I think that if this proposal was pitched just right, it could gain some momentum among the chattering class:
I'd like to go Friedman one better. Not only do we need a third party, but how about a third branch of congress? Tricameralism if you will. This body, which would be appointed—for life—by, and possibly include, Tom Friedman and David Broder, would consist mainly of wise, public-spirited billionaires, 'above party', the class to whom, if we were only capable of realizing it, we owe everything. Its powers, well I'm not sure what they should be, but perhaps the decision should be left in the hands of its members, who know so much more and are so much better intentioned.
###
The next time someone asks where the moderate Muslims are Respond that they are the ones getting death threats from racists and bigots for believing in the wonderful American ideal of religious liberty. They are the ones whose house of worship was just vandalized in St. Louis. They are the ones that are being dragged into court and their building permit challenged because bigots and rednecks in Murfereesboro, TN don't want an Islamic center to expand, even though the vast majority of the community supports the local mosque that has been a good neighbor for decades. They are also serving in our military, staffing our hospitals and teaching in our colleges. Same as they were on 9/10/01. That's where they are. So the next time someone asks, you have an answer.
###
This is something I have been wondering about too:
Ben Smith reports that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, after having donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, has also donated to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-Republican business lobby.
This makes zero sense to me. The value of News Corp to the Republican party is massive. It's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why also give money to Republicans? By openly donating to the party, you help tear away the mask of objectivity, thereby reducing your own value as a propaganda outlet. It seems like a bad move both for Fox and the GOP. (If I'm the Republicans, I'd rather have Fox retain a more plausible claim of objectivity.) And if you're Fox, you're obviously making a joke out of your "Fair and Balanced" mantra.
Turns out there is a simple answer as to why Murdoch did this (warning Politico link, but this is good reporting, regardless):
A person close to News Corp. told me this week the company didn't realize its $1 million to the RGA would become public. And the $1 million to Chamber of Commerce was supposed to be secret as well.
Stories like make me wonder how much of what businesses do to control the political process remains secret. It's telling that Tom Friedman is thrilled that millionaires on both coasts are plotting to form a new party.
And here's the Kruginator on the owner of the Republican Party.
###
I am shocked, shocked to learn that CEO pay climbed during the Bush recession.
###
###
Beck Rally in Jersey yesterday sold 9% of the available seats So the lunatic radio and teevee personality took his "Restoring America One State at a Time" tour to an 8,000 seat theater at the Great Adventure amusement park in New Jersey. About 700 tea party tories paid for tickets which ranged from $50 to $125. The source document seems inclined to spin it in a positive light, stressing that it was "put together quickly" as a possible reason for the poor attendance, overstating the size of his "I Have a Scheme" stunt on August 28 as "nearly 100,000 people" when actually about 70-80,000 showed up, and ignoring the less-than-packed house he and Sister Sarah drew on in Alaska on 9/11 that was pretty disappointing, too, saying instead that yesterday's smattering was his first stage appearance since the August rally.
###
Paul Krugman takes a look at the economic proposals inside the GOP Pledge To America and nearly blows a Snark Capacitor.
On Thursday, House Republicans released their "Pledge to America," supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, "Deficits are a terrible thing. Let's make them much bigger." The document repeatedly condemns federal debt - 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade - about $700 billion more than the Obama administration's tax proposals.True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there's only one specific cut proposed - canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That's less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified - "except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops." In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
So what's left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won't cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: "No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress."
Kroog's right. Republicans are hoping that you'll fall for their same old crap again, the exact same budget-busting deficits created by tax breaks to the wealthy that created our current economic catastrophe. No, President Obama has not been able to fix everything in 20 months. He's laid the groundwork for some serious improvements but getting out of the Bush disaster is going to take years.Meanwhile the Republicans are trying to sabotage the recovery in every way possible so that voters will get annoyed enough to put them back in charge. Well, this is what awaits us if they are back in charge, straight from the elephant's own mouth, even more economic catastrophe and higher deficit spending than Obama.
It's spelled out right there in this lemon of a pledge. "Vote for us. We think you're stupid enough to put us right back on the Bush economic plan."
The stupidity of admitting they plan to destroy the American economy eventually sank even into repug "brains;" Steve Benen catches them backpedaling:
So, on Thursday, House GOP leaders said they were presenting an agenda and providing a blueprint of how Republicans would use their majority. By Sunday, House GOP leaders were saying their agenda isn't really an agenda, and it's premature to "get to the potential solutions."When host Chris Wallace pressed further, looking for details on the kinds of cuts Americans can expect to see from Republicans, Boehner replied that specifics on this "invite all kinds of problems."
Yes, "problems" like "losing."
Look, we're not dealing with a complete mystery here. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has released his budget blueprint -- which has drawn support from a variety of far-right members and candidates -- and it calls for radical cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It's the only way Republicans could even try to pay for their trillions of dollars in tax cuts, and it's an approach Americans would fundamentally reject.
Which is exactly why Boehner doesn't want to talk about it. Instead, we're stuck with GOP leaders trying to convince Americans to take a leap of faith -- vote for the folks whose policies created this mess, whose numbers don't add up, and whose agenda will remain deliberately vague until they're in office and it's too late for voters to register their disapproval.
And if the Democratic base is prepared to sit out the elections, Boehner's game plan will likely work pretty effectively.
Thirty days to Election Day. Spread the word.
###
Due to the media attention being given to suicides by bullied gay and lesbian youth, we have decided to create a list of straight kids who have been bullied by gays and lesbians until they were driven to take their own lives. http://www.bulliedbygays.com/
###
Both Linda McMahon and Joe Miller have come out against the minimum wage. Seriously, the minimum wage! In America, in the 21st Century, opposing the minimum wage is like opposing child labor laws. In a sane world, this position would eliminate these candidates as being national jokes unworthy of serious consideration.
But it's not a sane world. As evidenced by the fact that way, way too many minimum wage earning Americans will actually vote for these bastards. Why? Because, we're told, people are angry about jobs and unemployment. So voters are going to choose candidates who are expressly planning to make things far worse. Smart.
Despite what Bush thought was "uniquely American," too many of us are working several jobs; we're working weekends; we're earning less than we did ten years ago; and we're competing for jobs with overseas workers who don't have protections like the minimum wage. The only way forward for the American working- and middle classes is to unravel this awfulness -- not to make it all worse by stripping away protections for employees in the name of inchoate rage.
###
It's important to remind the press that it's not just the wacky tea party Republicans who are saying ridiculous things. The establishment Republicans are equally as apeshit. Jim DeMint, for instance:
DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.
Okay, senator, how exactly do you intend to enforce that? You know, in a "small government" America. Oh, I get it. DeMint prefers a government small enough to fit into your bedroom.
###
###
Cold hearted incompetence: A Wells Fargo executive has acknowledged that he verified only the dates on up to 150 foreclosure documents he signed daily.
###
What recession?
Outside interest groups are spending five times as much on this year's elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about their donors, thanks in part to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Of the $80 million spent thus far, conservative groups are outspending progressive ones 7 to 1.
###
Skippy's environmental news stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment