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann Keith Olbermann
POTUS SOTU: It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts…

A suggestion only Bobby Brady Jindal  (The governor/exorcist) would love.

mattyglesias mattyglesias
Texas Governor Rick Perry whose state leads the nation in job creation would be an ideal SOTU responder were he not a national joke.

This goes down at 9 p.m. EST.


Tuesday Morning Reads

Good Morning!

I’m tired of Republican Party Dysfunction. Let’s switch to the Democratic Party Brand for awhile.  This year’s State of the Union address will be interesting.  Will it turn out to be the first major Obama campaign speech of 2102?

Mr. Obama plans, in part, to deliver a “vision” speech. He told campaign supporters over the weekend that he’ll use his speech to discuss “the central mission we have as a country, and my central focus as president.”

“And that’s rebuilding an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded – and an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules,” he said.

If that sound familiar, it’s a refrain of remarks Mr. Obama delivered December 6th in Osawatomie, Kansas. Both the president and aides characterize the State of the Union as a “bookend” to the Kansas speech. It was a delineation of the political philosophy Mr. Obama brings to the job and is willing to defend against whichever Republican ends up as his rival later in the year.

Economic programs and objectives will dominate his speech. “I’m going to lay out a blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last,” said the president in a video email Saturday to campaign supporters. And Mr. Obama will cite the “four pillars” on which his blueprint for America will rest: manufacturing, engineering, worker skills and American values.

  • MANUFACTURING: According to “talking points” sent by the White House to its political defenders and surrogates, the president will call for “a new era of American manufacturing with more good jobs and more products stamped Made in the USA.
  • ENERGY: He will propose “a new era” for energy in the US – “fueled by homegrown & alternative energy sources.
  • WORKER SKILLS: He’ll put forward “new ideas” for education and training to take on “jobs of today and tomorrow.”
  • AMERICAN VALUES: The president will call for “a return to American Values of fairness for all and responsibility from all.”

We’ll be live blogging the SOTU tonight.  I’m suggesting we pitch nerf balls at the TV for every Teddy Roosevelt reference and drink on references to Republican belligerence.  What say you?

Here’s some pretty good indications of why the economy has been so slow and pokey recently.   Check out The New Yorker and “The Obama Memos”. It’s getting more pundit play than Suskind’s “Confidence Men”.  Pay close attention to the whacked advice from Larry Summers who suggested Obama not go very big on the first stimulus because they could just do more later.  Let’s just hope a rumored World Bank Presidency stays just that.  Imagine this man turned on the developing world.  However, there’s a lot more tidbits in there worth chewing on.  Like this one.

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton’s campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama’s general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. “It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I’m a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an ‘issue contrast,’ it was entirely personal.” And, of course, it worked.

But back to La La Summers.

There was an obvious tension between the warning about the extent of the financial crisis, which would require large-scale spending, and the warning about the looming federal budget deficits, which would require fiscal restraint. The tension reflected the competing concerns of two of Obama’s advisers. Christina Romer, the incoming chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, drafted the stimulus material. A Berkeley economist, she was new to government. She believed that she had persuaded Summers to raise the stimulus recommendation above the initial estimate, six hundred billion dollars, to something closer to eight hundred billion dollars, but she was frustrated that she wasn’t allowed to present an even larger option. When she had done so in earlier meetings, the incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, asked her, “What are you smoking?” She was warned that her credibility as an adviser would be damaged if she pushed beyond the consensus recommendation.

Peter Orszag, the incoming budget director, was a relentless advocate of fiscal restraint. He was well known in Washington policy circles as a deficit hawk. Orszag insisted that there were mechanical limits to how much money the government could spend effectively in two years. In the Summers memo, he contributed sections about historic deficits and the need to scale back campaign promises. The Romer-Orszag divide was the start of a rift inside the Administration that continued for the next two years.

Since 2009, some economists have insisted that the stimulus was too small. White House defenders have responded that a larger stimulus would not have moved through Congress. But the Summers memo barely mentioned Congress, noting only that his recommendation of a stimulus above six hundred billion dollars was “an economic judgment that would need to be combined with political judgments about what is feasible.”

He offered the President four illustrative stimulus plans: $550 billion, $665 billion, $810 billion, and $890 billion. Obama was never offered the option of a stimulus package commensurate with the size of the hole in the economy––known by economists as the “output gap”––which was estimated at two trillion dollars during 2009 and 2010. Summers advised the President that a larger stimulus could actually make things worse. “An excessive recovery package could spook markets or the public and be counterproductive,” he wrote, and added that none of his recommendations “returns the unemployment rate to its normal, pre-recession level. To accomplish a more significant reduction in the output gap would require stimulus of well over $1 trillion based on purely mechanical assumptions—which would likely not accomplish the goal because of the impact it would have on markets.”

Paul Krugman, a Times columnist and a Nobel Prize-winning economist who persistently supported a larger stimulus, told me that Summers’s assertion about market fears was a “bang my head on the table” argument. “He’s invoking the invisible bond vigilantes, basically saying that investors would be scared and drive up interest rates. That’s a major economic misjudgment.” Since the beginning of the crisis, the U.S. has borrowed more than five trillion dollars, and the interest rate on the ten-year Treasury bills is under two per cent. The markets that Summers warned Obama about have been calm.

I know this is an add source for me, but the AEI has “Eleven stunning revelations from Larry Summers” has a list of quotes from the actual memo.  That’s what I’m going to use here. First, stimulus projects were not picked based on their impact on the economy but on their ability to fulfill campaign promises.

The short-run economic imperative was to identify as many campaign promises or high priority items that would spend out quickly and be inherently temporary. …  The stimulus package is a key tool for advancing clean energy goals and fulfilling a number of campaign commitments.

Another stunner was this quote which blames banking regulators.  I suppose Wall Street was an innocent in all of this?

A significant cause of the current crisis lies in the failure of regulators to exercise vigorously the authority they already have.

Krugman had this to say about the memo in a post called “Larry and the Invisibles”.

The key thing I took away from the memo is that it does not read at all like the current story the administration gives for the inadequate size of the stimulus, which is that they knew it should be larger but had to face political reality.

Instead, the memo argues that a bigger stimulus would be counterproductive in economic terms, because of the “market reaction”. That is, Summers et al were afraid of the invisible bond vigilantes.

And to the extent that there is a political judgment, it’s all in the opposite direction: if the stimulus is too big, we’ll have trouble scaling it back, but if it’s too small, we can always go back to Congress for more. That was deeply naive — and I said so in real time.

Now, you can still argue that politics made a bigger stimulus impossible. But that’s not at all the argument being made internally within the administration at the time.

At this point, the shrill one goes all mushy and says that Obama has “toughened” up since then.  I guess we’ll see.

Right now, I’d say the country is between a Barrack and a hard right place.  What’s a voter to do with such a Hobson’s choice?

So, that’s what I’ve got to offer this morning.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


NARAL Wants to End the War on Women

NARAL President Nancy Keenan has written an op-ed at HuffPo calling 2011 the Year of the War on Women.  She argues that we have the responsibility to stop that war in 2012. We have had a tremendous number of front page posts here at Sky Dancer that have outlined the assault on women’s rights through out the year.  This has generally come from the Christofascist arm of the American Right Wing.  There are many religious extremists in this country that would impose their narrow views of science, medicine, and women on us all.  Keenan’s article is a good reminder of the many individual posts that we’ve had listing these outrages.

Anti-choice politicians ignored the American people’s call to focus on jobs and the economy, and instead made attacking a woman’s right to make personal, private medical decisions one of their “highest legislative priorities.”

The U.S. House of Representatives held more choice-related votes in 2011 than in any year since 2000, and states enacted 69 anti-choice measures — one shy of the record number set in 1999.

In the more than 30 years I’ve spent defending a woman’s right to choose, I can’t recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch with our nation’s values and priorities.

And we’re not out of the woods yet. The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012 here in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures throughout the country.

America’s pro-choice majority will have to prepare itself for yet another year of attacks on everything from women’s insurance coverage of abortion to public funding for birth control and cancer screenings.

She concludes that it’s important for us to turn out at the voting booth. She pays close attention to the views of candidates Romney and President Obama but also notes that many Senate and House seats are important too.  I’ve mentioned frequently that the only thing that may get me out to vote for Mary Landrieu is my fear of another David Vitter.  She argues for the few things that the Obama administration has done in support of reproductive rights. She appears to overlook the things that he did not do and the oddly worded defenses–which seems to support a committee of deciders of women’s fate–on the basic status of the American woman as an adult, as a complete and free person, and a moral decision maker.

So, we have quite the contrast to make, as all the Republican presidential candidates oppose a woman’s right to choose.

That includes Gov. Romney, the current frontrunner.

Romney wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and threatens to “eliminate Title X family-planning programs,” which include federal funding for birth control and cancer screenings. As Massachusetts governor, he even vetoed a bill giving rape survivors information about and timely access to emergency contraception.

The difference between Gov. Romney’s record on contraception and President Obama’s couldn’t be starker.

Furthermore, the Obama administration resisted pressure from anti-contraception groups to allow many employers, including universities and hospitals, to refuse to cover birth control. As a result, millions of Americans will get access to contraception — and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.

We’ll work day-in and day-out to make sure these key women voters — and all voters — know that Gov. Romney is far outside the American mainstream when it comes to choice.

President Obama has not been an advocate for the rights of women. He tends to follow the lead of his cabinet on taking positions.  If it were not for some of the women in his cabinet–notably Hillary Clinton–and a few other women in congress, I doubt he’d have put up much of a fuss over anything that crossed his policy agenda that circumvented the civil rights of women.  I’ve been frequently confused on what his priorities have been, but I do know that protecting the rights have women have not been high among them.

So, once again, I face these major women’s groups who show me the Devil residing in the 10th ring of Hell and ask me to support the Demon residing on the 8th because there’s a stark difference between the 8th and 10th rings of hell.  We’re supposed to appreciate the scraps we’ve been thrown and continue to vote for the lesser of evils.   We’re supposed to just hope that a person who unenthusiastically will sign the occasional defensive position will represent us as the crusade rolls on.

If this is indeed a war–and I do agree with Nancy Keenan on that characterization–then we need unreluctant warriors who will stand up and fight for the civil rights of all citizens.  We need leaders that will recognize and verbalize the assault on our civil liberties and rights. The religious occupation of government is being led by a group of crazed crusaders.  They are no less militant then their hysterical Islamic counterparts in the Middle East.  Our own religious extremists have flown jet liners into the very heart of our constitution. They cheer for the blood of the uninsured. They clap for the racist dog whistle begging for the reinstatement of confederate sins. They boo war heroes simply because of the hero’s source of love.  They even boo the Golden Rule which should form the heart of their own convictions.  The end of foodstamps and birth control seems to be their 72 virgins.

If the president expects to get my vote, then he better articulate the battle plan and actions necessary to stop the assault on our rights within our society.  The last three years have been far too much compromise of things that are important for the donor class.  I am not black or Hispanic, but I would like to add that there is an assault on access to voting and treatment of immigrants.  There has been a less than strong commitment to these civil rights and liberties too.  The assault on the GLBT community continues even with the removal of DADT.  These are all the poisonous fruits of the same bad seeds.  There is no compromising with fanatics.  The president should demonstrate his commitment to those of us that face unprecedented rollbacks of our civil rights and civil liberties if he truly expects our vote.  I’m frankly tired of lip service and table scraps.