The Great Pretender

The question which must be asked of Rush Limbaugh is one which has been begging to be asked for decades: Do you really think your audience is as stupid as you appear to believe?

On Tuesday, Limbaugh contended 

But now it's ISIS!  Now, why change?  Why do this?  I mean, climate change and the Democrat Party are inseparable.  And the Democrats are making it the number-one issue. There are reasons -- absurd, of course, 'cause there isn't any evidence that it's happening.  

Although its meterologists are loathe to emphasize it, The Weather Channel evidently would disagree because

May 2016 was the warmest May on record for the globe, making it the 13th consecutive warmest month on record.

NOAA's global State of the Climate report released Thursday found May's temperature over the Earth's surface was 0.87 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average. This beat out the previous record warm May set just last year by 0.02 degrees Celsius.

The 13-month streak, which dates back to May 2015, is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set, according to NOAA's dataset which goes back to 1880.

NOAA reports "The May temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.57°F above the 20th century average of 58.6°F. This was the highest for May in the 1880–2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.04°F."

May 2016 (NASA temperature map, above via the U.K.'s Independent) was not the warmest month on record, merely the warmest month. Still, it was no anomaly given that it

tied with June 2015 and August 2015 as the 12th highest monthly temperature departure among all months (1,637) on record. Overall, 13 of the 15 highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred since February 2015, with February 1998 and January 2007 among the 15 highest monthly temperature departures.

Rush doesn't understand- or pretends not to understand- distinguishing between climate and weather when he remarks

See, here we have this little heatwave out in the Southwest the past three or four days. "See?  See? It's never been hotter!" I'll bet you if you go look into historical temperatures, you'll find days at this time of year since records have been kept where temperatures were as high, maybe even higher, than what they've been.  

It was 117 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and Monday and until July 7, the high temperature is expected to be below 110 degrees only on June 30.  Limbaugh won't tell his audience that because his argument is based on the idea that weather and climate are synonymous, that 117 degrees on June 19 in Arizona would mean the earth is warming and snow on January 15 in International Falls means it is cooling.

Surely he couldn't be that ignorant. But he informs his audience that young individuals, a tiny portion of his audience, are. He continues

But to young people who don't have that historical perspective, "Oh, my God, it's never been this hot! Oh, my God, climate change! Oh, my God, global warming! Oh, my God, we're frying! Oh, my God, we're broiling! Oh, my God, it's over! Oh, my God, the climate change people are right.

And they're not. 

That's clever use of the straw man tactic.  His audience has been trained to believe that weather is climate and that there is no warming. Hence, without specifying the abnormally high temperatures occurring- which would be of out-sized importance to the audience he consistently misleads- he ascribes lack of historical perspective to young people.  It would be a cheap shot were it accurate.

It's ironic because historical perspective would demonstrate that climate change is real, and extraordinary.   2016 is expected to be (by far) the warmest year on record, as 2015 was prior to that. And 2014 prior to that. Further

Of the hottest years on record, 15 out of 17 have come since 2000. By contrast, more than a century has gone by since the planet had a record cold year (1911). In addition, this marks 39 years in a row with above average global temperatures and 372 months in a row with global temperatures above average. 

That's all coincidence, as it is when Rush Limbaugh continues to deceive and cheat listeners who deserve far better.










Share |

There will be an (R) After The Name

It was not especially funny and it wasn't very accurate, but Stephen Colbert was on to something when last night he said "Despite his long odds, Bernie just got a reminder that he's a serious contender in this race because Donald Trump gave him a nickname." Colbert then played a short clip of Trump remarking on Fox and Friends "I call him 'Crazy Bernie' because he's not very good."

Colbert went on to remark “I just hope that Bernie Sanders does not take this nickname lightly" because "these nicknames have destroyed all of Trump’s opponents. ‘Low Energy Jeb’ — gone. ‘Little Marco’ — vaya con dios. ‘Lyin’ Ted’ — see you, wouldn’t wanna be you.”







But Donald Trump didn't give him this nickname. Rush Limbaugh has been using the phrase for months, in this rant thrice not including his complaint (honestly, this was a complaint) that the mainstream media has been "treating Bernie as the crazy little lovable uncle in the rocking chair up the attic."

Of course,  both Limbaugh's frequent references to "crazy Bernie" and Trump's use of the term owe much to the inability or unwillingness of either to engage Sanders on the issues. They just might find that the American people are not so offended by Social Security, food inspections, free public education, and access to roadways.

But adoption of the term by rock-ribbed Republican Limbaugh and its appropriation by the party's presumptive presidential nominee point to something more significant.  As Steve M. pointed out, Politico has reported that the Trump

campaign last month contacted at least two prominent conservative economists -- Larry Kudlow, the CNBC television host, and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and a longtime Wall Street Journal writer -- to spearhead an effort to update the package....

Kudlow and Moore are well known voices in conservative economic circles. They are two of the founders, with economist and former Ronald Reagan adviser Art Laffer and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes, of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, established last year to advance for conservative economic policies.

Kudlow is the intellectual forefather of supply-side economics, in which revenues climb as taxes decline, which has proven (graph below from here) as utterly absurd as it sounds.  Not your grandfather's- or anyone's- populists, he and Moore

also said they would recommend letting corporations use “immediate expensing of equipment” for tax purposes to spur investment and economic growth. This has become a top priority for many Republicans, though it wasn’t in Trump’s original plan.

It wasn't in Trump's plan as long as he was running as the anti-establishment alternative to Republicans tied to the establishment. Now faced with the critical task of mending fences with movement conservatives, the billionaire may recognize there is no better way to the heart of the GOP establishment than through a plan to reduce taxes on the wealthy and blow up the deficit (graph above from zFacts; its data from Bush 43 OMB).  He already has borrowed Rush Limbaugh's nickname for Bernie Sanders, and his transformation into a true-blue conservative while maintaining the bombast, belligerence and bravado of a faux populist may have only just begun.

Share |

He's Having A Jolly Good Time

"When you start a sentence with 'this is probably racist,' you should stop right there."

Priceless. And that was Cenk Uygur's reaction to Rush Limbaugh after the latter on Tuesday commented

One of the e-mails that leaked in the hack of Sony, Amy Pascal, the cochairman of Sony Pictures, in an e-mail thread back and forth, I forget who it was, she suggested that when Daniel Craig's run as James Bond is over -- and this is it, this is contractually his last film -- she suggested a new James Bond.  I'm not sure how you pronounce the guy's name.  Idris Elba is what it looks like.  Idris Elba, which is -- I can't say African-American, 'cause he's British.  African English.  African Brit.  He's black. He's from Great Britain. He was on The Wire, and he was in a British cop drama, procedural called Luther. 

Do you watch Luther?  Luther on Netflix?  I have it, I just didn't watch it.  Here's the thing, though.  James Bond is a fictional character, obviously.  James Bond was invented, created by Ian Fleming, a former spy, MI6, and James Bond is a total concept put together by Ian Fleming.  He was white and Scottish, period.  That is who James Bond is.  But now Sony is suggesting that the next James Bond should be Idris Elba, a black Briton rather than a white from Scotland.  But that's not who James Bond is, and I know it's racist to probably even point this out. 

But the franchise needs to get with it, right?  The franchise needs to get hip. The franchise needs to get with the 21st century.  That's right.  We had 50 years of white Bonds because Bond is white. Bond was never black.  Ian Fleming never created a black Brit to play James Bond.  The character was always white. He was always Scottish.  He always drank vodka shaken not stirred and all that. 

Okay, so we're not supposed to have a problem with this.  I mean, it's the movies.  Come on, we've had 50 years of white James Bonds.  We need to spread it out.  We need to be equal.  We need to be fair about this.  Okay, fine, let's play a little game.  (interruption) Jay-Z's favorite drink?  How would I know what Jay-Z's favorite drink is?  Ah, what would that be, Cristal?  Yeah. 

How about in the movie about the Obamas, 'cause there's gonna be one, how about George Clooney play Obama and Kate Hudson play Michelle (My Belle) Obama?  How would that do?  I mean, if we're gonna do this, let's imagine it.  Nelson Mandela movie, Idris Elba played Nelson Mandela and Nelson Mandela was black.  The movies can do whatever. Kelsey Grammer as Nelson Mandela. How about that?  We're just playing here, ladies and gentlemen. 

Al Sharpton.  There will be a movie, The Al Sharpton Story.  Who do we get to play Al Sharpton?  'Cause they need two or three of 'em at various -- how about Rob Reiner to play the early Al Sharpton with the bullhorn and megaphone and all that.  General Colin Powell, Colonel Colin Powell.  You know there's gonna be a series of TV documentaries or movies. Who will it be?  How about George C. Scott.  He played Patton.  I know he's dead, but what does that matter?  We could reproduce him cinemagraphically. 

How about, let's see, let's see, Condoleezza Rice?  We do a movie on Condoleezza Rice. You might be thinking that we would have Halle Berry.  No, no, no.  Scarlett Johansson. Scarlett Johansson, all she's have to do is take some piano lessons, she's got it. Scarlett Johansson is Condoleezza Rice. Michael Sam.  You know there's gonna a movie on Michael Sam.  And if Idris Elba is going to play James Bond and if that's a natural hit and that's the only way we can go and then let's see, how about Hugh Grant as Michael Sam? ...

They did it with Whitney Houston.  There was a movie in 1947 called The Bishop's wife, and it was remade for Whitney Houston called The Preacher's Wife.  Sometimes a story is just a story, but we can always make it better. We can always be more fair.  We can always be more equal about it.  So, fine and dandy.  George Clooney and Kate Hudson as Barack and Michelle Obama, and you can have Idris Elba as James Bond.

You might wonder why someone says "I know it's racist to probably even point this out" and then goes and points it out.  You'd almost think he was egging his audience on, especially as he mentions Nelson Mandela, Jay-Z, Al Sharpton, Michael Sam and, of course, Michelle Obama. To Rush's credit, he did mention one Republican, Mushroom Cloud Condoleezza Rice, and neglected to mention one of the right's favorite boogeymen, "AlSharptonJesseJackson."

Rush's apparent failure to recognize the difference between real people and imaginary characters understandably is pivotal for Uygur (as seen in the video below), Raw Story noting

“If they think they’ll get good box office returns, and he’d make a great Bond and they’d make more money — hey, Rush, we’d call that capitalism, isn’t it?” Uygur said. “I know it bothers your racist ass — that’s probably why you won’t go see the movie. But the rest of us are not like you, and we might enjoy things ‘shaken, not stirred’ at Bond.”

Limbaugh brought up the issue on his radio show earlier in the day, arguing that Bond, the fictional British spy, “was white and Scottish, period"...

“The question is, why does it bother Rush so much?” Uygur asked, before alluding to conservative reactions to the idea that Santa Claus could be Black.

“I hate to break the news to you, but Santa’s also fictional — we can make him anything we like,” Uygur said. “Yes, normally he was drawn up as a jolly fat guy who’s white. You can make him a skinny Asian if you like.”

That is the obvious takeaway from a critique of a guy who deploys race-baiting roughly as often as he changes his underwear.  (Limbaugh is on only 4-5 days a week so he'd have to do his race thing more than once a day. Most weeks, he meets his quota.)

But though he downplays it, Limbaugh states also

Now, admittedly, all these characters I've mentioned are real-life characters, and James Bond has never lived, per se, he's a fictional character.  But he was white and Scottish.  Oh, I know they're doing it with comic books.  There's now the African-American version of Annie, of Captain America coming up.

The talk show host knows why Sony is doing what Sony is doing- and it has nothing to do with a cultural sensibility Limbaugh and his acolytes would often refer to as "political correctness." He acknowledges "But the franchise needs to get with it, right?  The franchise needs to get hip. The franchise needs to get with the 21st century.  That's right."

He won't admit it, of course, because corporations can do no wrong, but he knows "the franchise needs to get with the 21st century" because its potential customers, ultimately the source of most of its profit, demand it. Sony's consideration of a black James Bond is predicated on economic considerations.  This Limbaugh dares not state explicitly because the interests of the 1% are his primary motivation. Meanwhile, he feeds his followers red meat, tossing out the names of prominent black people.

In an otherwise excellent piece in Salon, professor and author Sophia A. McClennen writes "There seems little doubt that nuance, subtle thinking and critical insight are well beyond the grasp of Rush Limbaugh."   It may seem so because on the right, the market is stronger for outrageousness and simplicity than for nuance, subtle thinking, or critical insight. Limbaugh's effort, is, as McClennon colorfully puts it, "to spit bile at his fellow citizens, constantly hurling invectives at those with whom he disagrees."

But Limbaugh never actually criticizes Sony for its decision. He knows it's money that motivates the company and he will never, ever question that motive.  The rest- albeit racially incendiary- is largely a smokescreen.











                                           MERRY CHRISTMAS


Share |

Other Than Thinking It's A Dandy Idea, Limbaugh Is Right About This

Rush Limbaugh was interviewed by Chris Wallace yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" and Politics USA's Jason Easley believes

To anyone outside of the Republican media bubble, Rush Limbaugh sounded crazy. The only factual statement in the entire segment was that Republicans won the 2014 election. Everything else that came out of Limbaugh’s mouth was combination of borderline mental illness and fantasy.

Perhaps. But this is the time- shortly after an election- to appear crazy, after which you, and the opinion you propounded, may be forgotten.  The portion Easley finds relevant has Rush stating (video below)


Does that not matter? You keep talking polls to me, and I’ve got the. The essence of a poll is an election, and I’ve got two of them. And we would have won the White House in 2012 if four million Republicans hadn’t have stayed home.
…
What does it matter? They won. The point is that this is a trick. I think the shutdown is a trick. Here is what it really means, Chris. The Republicans want what Obama wants on immigration, and they are using the government shutdown as an excuse to not stop him. Because the truth of the matter is they agree with it. Romney agrees with it. Jeb Bush agrees with it. Chamber of Commerce agrees with it. Obviously, the Republican establishment doesn’t want to stop Obama on comprehensive immigration reform….And very conveniently, here’s this government shutdown. Oh, we can’t act. We can’t act because they’ll blame us for shutting down the government. They’ll blame us for shutting down the government.

I think it’s absurd. I think it’s ridiculous, and the American people are being let down here. They’re voting. They’re expressing their desires. They want this stuff stopped, and the Republican Party’s not listening.










Speaking in December 2014, Limbaugh has two good points. Establishment Repubs are feigning most of their indignation over immigration.  Their donor base is not hostile to immigration reform and the GOP probably cannot legally stop it, anyway.

Additionally, the voters comprising the popular base of the Repub Party want a government shutdown, virtually anything they can be sold as stopping Obama, even if it really damages only the country. Perhaps The Big Money Boyz (as Digby often refers to them) are wary but only because they fear the political backlash. Their concerns are short-lived and a shutdown would do nothing to undermine their faith that the GOP is sympatico with their needs and desires.

It would  hurt the American people, of course, but that is not the concern of the donor base nor the belief of the popular base.  Rush Limbaugh understands the impact upon the nation but realizes that strategically, that's an asset, not a bug. In late August, when Mitch McConnell threatened a government shutdown were the GOP to regain (as it did) the Senate through elections 75 days later, Steve M. questioned the conventional judgement that a threat to shut down the federal government would backfire against the Party. He argued

Hell, even the public-opinion impact of the government shutdown we experienced last year was evanescent -- as soon as the shutdown was over, the Democrats' advantage over Republicans on generic-ballot poll questions began to shrink (and eventually reverse), and it took a lot less than two and a half months.  

He demonstrated this with the graph for which SM explained, "The blue hump in the middle is the fleeting moment when Democrats had the greatest advantage over Republicans; that moment ended almost immediately after the shutdown did."

It's not that Limbaugh hadn't, as Joan Walsh puts it, "brought the lies, claiming 'the only thing that happened in that shutdown was Barack Obama closed (....) the World War II memorial to World War II vets' and 'shut down some White House tours.'"     The shutdown, she noted, "cost $24 billion in lost economic activity," hardly a triviality.

But to the GOP that is mere collateral damage. If few people remembered for even three months the government shutdown of 2013, they're unlikely to remember in late 2016 one which engineered in early 2014. What voters probably would keep in mind is their dissatisfaction with government, exacerbated by the shutdown but which they mostly would not attribute to it.  And the GOP is not considered  the party of government.

Share |

Feminist Limbaugh

Politico's Dylan Byers reports

On Tuesday, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairperson Steve Israel sent a blast email asking supporters to sign a petition calling on Limbaugh's sponsors to pull their advertising from his program because of remarks he had made about rape. Israel characterized Limbaugh as saying, "…No" means "yes" if you know how to spot it…” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a similar email on Wednesday....

The email directed recipients to a form where they were required to fill out their email address and had the option of supplying their zip code. After giving their information to the DCCC, they are redirected to ActBlue and asked for a donation, preferably recurring weekly.

Limbaugh spokesperson Brian Glicklich told Politico "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails about Rush Limbaugh are an intentional lie, using 10 words carefully selected from his full comments to imply the opposite of what he actually said."  (An intentional lie? I hate those unintentional lies?) In response to Glicklich's response to Israel's response to Limbaugh's response to an apparently new policy at Ohio State University, the DCCC e-mailed Politico

The world according to Rush Limbaugh: women who use the birth control pill are ‘sluts,’ ‘no means yes if you know how to spot it,’ and anyone who dares question him is ‘reprehensible.’ There’s no context where no means yes, and that’s why thousands of Americans are responding to our petition demanding that his sponsors to pull their advertising.

Helpfully, Byers provided a transcript of the controversial statement (video, below):

Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.'" How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that "no" means "yes" if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given.   See, that's what we gotta change. We have got to reprogram the way we raise men. Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out "why"... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?

Byers received this transcript.... from the Limbaugh camp. Yes, Glicklich- in defense- sent to Politico a statement including "Why do you think permission every step of the way, clearly spelling out 'why'... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen if even one of these steps is not taken?"  Further, Glinklich neglected to mention that Limbaugh, following a commercial break, added "I don't know how men can be held to that Ohio State agreement, policy, anyway, because everybody knows in sex men don't think with their brains. Not the one in their heads, anyway. It's just so silly."

It's just so silly.  Yet, the Limbaugh camp says the DCCC charged the talk-show host with implying the opposite of what he "actually said."  Actually, even the portion Glinklich quoted has the boss maintaining if men don't ask "permission every step of the way.... are all of these not lawsuits just waiting to happen?"  Given that "lawsuits" is a four-letter word (until an individual has to file one), that would be a truly bizarre way of expressing concern about sexual assault on campus. As if to emphasize his point, Rush soon thereafter added (transcript of entire segment, here)

You ever notice that? I've never run across anybody who suggested that women need to be reprogrammed. I don't think I've even come across anybody who wanted to teach a girl how to throw right. They just accept it is what it is. But honestly, folks, it's always reprogramming men. It's always men who seem to provide or be at the root of all of these cultural problems. And if we could just make men less like men and more like, I guess, women, then we would be rid of all of these problems.

If he had any integrity, Limbaugh would own up to what he had inferred and defended it which, if his characterization of the Ohio State (or as they say there, "The Ohio State University") policy were accurate (a huge "if"), would be plausible for a humble guy who bills himself as "guaranteed to be right 99% of the time."

Limbaugh's audience, overwhelmingly conservative, knew exactly what he meant. But he's not supposed to be challenged because, in the conservative mind, merely questioning a statement is simply not to be done. It's all part of the sense of victimization carried around by the right and would be recognized  as a defining characteristic, were the media willing to notice it.













 Share |

And They Believe Susan Rice Is More Of A War Criminal Than Condoleezza Rice

Rush Limbaugh sees a conspiracy. Rush Limbaugh always sees a conspiracy. It may be the Obama Administration (or "regime," as he calls it), Democrats, liberals, the media, middle class voters- often a combination- but there always is a conspiracy.

Now for Rush as for his Party, it's Benghazi.  Friday, he imagined

Now, the Drive-Bys are made up of a lot of stupid people.  And the Drive-Bys are made up of a lot of uninformed people and the Drive-Bys are made up of a lot of people with a lot of prejudice. And there are a lot of reporters who will discount Benghazi simply because of who is interested in it.  For example, Fox is interested in it and it automatically is nothing.  If I'm interested in it it doesn't rate any interest, because Fox and me, all we want is to get Obama.

The regret is they weren't able to successfully cover it up.  If anything, the Drive-By media is gnashing its teeth over the fact that the original Fox and anti-standard media version of this, my version, is the one that's real, that the regime has been lying.  They're mad that that has been learned.  So now they've gotta cover it up. So we're into the cover up of a cover-up now.  The media is not interested in the truth of this story.  They never have been.  This has been a circle the wagons event from the get-go. From the night of the Benghazi attack, this has been a circle the wagons moment.  Now they've gotta do it again.

There never has been a cover-up. On Thursday's Hardball, for instance, David Corn observed "still questions unanswered about Benghazi, about the CIA annex there" and "why more should have been done before the fact."

Now House Speaker Boehner has has announced a select committee by demanding "what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?" It will be focused, presumably, on- as The New York Times put it- "whether the Obama administration misled Congress about how it responded to the attack and its aftermath." Twenty months later and the GOP is little concerned about how to prevent future incidents of its kind.

It's not as if the Administration is blameless over the attacks in which four Americans were killed, though if the GOP had had been as concerned about the September 11th attacks which cost nearly 3,000 American lives eleven years earlier, there might have been assumption of responsibility rather than an opportunity to gin up support for a war that cost approximately 4500 additional American lives.  But the suggestion of a talk show host that the mainstream media has ignored "Benghazi" because Fox is obsessed with it flies in the face of an investigation conducted by the media source emblematic of the tradtional media. 

In December, The New York Times published a summary of the findings of its investigation and concluded "Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs."   "Experts" were "distracted," it found, "from more imminent threats," evidently due to "intelligence failures."

Neither the Times, then, nor other objective sources completely absolves the Obama Administration, though in the best tradition of GOP fearmongering and its efforts at ruthlessly exploiting the deaths of four Americans, the temptation to defend the President to the hilt is powerful.   In a balanced (though profanity-laced) perspective, The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur, graduate of the finest high school in the USA, maintains (video below) needed perspective.  The Obamites (Obamians?) "came in here and they fudged things a little bit and said 'yea, yea' it was just a little demonstration."  But, he notes,

They just changed net neutrality... it could effectively kill equality on the Internet; they do warrantless spying on all of us, on 3000,000,000 Americans. They do drone strikes on people they don't even know who they are.

There's a mountain of problems with the Obama Administration.  (But) this Benghazi thing.... get the f_ _ _ out of here with Benghazi.

With his acknowledgement of failings of the President, Uygur renders clear why MSNBC dropped him in favor of Obama toady Al Sharpton.  But he makes clear also that Republicans, on the radio and in Congress, will turn a blind eye to policy errors of this Administration when it's more satisfying and less filling to exaggerate and exploit.

 





 Share |

Victims, Again

Politico on Wednesday reported


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s reelection campaign asked the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office on Tuesday to investigate how Mother Jones magazine obtained a recording of a February strategy session.

“Senator McConnell’s campaign is working with the FBI and has notified the local U.S. Attorney in Louisville, per FBI request, about these recordings,” McConnell campaign manager Jesse Benton said in a statement. “Obviously a recording device of some kind was placed in Senator McConnell’s campaign office without consent. By whom and how that was accomplished presumably will be the subject of a criminal investigation.”

You will not be surprised that, with the FBI not yet investigating the matter, Rush Limbaugh has it all figured out- and that it's Democrats to blame.  This afternoon, he claimed

What it was, they recorded a strategery meeting of McConnell staffers talking about opposition research they could use against the actress Ashley Judd who was thinking of running against McConnell in the 2014 Senate race...

Highly illegal? Nothing is illegal in entrapping Republicans. Nothing is illegal in exposing Republicans. Nothing is illegal in exposing conservatives for who and what they really are. Nothing is illegal when you can find out how sexist and misogynist the McConnell staff is. Nothing's illegal.

A spokesperson for Mother Jones denies the magazine is part of a grand Democratic conspiracy, stating "we were recently provided the tape by a source who wished to remain anonymous. We were not involved in the making of the tape, but we published a story on the tape due to its obvious newsworthiness."  Judd, who was expected to make the run, had begged out of the race shortly before the tape's release.

The Politico reporter added

McConnell is not disputing the authenticity of the tape. Yesterday, his campaign offices were swept by a private security detail, which did not find a bug. Still, given that the meeting was attending by only a handful of longtime McConnell insiders, team McConnell is convinced it was not an internal leak. In an earlier statement, the McConnell campaign accused “the Left” of using “Nixonian tactics” and bugging the campaign’s headquarters.


David Corn, who broke the story, stated "He has tremendous troubles in Kentucky with conservatives, so if he can make himself the target of a left wing hit job, it's going to help him get out of this very difficult situation."  Limbaugh is parroting this line, the standard GOP victim card, remarking "You think that a recording device that enabled Mother Jones to overhear and find out what McConnell's staffers were doing involving Ashley Judd is gonna benefit McConnell?"

Not only do the Repubs claim victimhood; both the McConnell and Limbaugh camps try to draw comparisons to Watergate.

Curiously, Rush claims "Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that's out there, so she's decided not to run, but nevertheless Mother Jones magazine somehow got a recording device in McConnell's office, think Watergate. Think Watergate here."  There, President Nixon himself was the culprit:

The next morning, Woodward received a phone call from a senior investigator. "We interviewed Butterfield," he said. "He told the whole story."

What whole story? Woodward asked.

"Nixon bugged himself," the investigator replied.

Woodward called Bradlee at home Saturday night and told him what he had learned. Bradlee, half-asleep, didn't seem very interested.

"How would you rate the story?" Woodward asked.

"B-plus," Bradlee replied.

So in a way perhaps unintended, McConnell/Limbaugh may be right.  The McConnell/Judd incident is reminscent of the campaign run by Karl Rove in 1984 in the Texas gubernatorial race.  Here is described an incident from "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential" by James Moore and Wayne Slater, in which

Rove told reporters that someone had bugged his office where he was campaign manager for Texas gubernatorial candidate Bill Clements. On the morning of a major debate Rove called a press conference. He said, "Obviously I don't know who did this. But there is no doubt in my mind that the only ones who would benefit from this detailed, sensitive information would be the political opposition." The press quickly assumed the bugging was done by Clements' opponent, Mark White, who was leading in the polls. By election day, Rove's candidate won and the source of the bug was never found -- but many reporters later concluded that Rove himself had placed it.

Mitch McConnell following Karl Rove's playbook?   Widely unpopular in Kentucky and determined to be re-elected, the Senate Majority Leader could do worse.


Share |

Did You Hear The One About...?


In the "people say" dodge, we know "people" sometimes means "I."  So did you hear the one about President Obama and Mayor Rahm Emanuel being fans of gun violence?

Arguing against gun safety legislation, Rush Limbaugh on Monday claimed

Folks, this is a serious question.  Let me tell you why this is really hideous.  Because there is a theory. If Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, big Democrat, former chief of staff for Obama and Clinton -- you know, Wayne LaPierre said this once of Clinton, too.  He said that Clinton is comfortable with a certain level of violence because it promotes the idea we need new laws.  Well, the same thing is being said about Rahm Emanuel, that there's not a lot being done to stop the murders in Chicago because they provide an excellent backdrop for the quest for more law.  And so people are starting to say to the media, "Why don't you ask the mayor and the president and others, why are they not enforcing existing gun laws in Chicago?  Why is there no effort being made to really reduce the murder rate in Chicago?  Is it because it's too useful?" 

Rush won't accuse Emanuel (or Obama) directly of encouraging violent crime but his audience knows he endorses "what people are starting to say."  Alleging "there is no effort, special or otherwise, to enforce current gun laws or to prosecute people" Rush asks rhetorically "Are they actually sitting idle and using the horrors of the Chicago murders" as a photo-op?

If Mayor Emanuel is encouraging firearm violence, he is as much a failure as George W. Bush was as President (well, almost).  Dylan Matthews evaluates the recent, huge drop in gun violence in Chicago, which in February experienced only 14 homicides, the lowest monthly total since 1957.  Particularly cold weather probably played a role but, additionally,

The Chicago Police Department claims that was achieved through “saturation policing,” in which the police department identifies high-crime areas and then focuses districts’ energies on them. In February, the CPD identified 10 zones, which account for about 2 percent of Chicago’s land area but 10 percent of its violent crimes, and sent 200 officers on overtime patrols in those zones. The approach was a modified version of a policy that Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Commissioner Garry McCarthy had initially abandoned.

Unfortunately, the increased patrols, continued efforts to target gang violence, educational and other forms of intervention are expensive. Matthews notes

Harold Pollack, co-director of the Crime Lab with Ludwig, suggests that barring a federal program like Community Oriented Policing Services, cities may just not have the resources to do what’s necessary. “Many innovative policing strategies are pretty labor-intensive,” he says. “In the current budgetary environment, a program such as COPS might be necessary for either hot-spot policing or different community-policing approaches to really take hold.” And with the federal government in a budget-cutting mood too, even that may be hoping for too much.

So efforts by the Emanuel administration to stem firearm violence may fail because of insufficient resources.  Still, it's curious that Rush Limbaugh would not have heard about the drop in violent crime in the city, which has not been kept a secret.

By contrast, it is likely that when Limbaugh claims "none of these background check laws, none of the new laws that they want to implement would have stopped what happened at the school in Newtown, Connecticut," he is willfully misleading his audience.   Laws mandating background checks for all firearm sales probably would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. But since then, firearms and their owners have been responsible for 3,294 deaths (as of Thursday). Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who Wednesday signed three significant gun control measures.

pointed out that last year, some 2,000 people who underwent a background check in Colorado were denied the right to buy a firearms, either because of a criminal record, an outstanding warrant, a restraining order or some other reason.

"People would say to me, 'Well, criminals aren't stupid. They're not going to sign up for background checks.' It turns out many criminals are stupid," he said.

Limbaugh may have known of the drop in violent crime in Chicago and undoubtedly knows background checks would curb firearm violence. But he is less likely to have the self-awareness to understand that his views on the larger culture are muddled and contradictory.  Switching abruptly from gun legislation to "erosion of our culture," he remarked

Fifty-three percent of Hispanic babies are born out-of-wedlock.  Seventy percent of African-American babies are born out-of-wedlock.  Seventy percent of babies born to poor white women are born out-of-wedlock.  Half of the babies -- get this stat -- half of the babies born to mothers under 30 are born out-of-wedlock.  Let me run through this again, 'cause I maintain that you cannot get rid of the welfare state with these birth statistics.  Somebody has to take the place of the second parent, and the government has willingly, and, in fact, Democrat-led governments have eagerly done so.  So 70% of African-American babies are born out-of-wedlock.  Fifty-three percent of Hispanic babies born out-of-wedlock.

That is not mere race-baiting, only one of Limbaugh's specialties.   Wednesday, he was chagrined about babies born out of wedlock to minority and poor women.   Thirteen months ago, Sandra Fluke argued that birth control needs to be included in the health insurance plans offered by religiously-affiliated institutions for their employees.  Astonishingly Limbaugh, apparently unaware that more sex does not require more birth control, commented

Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud?  I don't know about you, but I'd be embarrassed.  I'd disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding and hope the media didn't find me.

But Rush contended also "I don't care, except when I'm told that policy makes it that the rest of society must assume responsibility and cost for behavior that people want to engage in with no consequences and no responsibility themselves."  Appalled last year by the specter of women having access to birth control.  he now rails at the proliferation of babies born out-of-wedlock, especially by the demographic with limited access to birth control.

Spanning a full range of subjects, Rush Limbaugh continues to confound many of us with his adroit use of wit, ignorance, and rank dishonesty.  But then, that sounds a lot like the modern Republican Party- minus the wit.




Share |

It's The Ideas, Stupid


Dr. Benjamin Carson has died.

But don't take my word for it.  Trust instead perhaps his most stout defender, Gary Bauer, who on Monday wrote Dr. Carson is the victim of "leftist 'lynching.'"   Funeral arrangements are pending.

"Liberal Democrats," Bauer continued, "see a black conservative doctor with a wonderful personality and incredible achievements and no matter how popular he is, their first instinct is to take him down "  Similarly, Rush Limbaugh last week claimed "if you are a minority in this country and you make something of yourself and you dare stray from the Democrat Party plantation, you are going to pay the price for that in terms of what is said about you in public."  

Deftly repeating an emerging talking point, Carson himself on The Mark Levin show said of liberals "Well, they're the most racist people there are. Because you know, they put you in a little category, a little box, 'you have to think this way, how could you dare come off the plantation?'"  A moment earlier, Carson had accused these parasites of being "the most racist people" and argued "political correctness is threatening to destroy our nation because it puts a muzzle over honest conversation and the fabric of our nation is changed without the benefit of a conversation."

If you don't believe someone could almost simultaneously decry "political correctness (which) puts a muzzle over honest conversation" and call his critics "racist," check out the audio below, from Media Matters.









A sense of victimization is a common theme among ultra-conservatives, who exploit the sense of paranoia in the GOP base which believes the defunct ACORN got President Obama re-elected. If Democrats disagree with a black man or woman who is conservative, it must be because the individual is black and they want him to stay on "the plantation" or, as Limbaugh put it, to" bow down and be loyal to some big government or a series of programs." Rush maintained also

Only one acceptable way to be black in America, and you'd better not choose the route that Ben Carson chose. And you better not choose the route that Clarence Thomas chose. Or Shelby Steele. Or I could give you lists of prominent African Americans from now to the end of this show and not one of them is worth even a modicum of respect in today's Democrat Party.

Liberals might not hold in high esteem Clarence Thomas, Ann Coulter,  Bauer, and other conservatives who equate political differences with lynching. What could they be thinking?

Imagine! Democrats disagreeing with a conservative! How dare they do that- my gosh, he's black!  Some Republicans are flummoxed that Democrats can disagree with someone because they disagree with his ideas, irrespective of the subject's color.  It's difficult for some Repubs to get beyond race.  Sometimes motivated partly by bigotry, these individuals hold Barack Obama in low esteem because he's black, and so assume that Democrats make their assessment on the same basis.

The GOP is in the throes of a desperate re-branding effort, aiming to upgrade support among minorities without reassessing their extreme right-wing agenda.    Intermittently motivated partly by bigotry, some Repubs hold Barack Obama in low esteem because he's black, and so assume that Democrats make their assessment on the basis of race.    Notwithstanding their tolerance for the President's center-right policies, Democrats largely have the pesky habit of assessing the content of the ideas rather than the color of the subject's skin.  

Rush Limbaugh, held hostage by racial (and, even more so, class) prejudice, blathers on about conservatives being victimized.   It's more disturbing to see Gary Bauer and the GOP's newest heartthrob, Dr. Benjamin Carson, thinking along the same lines.



Share |

Obvious, Finally


I come not to bury Rush Limbaugh, but to praise him.  He has now made clear what any objective observer (which, obviously, excludes most of his listeners) always knew about him.

Oh, we knew he is contemptuous of the American people- and not of a small portion, or only of liberals, but of most Americans.  On July 17, 2012 (as noted here two days later) Limbaugh stated

But how many people care about that?  I'm asking you a question.  How many people want to do what it takes to become prosperous?  They don't have to anymore.  How many people want to understand the role wealthy people play in a prosperous society?  How many people want to do what it takes to become one of those people, versus how many of them are content just to sit there and resent them and have the government take care of them to one agree or another?

He asks rhetorically "How many people want to do what it takes to become one of those people, versus how many of them are content just to sit there and resent them and have the government take care of them to one degree or another?"  Consumed with a sense of entitlement, those lazy Americans.

In September, 2007, Rush had characterized American service members who advocate withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers."

Then there were the remarks last May made upon the announcement that Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin had renounced American citizenship, apparently in order to avoid paying $67-$100 million in post-IPO taxes.  (That 15% capital gains tax is a real killer.) Limbaugh compared that to his decision to move from one state (New York) to another (Florida) for a lower tax rate, a decision made yearly by millions of Americans who wouldn't think of moving out of the country, let alone renounce their citizenship.  But to Limbaugh, Saverin's decision was no different.

And now, confirmation of what Rush Limbaugh thinks of America.  Thursday, he minced no words when he stated

Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To be watching all of this, to be treated like this, to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being insulted? It just makes me ashamed. Seriously, man. Here we get worked up over $44 billion. That's the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year.

In truth, we're gonna spend more this year than we spent last year. We're just not gonna spend as much as was projected. It's all baseline budgeting. There is no real cut below a baseline of zero. There just isn't. Yet here they come, sucking us in, roping us in. Panic here, fear there: Crisis, destruction, no meat inspection, no cops, no teachers, no firefighters, no air traffic control. 

Rush Limbaugh is ashamed of his country.  No liberal spin- he said so.  And he did not deny it even the following day when he maintained

Anyway, my point with all this is that for 25 years, folks, we've been dealing with the same premise: "Unless we spend another dime, the country is going to cease to exist." And for 25 years I have responded to each premise on what I call an intellectual, point-by-point basis refuting every claim. The purpose of this program has been to create as large a body of informed voting citizens as possible. While we've been largely and profoundly successful at that, the left has beaten us.

They have created far more low-information, unaware, uneducated people than we've been able to keep up with. We've had a profound impact in improving, increasing that universe of people -- citizens -- who are in the arena of ideas now, who are informed and educated. I've always had a Civics 101 view of the country: People get what they want, they vote what they want, and they get the way they vote.

And if a majority of people are educated and informed and know what's going on, liberalism -- and these powerful forces that have ill intent to the country -- can be defeated. Yet despite overwhelming success in creating more and more people who are informed and active and involved, the left has control of the education system -- control of the pop culture, movies, TVs, books, music. We've just been outnumbered.

One journalist/writer, who would put it no differently were he on Limbaugh's payroll, contended that on Friday "he began to clarify what he had meant, in order to fend off accusations that he’s 'ashamed' of himself. On the contrary, Limbaugh continued to insist that he’s 'ashamed' of the liberal direction in which the country has gone, despite his best efforts to “inform” the people."

Limbaugh (who claims he is right 99.5% of the time) would never be ashamed of himself, nor did he even say that he was ashamed of himself, instead explaining he is ashamed of his country.  On Thursday, he used the word ashamed twice:  "Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country. To be watching all of this, to be treated like this, to have our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being insulted? It just makes me ashamed."  For what it's worth, on his website  (which he does not personally maintain) the first segment was entitled "For the First Time in My Life, I Am Ashamed of My Country."  The following day's segment, which contained the near-explanation, was entitled "What Makes Me Ashamed of My Country."

Rush Limbaugh is ashamed of the United States of America.  Not only "ashamed" of its political leaders or of the direction of the nation, but ashamed of the country.  It won't stop him from routinely accusing Democrats, explicitly and implicitly, of being unpatriotic.  Nor is it likely to stop his dittoheads from listening to the guy, but it does provide a little useful context for evaluating his oft-bigoted, consistently hyperpartisan, rant.


Share |

Opening Salvo

The good news is that I appear- thus far- to have been wrong in assuming that Barack Obama will concede ground even before starting to negotiate.  The bad news is that we're in only the bottom of the first inning.  The worse news is that I continue to use tired, worn sports parallels.

The baseball analogy is apt, though one should beware of someone referring to his own remark as "apt."   Team Obama has put out its opening bid, as summarized by Wonkblog's Suzy Khimm:

STAGE ONE:

Taxes

Immediate increase in both top marginal rates, as well as capital gains and dividends: +$960 Billion
Additional taxes: +$600 Billion
2009-level estate tax
AMT and business tax extenders: -$236 Billion
Payroll tax extension or alternative policy: -$110B
Bonus depreciation extension

Spending/Extras

$50 billion stimulus package in FY13
Mass refi mortgage proposal
Deferral of sequester
Savings from non-entitlement mandatory programs
Extension of unemployment insurance: $30 billion
Medicare SGR Patch: $25 Billion
Increase in the debt limit to avoid requiring Congress to vote to increase

STAGE TWO:

Tax reform consistent with $1.6 trillion tax increase
Entitlement policies from President’s FY13 budget that could total $400 billion in savings

Despite a cut in the Medicare program and nothing about defense, that's a better proposal than we had a right to expect from Obama and may reflect a notion on the part of the President that he ought to stop negotiating with himself.
  
On Thursday, Charles Krauthammer charged on GOP TV

What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War.   There are not only no cuts in this, there's an increase in spending with a new stimulus. I mean, this is almost unheard of. What do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away.

Squealing loudest, Rush Limbaugh claims  "Now, as I say, if we ever needed any proof what I've been saying for the last couple days is true, we got it yesterday with this ridiculous opening bid.  Santa Claus wants to take his sleigh over the fiscal cliff. There's no question about it now.  None.  Whatsoever."    

According to Fred Barnes, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (to whom Limbaugh says he spoke) "says he 'burst into laughter' Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff.  He wasn’t trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding candidly to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, vague on spending cuts."

And House Speaker John Weepy Boehner- who is almost as influential as Limbaugh- remarked “Let’s not kid ourselves.   Right now, we’re almost nowhere.”

Unless they're auditioning for an Academy Award, Repubs really do appear annoyed by the President's initial proposal, which is a splendid sign.   Still, it's a little disconcerting to read from the well-connected Ezra Klein

If Republicans want to cut Medicare, let them propose the cuts. If they want to raise revenue through tax reform, let them identify the deductions. If they want deeper cuts in discretionary spending, let them settle on a number. And, above all, if they don’t like the White House’s preferred policies, let them propose their own. That way, if the White House eventually does give in and agree to some of their demands, Republicans will feel like they got one over on the president.

This suggests that Obama primarily wants the GOP to request the debilitating cuts in the social safety net he then would largely accept.   At that point, it would be left to the left to oppose a destructive measure- if it is up to the task.

Share |

No Dice



Rush Limbaugh keeps outdoing himself.   With no adherence to principle, but only to right-wing politics, Limbaugh pretends there is no conflict between his commitment to unbridled, rapacious capitalism, theocratic ideals, and his own free-wheeling lifestyle.    

So Thursday Limbaugh eulogized motivational speaker Zip Ziglar, who has died at age 86, by contending

Folks, it used to happen in this country. What used to happen is that people would get jobs, hopefully jobs they liked, and they would work really hard, try to climb the ladder of success, as it was called, but they would work really hard. Some people didn't have what we call self-starter characteristics. Some people had to be inspired by others, and so Zig Ziglar made a career out of doing personal appearances, and they were always with a bunch of speakers, things that go on all day. And literally hundreds of thousands of people a year would show up to learn to be inspired to work hard to become successful. Now, that type of motivation is practically gone in this country now, and to the extent that it still exists, it is frowned on.

That kind of route to success now has a bull's-eye on it, if you succeed. "It was on the job that Ziglar developed a curiosity about human nature -- What made a man tick? Why did some succeed where others failed? -- that ultimately led to a thriving career in motivational speaking." He tried to light a fire under those who weren't successful, to get them to believe in themselves. Now, as I say, that's from a bygone era. This kind of thing is frowned on now. Because not everybody can work hard, and you know, a lot of people who work very hard don't ever have anything to show for it, and that isn't fair. So hard work is kind of frowned on now. Like Obama, he really hasn't worked hard. He's a kept man. Well, I mean...

Hard work is, as Rush noted, "kind of frowned on now."   That might sound a little odd from a guy who works three hours a week saying whatever pops into his mind, but it gets worse.  The fellow who Thursday extolled the virtue of achieving success through industriousness was singing a different tune when on February 2, 2010 President Obama properly and courageously stated "You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college."  The next day, Limbaugh commented

 By the way, I'm just saying, just a little side note here, but gambling is forbidden in the Koran. Just a little aside. Just saying. President Barack Obama known for having a way with words but some lawmakers from Nevada wish he would pipe down about trips to the city after sparking a firestorm of criticism from Nevada's elected officials for suggesting that people saving money for college shouldn't blow it in Vegas. Obama told US Senate majority leader Dingy Harry in a letter he wasn't saying anything negative about Las Vegas. I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money to have fun. And no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country's great destinations. Obama says he always enjoys his visits to Vegas. He's going out there this month or later this month. White House spokesman referred to Obama's letter to Reid, said the administration had no further comment. And again the Koran prohibits -- gambling is forbidden in the Koran, I'm just saying.

Limbaugh, a critic of all things Muslim, is a huge supporter of gambling, remarked "just a little side note here, but gambling is forbidden in the Koran" and "again the Koran prohibits- gambling is forbidden in the Koran, I'm just saying."  A few years later, he is distraught that "not everybody can work hard, and you know a lot of people who work very hard don't ever have anything to show for it, and that isn't fair.  so hard work is kind of frowned on now."

And a lot of people don't have anything to show for it because they blew it gambling, in Las Vegas or elsewhere.   It's the ultimate get-rich-quick scheme, making a few individuals wealthy off the bad luck of others.  It demeans the value of the hard work Rush commends upon praising the legacy of a right-wing motivational speaker.   And it is a practice Rush Limbaugh is terribly fond of.



Share |

Junk Food Debacle


The broadcast media division of the Republican Party has wasted no time blaming unions for the closing of Hostess' factories and plans tosell of its brands and liquidate the company.   Media Matters noted

Martha MacCallum, co-host of Fox News' America's Newsroom, introduced a segment on the Hostess bankruptcy by saying the company is "blaming a worker's strike for crippling their ability to make and deliver their products." At the end of the report, co-host Bill Hemmer blamed the coming job losses at the company on "a labor dispute," suggesting that the union had put "18,000 jobs on the line." MacCallum said the employees were "paying dues to the union and then the union won't make a deal." 

Rush Limbaugh never misses an opportunity to blame workers and claimed

Yeah, I'm gonna talk about Hostess.  You know what, 18,500 people gone, Hostess Twinkies, Ding Dongs, shut down.  Some people might think it's a buy opportunity if you want to get in the Ding Dong business.  But folks, if you need an indication that the Democrats will never compromise on anything, look at this.  Hostess is going out of business because of unions.

While Rush deftly, without evidence or logic, simultaneously blames unions and the Democratic Party for corporate failure, Dean Baker sets us straight, explaining

Hostess has been relying on pretty much the same mix of products for decades. While other companies have sought to adjust to changing consumer tastes, Hostess still gets the vast majority of its revenue from a relatively small number of products that it has been selling in largely the same form since the sixties. This failure to innovate was the main reason that the company first went into bankruptcy in 2004.

Hostess remained in bankruptcy for five years until it was brought out of bankruptcy in February of 2009 by Ripplewood Holdings, a private equity company. Remarkably, it exited bankruptcy with nearly $670 million in debt, almost 50 percent more than the $450 million it owed when it went into bankruptcy.

Usually companies use bankruptcy to shed debt. With Hostess the opposite was true. This meant that Ripplewood was taking a heavily leveraged gamble. If the company survived, it would get a very high return on its investment. However there was a strong likelihood that the company would not be able to make it given its extraordinary debt burden and the weakness of the economy.

Ripplewood first asked workers for concessions in August of 2011. The workers refused since they had made substantial concessions in 2008 to facilitate the exit from bankruptcy. The concessions did not prevent layoffs of close to 20 percent of the workforce. The company also had stopped making payment to the pension fund in July of 2011 and is now more than $160 million in arrears.

Ripplewood took the company back into bankruptcy in January of this year, owing close to $1 billion. It has used bankruptcy to impose new contract terms on workers. This is the immediate cause of the current impasse, with the bakery workers’ union refusing to accept the reductions in pay and benefits and changes in work rules demanded by management.

Workers had several important issues to consider beyond just the prospect of working for less pay and under worse conditions. First, and most importantly, there was little reason to have much confidence in the current management team. They had done nothing to turn the company around in the three years since the last bankruptcy and there was little reason to believe that they would do any better going forward.

Accepting new concessions would provide no guarantee of job security. In fact, management wanted the unions to agree to the closure of 10-12 plants (of its choosing) as part of a new contract. This means that many of the company’s 18,000 workers would soon have been laid off even if the workers had accepted management’s terms.

Second, management was not shy about rewarding itself in spite of the company’s poor financial condition. The CEO upped his annual pay to $2.25 million and other top executives got raises of 35-80 percent. This doesn’t seem like the behavior of management that puts the survival of the company first.

Third, the financial situation of the pension has to be a top concern for workers. While the pension is guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the guarantee for multi-employer plans like the one at Hostess is limited. If the plan were to become insolvent then many workers would see large cuts in benefits.

From this standpoint, if Hostess were to continue to put off contributions to the pension and allow it to become badly underfunded, then workers could be looking at sharply reduced pensions in retirement. Workers who are approaching retirement age may view this prospect as a far greater danger than the risk of losing their job at this stage in their career.

Limbaugh blames AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka for maintaining "What’s happening with Hostess Brands is a microcosm of what’s wrong with America, as Bain-style Wall Street vultures make themselves rich by making America poor.  Crony capitalism and consistently poor management drove Hostess into the ground, but its workers are paying the price."   After a campaign in which the Democratic candidate rarely criticized venture capitalism and his most effective (other than Chris Christie) surrogate, Bill Clinton, unsurprisingly completely avoided the issue, it's downright pleasing to hear someone defend unions and workers by highlighting the recklessness of "job creators."  Months ago, Robert Reich illustrated how it works in the world of venture capitalism:















Share |

Race-Obsessed, Class-Blind

Chauncey DeVega, editor and founder of the blog We Are Respectable Negroes, has written an interesting, topical, and thoroughly patronizing essay addressed to "angry white conservatives who are mourning Mitt Romney's loss."   If the piece is intended to annoy conservatives as well as liberals who aware of the impact of class, gender (did I mention class?) and factors other than race, it is also a brilliant essay.

Noting "ultimately, Barack Obama is a Black man who is the chief executive of a white government," DeVega recognizes that the President "has done remarkably little in terms of advancing policy goals that would directly benefit people of color in the United States. In fact, Obama has spoken less about race than any president in 50 years."   Remarkably, this was after he asserted that having a black President of the U.S.A. is "a ground breaking achievement that should not be easily discounted or dismissed."  Except, presumably, that he has done virtually nothing to address the unique needs of blacks and has chosen to ignore the issue beyond that of "any president in 50 years."   There are echoes here of Republicans who have responded to the thundering rejection of their party's agenda by Hispanics by vowing to enlist more candidates who speak Spanish and look Latin, whatever their ideology.

DeVega points out

...White men control every major social, political, economic, and cultural institution in the United States. With few exceptions, white men are the CEOs of every Fortune 500 company.
White men control both Hollywood and the mass media. There, approximately 95 percent of the most important positions as writers, directors, advertising, producers, show runners, executives, and the like are held by white men.

This is a great advantage in a country where white men make up 30 percent of the U.S. population.

White men control the United States Congress and Senate. There are now 20 women in the Senate—a record number. But there are no African Americans in the same governing body. There are two Hispanic and Asian senators, respectively. The majority of senior-level and cabinet positions in the federal government are held by white men. White men are also over-represented on the United States Supreme Court.

It is unclear whether DeVega is addressing white people generally or conservative whites when he claims "people who look just like you remain in charge."   Remarkably, however, not all whites look alike, and I haven't yet found "in charge" anyone who looks like the Caucasian neighbor of mine, or is much like him.  Instead, the ones in charge are just like the bank executive who received total compensation of $261 million during his five years as CEO while his firm- which at $476.2 billion was the most generously aided recipient of federal largesse during the financial crisis- lost nearly 90% of its stock price.   Shortly before his recent departure, he steered his corporation to an $88 million quarterly loss, but as CNN Money reports

Citigroup said Friday that the former CEO, who resigned last month in a management shakeup, will receive an “incentive award” of $6.7 million for his work at the bank this year.  Former president and chief operating officer John Havens, who stepped down along with Pandit, is getting $6.8 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The two men will also continue collecting deferred cash and stock compensation from last year, awards valued at $8.8 million for Pandit and $8.7 million for Havens. 

Is Vikram Pandit even white- is he among the "people who look just like you"?   DeVega no doubt would want to know, or would assume he is.  I don't care, nor would historian/author Thomas Frank, who even in 2004 understood "the great goal of the backlash is to nurture a cultural class war, and the first step in doing so, as we have seen, is to deny the economic basis of social class."   He recognized the general applicability to the nation's conservative movement when he criticized the College Republicans of Kansas University by acknowledging

These complaints are of course small beer by the usual standards of oppression and unfairness.  I was never beaten for trying to vote or shot at for walking off the job. But these developments were nonetheless sufficient to awaken me to the existence of class, of the elite.  Also to the startling fact that I was not part of it.  The Franks may have lived near them, but I could no more choose to join them at their well-appointed table (to return to David Brook's cafeteria metaphor) than I could flap my arms and fly to the moon.  I had about as much of a stake in the order that propped up Mission Hills, I now realized, as did the Section Eight residents in decrepit midtown Kansas City, shuffling along the street muttering curses to themselves.




Share |