Searching for that New Brand of Crazy that will Sell

Posted: October 10, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, right wing hate grouups | Tags: | 11 Comments

You have to hand it to today’s Republican Party.  They still want the crazy and they’re just looking for it in all the right places.  Much of it has been on display at the values (sic) voters hatefest, the recent presidential debates, and Sunday news talk shows.  The problem is that when it gets exposed to daylight there’s so much crazy that the mainstream runs.  They’ve got to find a brand of crazy that sells.

Every time one of these folks burbles up towards Mitt Romney we get to see the new crazy flavor of the month. They’ve already been there done that with Bachmann and Perry.  The Bachmann-in-your-face-kind-of-crazy has led to a complete implosion of a campaign that went surprisingly well until Iowa.  Perry has been wilting under the spotlight.  His debate performances have been terrible and all kinds of his nutjob supporters have been doing a great job horrifying the country by speaking out for him and introducing him proudly.  Let’s not forget Ron Paul.  He’s the perpetual nutty nut flavor of each campaign season. The Republican presidential contenders have been just one big bowl of Granola full of fruits, flakes and nuts.

So, the deal is that they really really don’t want Mitt Romney who they don’t trust for a variety of reasons.  Hence, we’re seeing product testing.  So, the next nutty goodness to rise to the top of the taste test is Herman Cain.  He’s been a perfect tool for a party trying to prove that it’s not racist.  That’s been hard to do given the presence of Ron Paul and Rick Perry. Then there was Haley Barbour who spent part of his time inkling a presidential run by defending a hate group.  Well, let’s not be coy.  Those last three are the loci of hate group central.

Ron Paul has a long history of being supported by Storm Front and using state’s rights to argue that the Jim Crow laws really shouldn’t have been removed. He’s got a long line of writing racist memes in his news letters and has a well  stated position on getting rid of the 1964 civil rights act.  Here’s just one recent example of his toe-dipping into the realm of white supremacists group.  He actually invited a long time activist in the League of the South to testify to his subcommittee overseeing the Fed.

One of the witnesses invited to testify was Thomas DiLorenzo, a longtime activist in the neo-Confederate hate group, League of the South (LOS). The LOS advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by “Anglo-Celts” – that is, white people. LOS leaders have called slavery “God-ordained” and described segregation as necessary to the racial “integrity” of black and white alike. DiLorenzo also is an economics professor at Baltimore’s Loyola College.

According to the Washington Post, “when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South,” pointing to the designation of the LOS as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Clay also cited DiLorenzo’s many revisionist works about the Civil War and Lincoln, including “More Lies about the Civil War,” “In Defense of Sedition,” and “The First Dictator-President,” which examines “how Lincoln’s myth has corrupted America.

I suppose we don’t need to go into Perry since stuff is coming out on him more and more all the time.  The ranch name thing is just the latest of the dirty laundry hitting the light of day.  He’s often been heard touting secession for Texas and supports the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their search to put Confederate symbols on everything.

So, it’s only convenient that the next great Republican crazy flavor is Herman Cain. Maybe he can prove that the Republicans have left Nixon’s Southern Strategy in the History Books.  He’s being used to inoculate racists in the party.  Notice that I’m not saying all Republicans support institutional racism or are personally racist.  Cain can get away with saying things like black people are “brainwashed” and racism isn’t a problem.  He does this all while ginning up fear of sharia’h law and Muslims.  Oh, and he’s not too friendly on immigration either.  Can we please extend the racism conversation to include a few more folks of color so we can add him into the Republican’s mix of homophobia, gynophobia, islamophobia, and xenophobia?  Let’s just show a few of his recent hits via Susie Madrak at C&L and the Christine Amanpour interview.  Here’s example one.

AMANPOUR: Let me move on to some things that you’ve said. Right after the debate in Florida, you told Wolf Blitzer of CNN that, basically, African-Americans, blacks in this country had been brainwashed over the years into supporting Democrats.

CAIN: Yes.

AMANPOUR: I mean, isn’t that really an inflammatory thing to say? I mean, do you really believe that African-Americans, blacks, are so easily manipulated?

CAIN: I also said in that same interview…

AMANPOUR: No, but let me you ask about that. That word is very inflammatory.

CAIN: It is. I’m going to answer your question. I also said the good news is a large percentage of black people are thinking for themselves. Now, I think that — if the word is inflammatory, that’s too bad. It is true. And here’s why: because some black people won’t even listen to someone who appears to be a conservative or a Republican. I call that brainwashing.

Here’s example two.

CAIN: Some people would infuse Sharia law in our court system if we allow it. I honestly believe that. So even if he calls me crazy, I am going to make sure that they don’t infuse it little by little by little. It’s not going to be some grand scheme, little by little. So I don’t mind if he calls me crazy. I’m simply saying…

AMANPOUR: You’re sticking to it?

CAIN: I’m sticking to it. American laws in American courts, period.

Any one who insists that “judeo-christian” traditions be put into law would essentially be arguing for sharia law too given that things like prohibition against usury is based in shared Abrahamic traditions.  That’s just one example.  I doubt Cain or most of his friends even know the huge tenets implied in sharia. They only assume it’s not “American” when their pet religious traditions are acceptable.  This wreaks of the same kinds of arguments they used to use on Jewish and Catholic faiths.  Right now, Cain and all his Republican pals are trying to avoid the attacks by their base on Mormons.

Perhaps most astounding to me is Herman Cain’s joke that our immigration policies should consist of a great wall of china and an alligator moat. This was as telling to me as Bobby Jindal’s pedophilia joke.  There’s jokes and then there’s tasteless jokes at other people’s expense.

Transcript: “I just got back from China. Ever heard of the Great Wall of China? It looks pretty sturdy. And that sucker is real high. I think we can build one if we want to! We have put a man on the moon, we can build a fence! Now, my fence might be part Great Wall and part electrical technology…It will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electrified on the top, and on this side of the fence, I’ll have that moat that President Obama talked about. And I would put those alligators in that moat!”

So, here’s the statement on his policy outside the context of that strange joke in terms of a slap in the face to Rick Perry.  Oh, btw, we’re supposed to get a sense of humor to understand the joke.  Isn’t that what they all say?  This isn’t an immigration policy per se, it’s more like a paramilitary strategy.

Cain’s suggestion that immigration law enforcement should simply be turned over to the states is just another example of his naive understanding of both foreign policy and the Constitution.

As the Supreme Court established almost 70 years ago, the states have very little business weighing into immigration policy because “[e]xperience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.” If a single state mangles an immigration prosecution, for example, or directs disparate resources against the citizens of one nationality, it will impact the foreign relations of the entire United States — potentially even thrusting America into a needless war. The Constitution leaves these kinds of decisions up to a leader who has actually been elected by the whole nation, and not to the governor of just one state.

Nevertheless, Cain’s weak understanding of law and policy is apparently quite appealing to the kind of voters who cheer death and boo U.S. servicemembers. A new Fox News poll shows previous frontrunner Rick Perry hemorrhaging support — more than one third of his previous supporters ditched his candidacy in the wake of Perry’s defense of humane treatment for immigrants — while Cain has surged 11 points to third place in the GOP primary.

Perry, like the Chamber of Commerce, loves him some cheap labor.  Cain’s strategy is to let states use law enforcement to “repel the invader”.  I think we can safely say that the invader is still that age old use of “other” as tribe enemy.

At this point, you should be asking yourself why Herman Cain talks so much about race if it’s not such a big deal in this country.  Aren’t an awful lot of Cain’s comments aimed at race and continually saying it’s no big deal? So what I want to know is why is it  okay for Herman Cain to play the race card?  Is Cain seeing that this is some kind of trump card that Republicans can use against the Obama campaign’s prior use? What does this buy him?  Do I have to give my mom’s lecture on two wrongs not making a right?

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama and the Right Wing Rage Machine

Posted: May 22, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Israel, Middle East, Palestine, Patriot Act, Republican presidential politics, Surreality, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments

President Obama reiterated the same US stance to Israel that we’ve always had today at a meeting of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC, just as he did in his speech last week.  For some reason, the speech at the State Department last week was mislabeled by Mittens Romney and others as  “throwing Israel under the bus.”   Here’s what the President said today.

[S]ince my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.

By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I have done so because we cannot afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades, to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.

Why the outcry over the past few days to Obama’s maintaining the status quo? Here’s some quotes from SOS Clinton and Ex-prez Dubya that demonstrate this was nothing but manufactured rage on the part of the right wing noise machine.

Even the NY Times is getting into the act. In one sentence they claim that “using the 1967 boundaries as the baseline for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute” is a first by an American president, and just two paragraphs later quote President George W. Bush using the phrase: “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries. Those two statements, by Obama and Bush, convey the same concept.

In 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:

We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.

Where was the manufactured outrage then?

In 2008 President George W. Bush, on a middle east trip, said:

I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.

In 2005 President George W. Bush, at a White House meeting, said:

Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to.

President Obama is following the same policies put forth by George W. Bush. To claim that Obama’s speech represents some departure from previous U.S. policy is absurd.

When not manufacturing right wing rage, Republican Presidential contenders are demonstrating their foreign policy ignorance.  Thank goodness we have some one who knows foreign policy at the State Department!  Here’s pizza king and right wing talk show host Herman Cain demonstrating his foreign policy ignorance.

Despite his shallow understanding of foreign policy issues, Cain is still trying to go on the attack against Obama and create a partisan divide on Israel. He said last week that an “arrogant” Obama “threw Israel under the bus” in his recent speech on the Middle East. Trying to sound a hawkish note, Cain said his “Cain doctrine” is “You mess with Israel, you are messing with the United States of America.”
But this morning on Fox News Sunday, Cain showed just how limited his understanding is of the Middle East peace process. Asked by host Chris Wallace what he would be prepared to offer Palestinians as part of a deal, Cain responded, “Nothing.” Just moments later, Cain was dazed and confused when Wallace referenced the issue of “right of return” of Palestinian refugees:

WALLACE: Where do you stand on the right of return?

CAIN: The right of return? [pause] The right of return?

WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.

CAIN: That’s something that should be negotiated. That’s something that should be negotiated.

Wallace then helpfully offered Cain a definition of “right of return” — “Palestinian refugees, the people that were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able to or should have any right to return to Israeli land.”

Other foreign policy nitwits have  joined the faux outrage ranks. Quitterella even points to the old testament as some kind of geopolitical playbook.  Do you suppose she’s read  stories about the Kraken so she can have an opinion on Greece’s Navy?

I can never figure out why the I/P issue causes people’s heads to blow gaskets. I always hesitate to even offer up any news in the area because it’s caused complete meltdowns on blogs in the past.  There are some people on each side of the issue who simply can’t seem find any middle ground from.  Derailing any peace process appears to be their goal.

I consider the entire topic to be a hell realm. However, this particular kerfuffle reeks of the same kind of derangement we saw during the Clinton years. It’s getting so bad that I’m cracking this particular nut or group of nuts as the case may be.  This is like trying to deal with birthers and those who subscribe to the ‘secret Muslim’ meme.

Obama isn’t my favorite President by any stretch of the imagination, but aren’t there enough things to complain about right now–like the sneaky renewal of the Patriot Act–without manufacturing yet another conspiracy theory? SHEESH!

I can’t see the US selling out Israel anywhere in the near future.  They are obviously a US ally.  Trying to get both Palestinians and Israelis to be reasonable and come back to Peace Talks should be in everyone’s interest.  Don’t they still have their copies of the Oslo Accords or has every one forgotten President Clinton’s work already?

Republicans in Wonderland

Posted: May 21, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Economy | Tags: , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Republicans embrace and peddle voodoo economic memes whereever they can.  They all hold Ronald Reagan up as the godfather of great economics.  Just look at that graph to determine who exactly is responsible for the current deficit which they all think is a terrible problem.  Even odder are their “unorthodox”  economic policy prescriptions.  Here’s some of the more egregious suggestions as provided by Politico.

The Republican field is filled with potential candidates who have called for radical overhauls of the tax code, the abolition of the IRS, an end to the Federal Reserve central bank— and even a return to the gold standard.

Oddly enough, Mitt Romney is the only one that actually talks real economics.  The rest of them are in some bizarro world where math never adds up.  If Tim Pawlenty hasn’t disappeared by 6 pm CST, we may have to deal with his odd views in a debate where odd views will prevail.  Pawlenty is scheduled to announce his candidacy on Monday.

In one particularly striking recent moment, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty railed against “fiat currency” in a recent appearance on Fox — a signal to a narrow constituency of voters who believe that America’s woes began when it abandoned the gold standard in the 1930s. He also has gone on the record supporting a flat tax — a single-rate income tax that would eliminate the bracket system. The single tax rate for all is a simple concept but would probably involve wiping out the current tax code — including many popular deductions and credits — just to generate enough revenue.

“I support a flatter tax rate. I don’t know if we can get to a flat tax in one leap, but moving in a flatter, more transparent direction, absolutely,” Pawlenty said on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC show in March.

Newt Gingrich has also indicated support for an across the board 15% flat tax.

Gov. Mitch Danielscalled for a value-added national sales tax paired with a flat tax. (Jon Huntsman passed a flat tax as governor of Utah, but hasn’t articulated a national platform.) And Paul wants no income or sales taxes at all, envisioning a government funded with tariffs, highway fees and excise taxes.

Further into the field, the plans get more exotic.

Herman Cain has backed the ‘Fair Tax’ plan, a proposal with a small, well-organized and vocal constituency, which would impose a national sales tax of just under 25 percent and abolish the income tax system. He has also backed a possible return to the gold standard — but only after we “significantly pay down our national debt, stabilize and grow our economy,” spokeswoman Ellen Carmichael told POLITICO.

 Our economy has always used a progressive tax rate.  We’ve never really considered value-added taxes or national sales taxes because we know these kinds of taxes hit the poor hardest.  Social Security is about the only real regressive tax that’s been enacted. However, disabling a reasonable capital gains tax has giving enormous wealth to the major rich who receive bonuses and inherit trust funds.  The suggested Republican tax schemes are most likely unworkable and would hit the middle class hard.  This would be especially true of those who are financing homes.

The odd calls for gold standards, eliminating the Federal Reserve Bank, and possibly even ending fiat currency are all insane suggestions that shouldn’t even merit a public platform.  Academic research has indicated that monetary policy has been mostly effective since the 1980s in achieving its intent.  Also, the Fed’s structure and laws have been copied by every other economic entity that’s formed within recent history because it’s been so successful. The most important aspect is to keep monetary policy out of the hands of politicians.

“Fiscal policy, I can see how we might want to have a broader debate. With monetary policy, it’s harder to see that,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “The strong consensus view is that the Fed has done a very good job — that it was put in a very difficult position.”

“I think there’s less sympathy for the argument that Federal Reserve needs a significant overhaul,” said Zandi.

But, facts and peer-reviewed research don’t appear to phase these folks.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a supporter of the Fair Tax, faced attacks in his own state for supporting what Democrats cast as a massive sales tax increase. Gleeful Democrats simply neglected to mention that DeMint’s proposed policy would have also abolished the IRS. Similar attacks on Fair Tax candidates have occurred in other races. And this cycle, Herman Cain has already faced a similar tough questioning about his support for the Fair Tax in the most recent GOP presidential debate.

“According to the experts, the practical effect of a Fair Tax would be a tax cut for the wealthy and a tax increase for the middle class,” Fox’s Chris Wallace pointed out.

“Your experts are dead wrong — because I have studied the Fair Tax for a long time,” said Cain to loud audience applause.

So, who would you believe?  Economists or some CEO of a small time pizza chain?  The fact that these guys get a pretty receptive audience in the GOP is appalling until you see where the support comes from.  For some reason, the GOP has done a pretty good job ginning up support via xenophobic, homophobic, and gynophobic dog whistles and making economic statements that were never true and would never happen.  Since their voters reward them, there appears to be no end to the insane suggestions for economic policy that comes out of their mouths.

Newer Entries →