God On Their Side



Perhaps you remember Michelle Bachmann remarking in May, 2011 in Iowa  “Well, every decision that I make, I pray about, as does my husband, and I can tell you, yes, I’ve had that calling and that tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do.”   Coincidentally, that same month at a fundraiser in Texas, Governor Rick Perry commented "God was dealing with me.  At 27 years old, I knew that I had been called to the ministry. I've just always been really stunned by how big a pulpit I was gonna have. I still am. I truly believe with all my heart that God has put me in this place at this time to do his will."   (Perry prayed to the Almighty also last year to put an end to the drought in Texas.    God listened but apparently didn't give the Governor the answer he was seeking, as the drought grew worse.)


There was Mr. 9-9-9, Herman Cain, who six months later told the Georgia Young Republicans "I prayed and prayed and prayed.  I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Even spouses of candidates were not precluded from claiming divine sanction.   Karen Santorum, who said it was the passage of "Obamacare" that "put fire in my belly," maintained it was "God's will" that her husband run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Neither Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Santorum ever had a chance to get the Republican nod.    (Of those in the race, only Newt Gingrich ever had a chance to derail Romney.)     So perhaps God chose not to intervene in the race or instead did so, deciding to hand each of the four an unequivocal defeat.   None of the four, however, was a darling of the mainstream media, perhaps because (the first) three were marginally serious candidates and arguably, simply not serious at all.

But the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan of Ohio, an Ayn Rand acolyte and spokesman for the 1%, has been portrayed by the naive media as a thinking person's politician and breath of fresh air.    Then on Sunday, Ryan on ABC's This Week contended

What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.

In a thorough take-down of Ryan's remark today, a dailykos blogger points to this portion of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ryan did not pause to tell us why God decided to punish the citizens of, say, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and mainland China with few rights.     Apparently, neither nature nor God decided to extend generosity, at one time or another, toward billions of people throughout the world.

Fortunately, the Repub heavyweight, thought to be on Mitt Romney's short list of running mates, probably is not so ignorant of the Constitution and devoid of common sense to believe what he said.     Already idealized by the Village as an "economic conservative" (i.e., someone who wants to drop taxes on the wealthy and explode the budget deficit), Ryan likely figures he has to shore up support among cultural conservatives in the party.     Still, his statement is part of a pattern of politicians in the Gas and Oil Party to imply that they, and they alone, know the mind of the Lord and have his cell phone number.



Share |

With God On Their Side



What do Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum (hint: eventually) have in common?

They all were forced to drop out of the Repub presidential nomination, sometime after they suggested that the Almighty inspired them to run.

Asked in early June whether he had "that sort of calling to run for president." Representative Bachmann replied "yes, I've had that calling and tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do."     Later that month, just before announcing her run, she told Bob Schieffer "I am a Christian, as is my husband. I became a Christian when I was 16 years old. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ.     Since that time, I've been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.  That's what a calling is.    If I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God."

In August, Governor Perry gave a 13-minute address infused with Scriptural references at "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" in Houston's Reliant Stadium.      The prayers at the event, according to the New York Times, "were given in Jesus Christ’s name, and the many musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation."     The previous month, Perry had told the Des Moines Register “I’m not ready to tell you that I’m ready to announce that I’m in.      But I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.”

In November,Herman Cain assured the Georgia Young Republicans "I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

As you would expect, Rick Santorum also believes that God brought him in to the race. Early this month, an official with the Romney campaign boasted "As you can tell all we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing and we can get to the nomination.     For those guys it’s going to take some sort of act of God to get to where they need to be on the nomination front.”     Santorum, campaigning in Puerto Rico, demurred, stating "One of my opponents recently said that it would take an act of God for me to win this primary. I agree with him."

To be sure, none of the three candidates who have departed the race claimed that God had designated him/her to be the next President, nor even the next GOP nominee.        Nor did Santorum say that God is running interference for him- only that if he were to win the Puerto Rico primary, it would be the Lord's doing.    

In July, the Daily Beast's Michelle Cottle spoke to longtime cultural conservative and American Values president, onetime presidential contender and current Santorum supporter (phew!) Gary Bauer.    She asked him to explain Perry:

"Sometimes it’s presented in media that the individual believes that God has picked him to be president. That would be very jarring to people, and would not be a wise thing for candidate to say—since the voters would certainly like their chance."  He adds with a laugh, "That would mean God would go before Iowa!"

But Bauer added "Being called is basically about praying and trying to discern God’s will," Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Santorum all have implied strongly that God's will was that they run for the Repub nomination for President.     I have a sense from God that this is the right thing to do, Bachmann said.    Perry suggested that he would be "in" if it's "what I've been called to do."      Cain apparently was told by God "this is what I needed to do."       And now Santorum has announced that he will win Puerto Rico if and only if God wishes.

It's over, for this cycle, for Herman Cain.     But Michele Bachmann is running for re-election to the U.S. House, it's hardly likely that Rick Perry's career in Texas is over, and Rick Santorum has an outside (barely) chance to be the GOP nominee for U.S. President.  And each seems to believe that God is in his/her corner, having selected that individual over all others.

A partisan would argue that the media is giving GOP candidates a pass on their rather interesting take on the role of the Almighty.        Not being partisan (insert chuckle here), I believe instead that the media is awfully uncomfortable about raising the issue.    But it must be probed; religion is very important to these politicians, or at least they claim it to be.    It appears to be an important part of whom they are, let alone the reason they've gotten into, or remain in, the political arena.     Ignoring the elephant in the room won't make the elephant go away, only encourage more politicians in the future to maintain that God is on their side, and uniquely so.


Share |

Against Bailouts, Rhetorically

Yep, they're all against "bailouts." Ron Paul decries the "benefits" from "all the bailouts due to the monetary system." Jon Huntsman, the only candidate on the stage last night at Oakland University (debate transcript, here) in Rochester, Michigan who did not flunk Economics 101, is worried that the continuance of 'too big to fail' might lead to another bailout.

Michele Bachmann criticized the requests of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for billions in a "bailout," blissfully unaware that when a public corporation run entirely by the government prior to 1969, the two agencies were effective and efficient. Mitt Romney- in Michigan!- said the auto bailout "was the wrong way to go." Saving American jobs does not win favor with the man who made part of his fortune at Bain Capital eliminating them.

Rick Perry, who has run Texas state government as a pay to play operation, vowed that he is "not going to pick winners and losers." Rick Santorum reminded his colleagues "time and time again, Wall Street, the Wall Street bailout, five of the eight people on this panel supported a Wall Street bailout. I didn't." Unfortunately, Santorum's preference for ending "government intervention in the marketplace" would encourage a reprise.

Even one of the debate hosts got into the act, with CNBC's personal finance correspondent Sharon Epperson worrying about "student loan debt becoming the next bailout."

If you believe these Republicans consider prevention of avoiding the temptation of another bailout a high priority, I have some prime Greek debt to sell you (cheap shot there; go, Athens!). Tax cuts for the wealthy have been joined by ridicule of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act as tenets of GOP gospel. The best rehearsed line of the night may have been from Herman Cain when he maintained there are three things wrong with Dodd-Frank, mentioning one, then quipping "the two other biggest problems with Dodd/Frank: Dodd and Frank."

Everyone laughed, including the 80% of the audience which doesn't know what was in the legislation, and the remaining 20%, which doesn't understand it.

Though weakened by an onslaught of lobbying by Wall Street, the financial reform which culminated in Dodd-Frank makes the dreaded "bailout" less, rather than more, likely. In late September, CNNMoney reported

When Moody's downgraded three banks on Wednesday, it gave a big thumbs up to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms that aim to ensure there won't be any more big bank bailouts.

Moody's made clear it believes that the U.S. government is less likely to step in to save a troubled bank,and downgraded Bank of America, Wells Farg oand Citigroup.

It is more likely now than during the financial crisis to allow a large bank to fail should it become financially troubled, as the risks of contagion become less acute," Moody's wrote in its downgrade note of Wells Fargo's stock.

Perry was not being presumptuous when last night he maintained "Everybody on this stage understands it's the regulatory world that is killing America."

"Everybody on this stage" (except, it would appear, Huntsman) is living on a different planet than both defenders and skeptics of the federal government's efforts to prevent another bailout.

At a meeting of the House Oversight Committee in January, the acting assistant secretary for financial stability at the Treasury Department maintained "Dodd-Frank gives us the tools to regulate any financial institution, regardless of its size, that poses systemic risks, and it gives us the tools to shut down such financial institutions." Demurring, Special Inspector General for TARP Neil Barofsky warned that federal officials "need to have the regulatory will and the political will to rein in the size of these banks." In his view, the Dodd-Frank Republicans imply is strangling businesses is not strong enough.

Six of the seven pretenders on stage in Michigan act as if they've slept through the last several years. If sincere, they are unaware, as Matt Taibbi has noted

We've just witnessed an episode of industry-wide financial mismanagement that surely has no parallel in history. From Lehman Brothers to AIG to Goldman and Morgan Stanley (which in 2008 needed the unprecedented emergency granting of a commercial bank charter to avoid bankruptcy) to Citigroup (which needed a $25 billion bailout and $300 billion in federal guarantees to survive) to Bear Stearns (dead) and Merrill Lynch (dead) and so on, virtually every single one of America's leading financial institutions from the last decade is either already out of business or functionally insolvent and living off government life support and cheap cash from the Fed.

And the GOP candidates have one solution, and one solution only: get government out of the way. The only hope is that they realize they're just making it up.

Share|

The End Is In Sight

Herman Cain is toast. It may be white, whole wheat or, as he would prefer it, black walnut toast, but it's over.

Not today, maybe not next week, but it's over. The New York Times reports that in a nationally televised press conference on Tuesday, anticipating calls to end his presidential run, he declared that “ain’t going to happen because I’m doing this for the American people and for the children and the grandchildren. And I will not be deterred by false, anonymous, incorrect accusations.”

One political axiom has it "when you're explaining, you're losing." Another might be "when you're denying you're leaving, you're already on your way out." And Herman Cain, apparently facing pressure to drop out of the Repub presidential race, now has been forced to deny defiantly denies that he's going to end his race for the Repub nomination for president.

Cain had a great opportunity to get out of the controversy swirling around allegations of sexual harassment unscathed- and even strengthened. On the very conservative The American Spectator, the conservative "Green Lantern" this morning blogged

All Cain had to do was admit he might have done something a little untoward and apologize. Something like this: "I'm an old school guy. I didn't realize I was offending anyone. Back home where I go to church I can walk up to a pretty young woman in the choir and say, 'My, you're just as cute as a button' and nobody will think I'm sexually harassing her. All this stuff was new to me and it took me awhile to learn the rules. But I haven't acted that way in a long time and it won't ever happen again. I'm sorry and I hope these women will forgive me."

This would have been, in part, a de facto admission of wrongdoing: "I haven't acted that way in a long time and.... I hope these women will forgive me." Cain then could have gone on to emphasize the importance in this environment of economic and tax policy and extolled the benefit of his 9-9-9 plan, omitting the part about how it would reinforce the control of society by the rich and powerful and further decimate the middle class.

Instead, it has been unsubstantiated, ludicrous accusations of racial bias against a black conservative; the usual rants against the "liberal media;" and attacks against the women involved. Gloria Allred's client, Ms. Bialek, has had to fend off inferences that she has spoken out only because of financial difficulties, including twice filing twice for bankruptcy. Further, as Bill Press writes, "Cain and his attorney also declared that Bialek’s appearance in New York was the first time in 14 years she’d told anyone about what happened between her and Cain – even though her attorney read affidavits from two friends who heard the whole story from her as soon as she returned to Chicago from Washington."

And now comes a more traditional, arguably uglier, attack, straight from Herman Cain PAC, beneath the caption "Ew, gross! Who the hell does this ugly b1tch think she’s fooling?" and the title "Herman Cain Accuser Karen Kraushaar works for Obama and she's ugly:

Looks are subjective, of course and most people would not characterize Ms. Krashauer as "ugly." Still, let's play that game with reference to Sharon Bialek:

Share|

Fake Candidate, Real Threat

You missed it!

If you're like myself and 99.99999999% of the American people, you, too, missed last night's debate between Herman Cain, he of the 69-9-9 plan, and Newt Gingrich, he of the Temple of Newt Gingrich.

Now that we have had Cain vs. Gingrich, televised by CNN, it is only a matter of time before we're entertained by an Obama vs. Biden debate. The Los Angeles Times' Robin Abcarian observed of the face-off in Woodland, Texas "But to call it a debate was a misnomer. The Republican rivals for the presidential nomination are good friends; there was nary a disagreement to be heard." In fact

Cain seemed ill at ease; he deferred frequently to Gingrich on complex aspects of federal programs. When one of the two moderators, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), asked about defined benefits, Cain gave a halting answer. "A defined.... You go first, Newt."

Gingrich seamlessly stepped into the breach, as he did virtually all evening at the Houston-area gathering, a fundraiser for the Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC.

Cain's discomfort in such a forum is hard to understand. The debate between two of the ultra-right contenders- the others were invited, but declined- was to focus on earned benefits (disparaged as "entitlements") with Cain's harassment controversy ruled off-bounds.

Discussion of the sexual harassment charges once lodged against Cain would have been so, well, uncomfortable. And it would not have served the interests of the debate's sponsors, the Tea Party Patriots of Texas, to make either gentleman ill at ease. In August of 2009, Talking Points Memo described an effort made two months earlier by Tea Party Patriots to change its logo in anticipation of an upcoming event in September. However, national coordinator Amy Kremer nixed the idea, noting

Hey All, Not to be a pain, but this is not Tea Party Patriots logo to change. This is FreedomWorks logo and they have said they are keeping the original design. I do not know why this discussion is continuing.

If anyone feels that the logo needs to be changed, then you need to contact FreedomWorks directly. TPP (Jenny Beth) has already conatcted (sic) them and shared their response with everyone.

TPP is not going to contact them again about the issue.

While FreedomWorks chooses not to reveal its corporate sponsors, Phillip Morris is among them and local branches of its sister organization also have taken money from the tobacco industry. That sister organization would be the Koch brothers Americans for Prosperity. The Huffington Post summarized

Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code. And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans.

At first glance, it's all a joke to Cain, who at an AFP dinner recently quipped "I am the Koch brothers' brother from another mother," utilizing a phrase lifted from Rush Hour 3, as Rachel Maddow noted (video, below; movie reference beginning at approximately 11:20).

Maddow did not, but should have asked: could Cain have imagined that not one of his devoutly Christian opponents would have pointed out, as Michele Bachmann did at debate, that "9-9-9" is an upside-down "666?" Maddow posits the entire Cain candidacy as performance art" rather than politics but his corporate supporters, at least, are deadly serious. Responding to an article in The New York Times, the candidate at the AFP event continued

I'm proud to know the Koch brothers. I'm very proud to know the Koch brothers. They make it sound like that we have had time to go fishing together, hunting together, skiing together, golfing together. Just so I can clarify this to the media, this may be a new announcement for the media: I am the Koch brothers' brother from another mother. Yes. I am their brother from another mother, and proud of it. You see, the reason that I am running for president, folks, is because I want to unite the United States of America, not divide the United States of America.

Herman Cain, a fully owned subsidiary of Americans for Prosperity, may want to "unite" the United States of America but not for the benefit of the poor, the middle class, or for any one but his billionaire benefactors..

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Share|

Just Talk

The National Restaurant Association says it has received the request from Joel Bennett, attorney for one of the women who signed a sexual harassment complaint against Herman Cain. The NRA says it will decide tomorrow whether to release the woman from her confidentiality agreement.

The agreement has not been made public and, as they say, God is in the details. Or, ironically, the devil is in the details. Nevertheless, this is not necessary.

Sure, careful attorneys aim to cross all T's and dot all I's. But they also tend to view everything through the prism of their own profession, rather than realistically. Fortunately, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell understands, explaining (rough transcript, here; video, below) on Wednesday

And you have been challenged, you women who have accused Herman Cain 0f sexual harassment. I know you and your lawyers fear what could happen to you if you did come forward, if you violated your confidentiality agreements. I am here to tell you that absolutely nothing would happen.

The advice your lawyers are giving you is legal advice, offered within the confines of a legal matter. Now you need political advice because this is in fact not a legal matter anymore; this is a political matter. Your lawyers have told you that if you violated your confidentiality agreement the National Restaurant Association, a Washington lobbying group, can sue you for doing that. They can drag you to court, they can get their settlement money back from you and possibly get more money from you in damages and legal fees.

I am here to tell you that that can never, and will never, happen and I am telling you that as a political fact. That is the political reality you and the Restaurant Association are facing. The National Restaurant Association spends its day lobbying Congress against increasing the minimum wage among other legislative interests that restaurants and hotel business has. The National Restaurant Association knows that they would pay an extreme and immediate political price for suing you for telling the truth about what happens in the headquarters of the National Restaurant Association. They know that if they sue you, they will not be allowed to set foot in at least half of the offices in the United States Senate and a couple of hundred offices in the House of Representatives. They know practical politics and representing the interests of their members means they absolutely cannot afford to sue you.

They also know the legal prospect of success with a Washington, D.C. jury are close to zero. You women have nothing to fear anymore in the National Restaurant Association. You srim (sic) nothing to fear in those confidentiality agreements. They are just pieces of paper....

I will provide you all of the funding you might need for a legal defense fund to fight and beat the National Restaurant Association and Herman Cain at their confidentiality game.

O'Donnell acknowledged that the women legitimately fear hostility from some quarters. Clearly, O'Donnell recognizes that this is not 1991 and the public reaction would not mimic that to Anita Hill when she truthfully testified about the sexual harassment she faced from her former employer, Clarence Thomas. Not only have the American people gained far greater knowledge of sexual harassment in the workplace, it is unlikely that any alleged victim know would make the same mistake as did Anita Hill- calmly, rationally testify to the facts while the man summons up phony righteous indignation.

O'Donnell, who worked on Capitol Hill from 1989 to 1995, can be accused of suffering from the same malady he recognizes in the attorney of Cain's accuser. Fortunately, however, O'Donnell is right and, whether or not the National Restaurant Association decides to extend its beneficence to the unknown woman, she would be well served to tell all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Share|

And This Is A Defense?

Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham. If it's an ad hominem attack, can Ann Coulter be far behind?

Coulter, the nasty Queen of Mean, declared Monday night on GOP TV's Hannity

Liberals detest, detest, detest conservative blacks..... This is now the second time a conservative black has had outrageous and what appear to be false allegations leveled against him.

According to The Huffington Post (from which account this was taken), Coulter was referring to Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, whose victimization thus apparently was tempered.

Americans for Herman Cain, in a fund-raising letter claiming Herman Cain is a serious threat to the re-election of Barack Obama, is even more explicit, claiming

So the left wing media has decided to destroy him. Like they did to Clarence Thomas, they are engaging in a "high tech" lynching by smearing his reputation and attacking his character.

Coulter, perhaps dreaming of those fine old days when human beings were owned, added "our blacks are so much better than their blacks" ("our blacks?" "their blacks?").

When Clarence Thomas accused the Senate Judiciary Committee of "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks," no one was called to testify to buttress the contention of Anita Hill that Thomas had harassed her sexually while he was her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

There was, however, someone who had been supoenaed, flew to Washington, and waited three days before the Committee decided not to call her. When Florence George Graves, then a Radcliffe Public Policy Fellow at Harvard University, conducted the research for her article which appeared in The Washington Post on November 20, 2003, she found Wright bore no ill will toward Thomas when he fired her. She immediately found employment with the Charlotte Observer, who received a very favorable recommendation from Thomas. The sexually explicit behavior exhibited by Thomas toward Hill appeared to Wright very similar to that which she faced from Thomas, though she considers herself a very strong-willed woman who was not intimidated by her boss' actions.

Opinions differ as to why Angela Wright never appeared before the Committee, although the subpoena eventually was withdrawn and the witness to the Supreme Court nominee's fascination with the female anatomy believed the Senators did not want her to testify. The spirit of the deliberations which led to the decision not to call Wright was captured by the late Senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.), who

remembers a meeting of the Judiciary committee members in Senator Ted Kennedy's office on Sunday- it was about 5 p.m. after a recess in the hearings announced- there was a discussion ("I don't know if it came to a formal vote") leading to a consensus among Democrats and Republicans not to call Wright. He recalls that the Republicans felt she "confirmed the sexual harassment side of things," and the Democrats feared that she had been fired by Thomas, Wright might appear less credible. He says no Senator argued that Wright had to be called.

Because so much was going on, Simon says, he did not read Angela Wright's testimony until after the hearings. That's when he was "stunned" to learn that Rose Jourdain had corroborated Wrights' account. Had he known this when the senators convened Sunday, "I would have insisted that she be called." Simon says he thinks Wrights's account, buttressed by Jourdain's, "would have turned the situation around.

"First, the Senate shouldn't be approving that kind of conduct," he says. "But the second factor was the truthfulness factor. Thomas was under oath. Anita Hill was under oath. And when you add the Angela Wright testimony to it, I think it's fairly clear that the person who was not telling the turth was Clarence Thomas."

Further light on the decison not to call Wright was shone by Cynthia Hogan( counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Biden), who

told Kennedy School Researcher Dickert that as the final arrangements were made for an ambulance to bring Wright's corroborator, Jourdain from her home to the hearings, "out of the blue, the Republicans- who were clearly terrified of Angela Wright- said "we don't want her to testify, and we will accept the transcript of her deposition unrebutted." To a lawyer," she explained, this means "they are accepting it as basically ture, so we thought this was a tremendous victory."

Given the fixation on race and obsession with victimization among many conservative Republicans, it is virtually impossible to discern the impulse behind their acrimonious demonization of liberals, though their hostility toward Mitt Romney is the more immediate motivation. Virtually lost in history (rarely reported and little known), however, is the acceptance of Judiciary Committee Republicans of the testimony of Angela Wright, which would have convinced all but the most diehard supporters of Clarence Thomas that the Supreme Court nominee had lied under oath. Not only would he have been denied confirmation, but we all would have been spared the blatherings of the likes of Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, and Coulter, who base their support of Herman Cain on the assumption, unrebutted, that Clarence Thomas was truthful.

Share|

Race Is Their Specialty

Who would ever indulge in racial stereotyping while claiming it of his political enemies? Who would give voice to his characteristic, nearly unsurpassed racial bigotry while pretending it's coming from the opposition?

Why, if it's Main Street Liberal, it must be Rush Limbaugh (but not him alone). While Herman Cain was yet again changing his story on whether he had been told how many women had accused him of sexual harassment and whether he had any clue of a settlement, Rush was busy going on the offensive. He could have waited for the facts before exonerating Cain of any wrongdoing, but then, he wouldn't be the Blowhard of Bigotry. Accordingly, he remarked

What's next, folks? A cartoon on MSNBC showing Herman Cain with huge lips eating a watermelon? What are they gonna do next? No, Snerdley, I'm not kidding. The racial stereotypes that these people are using to go after Herman Cain, what is the one thing that it tells us? It tells us who the real racists are, yeah, but it tells us that Herman Cain is somebody. Something's going on out there. Herman Cain obviously is making some people nervous for this kind of thing to happen.

But, alas, Limbaugh is not the only right-wing Republican talk show host charging racism without knowing the facts. Reporting on reactions to its story, Politico quotes Laura Ingraham, law clerk to Clarence Thomas in the 1990s, commenting on her radio gig

Doesn’t all this sound familiar? A black man who thinks for himself, who ends up surprising everyone, including the establishment, who ends up a point ahead of the guy who has raised millions and millions and millions of dollars, and has been running for president for the last five, six years. This upstart guy ends up a point ahead of Romney in Iowa…He needs to be put in his place, a lot of people think. Time to put this man in, hate to say it, the back of the bus.

The real analogy is Ingraham to Limbaugh. For Rush, it's implying the left will be putting lips on a watermelon to depict the black candidate; for Ingraham, it's inferring that someone wants to put Cain in "the back of the bus." Neither has evidence of the charges they clearly imply, but have not the courage to make directly. And both partisans were more than happy to spread racial stereotypes (or in Ingraham's case, an item apparently on her racial wish list) and project them onto others.

Politico assumes that Ingraham was attempting to draw a parallel to Thomas, though she oddly implies, however unintentionally, that Thomas once ran for President ("ends up a point ahead of the guy who has raised millions and millions and millions of dollars and has been running for president"). Even odder might be her failure to realize that overwhelming evidence now demonstrates there is little doubt that Clarence Thomas lied when he defended himself before Congress against charges that he sexually harassed Anita Hill.

But then, the only people who really know what happened at the National Restaurant Association are those who were there- the accusers, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham.

Share|

Don't Bother Them With Facts

You didn't know, did you, that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are all spoiled brats.

Herman Cain knows. Asked by David Gregory about the "Wall Street protesters," Cain replied "What is their message? That's what's unclear. If that message is, "Let's punish the rich," I don't empathize with that message. They should be protesting the White House." Chatting with Piers Morgan, it was "Some of the population has been spoiled. I happen to think that those demonstrated on Wall Street are spoiled. They have been -- they are spoiled and manipulated because I happen to believe that there was a coordinated effort to create all of this chaos and all of this distraction to cover for the failed policies of the Obama administration."

Rush Limbaugh knows:

So Occupy Wall Street Now? Good. More of it! More chaos, more upheaval, more anger, more frustration. Because what's the Occupy Wall Street crowd doing? They're asking for more government, aren't they? They're not asking for more money returned to the private sector. They're not asking for more prosperity. They're asking for more government as the answer to their wants and needs. They're not looking to themselves. They're not looking at the country as people did in the past: A golden land of opportunity. Just the opposite.

As usual, Rush was 180 degrees from the truth- in fact, the protesters are angry precisely because they believe in America as the land of opportunity, one whose promises have not been kept, in part because of the powerful 1%. If power follows money, the power of that group is demonstrated by the findings (full report, here) of the Congressional Budget Office (two of their charts, via The Politics Blog), as it summarizes:

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

Still, the OWS thousands are, according to the guy who calls the President of the United States "this little boy, this little man-child president" who has been encouraged to "go gansta," are "all a bunch of spoiled, snot-nosed, leftist rich kids." Finally- a group of people Rush Limbaugh calls "rich" and does not idolize, probably because they had the nerve not to gamble away the world's economy.

Share|

Complacency Unwarranted

You can't get much more articulate and perceptive (evidence, here) than David Atkins, regular contributor to Digby's Hullabaloo. But he is wrong about the likelihood of an enthusiastic GOP base in the 2012 presidential election.

Atkins links to a New York Times article in which Alison Kopinski writes (types)

With the nation’s first nominating contests just two months away, a large majority of Republican primary voters have yet to make up their minds about the candidate they would like to see as their party’s nominee for president in 2012.

About eight in 10 Republican primary voters say it is still too early to tell whom they will support, and just four in 10 say they have been paying a lot of attention to the 2012 presidential campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Herman Cain, the former restaurant executive, is riding a wave of support among Republican primary voters that has placed him in a statistical dead heat with rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, in a race that has been characterized by momentum swings among the candidates.

The poll found Mr. Cain with the highest level of support, with 25 percent of Republican primary voters, and Mr. Romney with 21 percent. This difference is within the poll’s margin of sampling error.

Adding to the fluidity of the contest, about one in 10 Republican primary voters say they would like to see someone else nominated.

Atkins thus observes

What most Democrats are looking for is basic competence and an eye for the common good. We are willing to mostly overlook race, gender, personal foibles and even difficult votes made in the past, because we understand that people are people, both life and governance are hard, and no one is perfect. We have an easier time of this.

So far, so good. But then he goes off track, concluding

The GOP purity train is such that they're not going to be happy with anybody they pick. And that, at least, is a silver lining to their increasingly radical cloud.

Significantly, when Herman Cain, whom polls now indicate is the favorite of the greatest number of registered voters of the pro-life party, appeared on Piers Morgan Tonight, he repeated faithfully the primary pro-choice talking point:

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

And for those who believe Cain was talking only about abortion in the case of rape or incest, a moment later, asked by Morgan about "these things"(i.e., abortion generally) the candidate maintained

The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

All across the country GOP legislators and chief executives move aggressively to curtail abortion rights or the opportunity of a woman to choose abortion and GOP politicians proudly claim to belong to the "pro-life party." Herman Cain goes on national television and gives the pro-choice argument. And those Republican politicians, the GOP popular base, and the pro-life interest groups which have strengthened the party for decades rise as one to say: nothing.

Maybe they, especially the rank-and-file voter, weren't aware of Cain's remarks. Or perhaps a substantial portion of Republicans favor abortion rights or are relatively indifferent to the issue, characteristic of the corporate base of the party.

Or maybe it's something else. Perhaps his demeanor- direct and dominating, nothing vague- or his statements. On Meet The Press, Cain had stated "The objective of the liberals is to destroy this country."

Nothing as a prelude, no explanation necessary: "the objective of the liberals is to destroy this country." When Morgan sought elaboration, Cain asserted he meant "economically" and, a moment later, contended "It is their mission. Because they do not believe in a stronger America, in my opinion. Yes." A straight-talker. Uninformed and prone to contradict himself, but conservative and unrepentant, a man who has accused President Obama of being a liar with an economic approach that is "bulls_ _ _."

Most Repub voters, apparently, like and even respect that sort of thing. And it's not an electorate that's "not going to be happy with anyone they pick." Once the candidate, even if the relatively reasonable Romney is selected (as is likely), GOP voters will be happy, even enthusiastic. They really, really dislike Barack Obama- the policies and the man. Revving up the base will not be a problem, with or without a rebel yell.

Share|