Facts Are Stupid Things, Ronald Reagan Said. Now Some Progressives Agree.

You have heard about the row (video, below) between Bill Maher and Sam Harris engaged in with Ben Affleck and to a lesser extent, Nicholas Kristof, on Friday's "Real Time." You may even have seen it. ABC News explained

Affleck was on the Friday show as part of a panel that included author Sam Harris and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. The discussion on whether liberals were backing away from liberal principles and failing to criticize Islam for what many people view as its inequality toward women, minorities, including gays and lesbians, and other religions, quickly turned into a heated debate after Harris said liberals had failed to criticize what he viewed as the failings of such freedoms in the Muslim world.

People had been sold “this meme of Islamophobia where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets confused with bigotry toward Muslims as people,” Harris said.

“These are liberal principals that liberals applaud for but then when you say in the Muslim world, this is what's lacking, then they get upset,” Maher said.

Harris added: “I would argue that liberals have failed us.”

That’s when Affleck chimed in, addressing Harris, the author of “Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.” “Thank God you're here,” Affleck said. “Are you the person that understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?” When Harris said he was “actually well-educated” on the topic, Affleck pressed: “I’m asking you, so you’re saying Islamophobia isn’t a real thing?”

When Maher asked Affleck why he was being so hostile toward the idea, Affleck said “because it’s gross, it’s racist, it’s disgusting.”

“It’s so not,” Maher replied.

Harris spoke to the actor, saying “Ben, we have to be able to criticize bad ideas” – and Affleck agreed – the Harris added: “But Islam at this moment is the motherlode of bad ideas.”

Affleck’s reaction? “Jesus Christ. That’s an ugly thing to say.”

Affleck also said more than a billion Muslims weren’t fanatical, didn’t punish women, “just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day and don’t do any of the things that ‘all Muslims do’ – you’re stereotyping!”








Criticism was swift from progressives, including from otherwise feminist blogger Taylor Marsh, who wrote

What Bill Maher did on Friday, however, was also reveal the disgusting intolerance of his atheism. An arrogance some atheists have through their surety that nothing lies beyond the physical world. Where organized religion is concerned, the rules and regulations that keep out women and LGBT from their power positions in most churches and the great religions is worthy of scathing criticism. Maher’s film Religulous is one of the best examples of this scrutiny.

To blame hundreds of millions of Muslims for the violence of jihadists?

Bill Maher’s outlandish supposition is good for ratings, it brings in some on the right, too, broadening his audience and a discussion to ostracize certain people of faith, a subject that is a favorite of his.

Let’s hope it brings moderate Muslims out to take him on.

As a deeply spiritual person, I don’t accept any fundamentalist rules that keep women from standing next to male leaders of the great churches.

Being lectured by an arrogant atheist on the violence of a religion he doesn’t care to understand, however, especially when bigotry and racism are clearly visible, is quite different from due criticism liberals should offer on human rights offenses.

Bill Maher should check his “liberalism.” It’s missing a through line.

One wonders what qualifies Marsh- or anyone- as "deeply spiritual," unless it refers to worshiping the spirit world. But it is a little odd to read someone who has "written about Saudi Arabia's oppression of women (and) the Taliban's war crimes against women and girls" defend radical Islam, which in Saudi Arabia, for instance, takes the form of prohibiting all girls and women from traveling, studying, or working without permission from their male guardians.. And that's in what is sometimes referred to as a "moderate" Islamic state and which is arguably a U.S. ally.

"No one is any more critical than I am of organized religion," writes Marsh (short, apparently, for Marshall), and therein lies the problem.  It is a gross generalization to criticize, as Marsh proudly says she does, "organized religion."  There is a difference among religions- and Islam is a far cry from Christianity and Judaism, as is recognized across the world, except in some progressive precincts here.

Not only are the religions different, so too are its adherents.   In 2013, the Pew Research Center released findings (map and a selection of its charts, below) from interviews with 38,000 Muslims in a total of 37 countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran excluded due to "political sensitivities or security concerns.")  It found disturbingly traditional, illiberal views were more common among Muslims in the Middle East and in Africa than in Asia or Europe.

The response among Muslims in Egypt was not uncommon for the region in which it lies. In that nation, 74% believe Sharia should be the law of the land.  Among those, 81% would support stoning as punishment for adulterers.  Further, 86% believe in the death penalty for leaving Islam and 85% believe a wife must always obey her husband.

It shouldn't be- but is- necessary to point out that in no part of the USA would one find numbers anywhere comparable among Pentecostals, Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, or whatever your own choice for favorite doctrinaire religious denomination.   Opposition to reproductive freedom and same-sex marriage is not equivalent to favoring execution of adulterers and apostates.

Marsh coyly brags "I don’t accept any fundamentalist rules that keep women from standing next to male leaders of the great churches" because she knows some Christian fundamentalists balk at this basic principle. But execution for not following the faith is a different matter, a distinction to which the critics of Maher/Harris turn a blind eye..

In an interview with Salon the day after the controversial segment, Maher comments "I mean, do the people arguing with us, would they really open a lesbian art gallery in Ramallah? [Laughs] Or Karachi? Or Cairo? I don’t know if they would back up what they’re saying with actions."  They wouldn't, because liberal values, or values of whatever sort, take for them a backseat.

The U.S.A. is a nation of laws, not of men (or women).Similarly, the critics are less interested in defending western values of tolerance, freedom of speech, equality, and the like than they are in defending particular groups. But while we must not condemn people because they are different than us, neither must we condone their outrages simply because they are different than us. Liberal guilt should have its limits,

Were this only true  for David Harris-Gershon. In Tikkun (a periodical discomfited by Zionism), Harris-Gershon accused Maher/Harris of "what white men in America have been doing for the last twenty-five years: they shielded their racism and anti-Muslim bigotry under the umbrella of liberal values."

Uh, no, they haven't. Conservatives never utter "liberal values" as anything but an epithet. And if Gershon is referring to someone such as Hillary Clinton, who has spoken out repeatedly against the atrocious treatment of women in much of the third world, he should re-evaluate his concept of "white men."

Gershon's reference to "white men" suggests that he believes women and non-whites are immune to bigotry, which if true would be quite an anthropological anomaly.  He then went on to claim "It’s this type of disregard for both the rights and the humanity of Palestinians, as a 'human rights activist,' which established a tradition of liberal washing Maher gleefully continued on Friday evening."

Among those residents of the Palestinian territories, Pew found, 89% want Sharia law, with 84% of them supporting stoning as a punishment for adultery. Thankfully, only 66% believe Muslims who leave the faith should be executed.   Maher did not even mention Palestinians on Friday night.  Nor does he claim to be a human rights activist. Otherwise, Gershon's statement is entirely accurate.

Marsh decries being "lectured by an angry atheist," though the comments of Maher and Harris were no more similar to a lecture than winter in Milwaukee is to summer in Miami. Perhaps she, Gershon, and some other progressives feel betrayed by atheists Maher and Harris, whom they are disappointed do not cling to a false moral equivalence.

Bill Maher does not argue, nor believe, that Muslims are to be annihilated or even persecuted (as they are as citizens in most Islamic nations) because of their religion.  But neither ought we to deny facts, however uncomfortable they are.   Committed atheists evidently are to believe that Judaism and Christianity (and their adherents) in the early 21st century are morally equivalent to Islam and Muslims. The facts, however inconvenient, indicate otherwise.

Share |

The Other Word Is "Phony"


I'm just a humble country lawyer trying to do the best I can against this brilliant prosecutor from the big city of Lansing.
— Paul Biegler, Anatomy of a Murder

It may have begun, this website suggests, in Anatomy of a Murder, but the tradition is long of the wealthy and influential assiduously building a humble image.  The late Senator Sam Ervin, Democrat of North Carolina and star of the Watergate hearings, was particularly endearing while claiming to be only a "poor country lawyer."

A particularly effective practitioner of the art, William Jefferson Clinton, appeared Saturday before a group of professional donors and, Politico reported, cautioned

Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them. A lot of these people live a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things. I know because I come from this world...

A lot of these people... all they've got is their hunting and their fishing. Or they're living in a place where they don't have much police presence. Or they've been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.

Liberal/progressive blogger and (Hillary) Clinton biographer and enthusiast Taylor Marsh, noting (as she is wont to do) that she is married to a firearms expert, observed

The biggest reason why Clinton’s comments are not only patronizing, but condescending, is that they’re also a straw man argument, because no one on the Democratic side is “looking down their nose” at gun owners and I bet Bill Clinton knows this. His opportunistic scolding is for purely political gain, which takes the attention away from where it needs to be and where the majority of Americans want it.

Cheerfully displaying his testosterone, the former Governor told the donors a story which ended up in him telling an NRA lobbyist "If that's the way you fel, you get your gun, I'll get my gun and I'll see you in Texas."  Marsh comments

As a gun owning family, I don't need Mr. Clinton or any other Democrat, certainly not one brandishing an AK-47, using this moment to scold people like myself who are demanding universal background checks, as well as serious consideration on banning high-capacity clips, not to mention putting the spine back in the ATF and gun laws.

Former President Bill Clinton is insulting those of us who own guns and also know the flagrant manner in which the NRA is torturing gun laws and the Second Amendment.  the former presiden tis posturing in a manner meant to deliver a Sister Souljah moment to his own, which only comes off as tone deaf to people who know anything about the gun issue.

Liberal activists are "looking down their noses at" opponents of gun control, saith the man who describes the latter group as "listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all."   Yet he receives a far better reception than the "elitist" Illinois Senator who five years ago- while sympathizing with the unemployed in the industrial heartland- remarked "So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain their frustrations."

Clinton, additionally

recalled Al Gore's 2000 campaign against George W. Bush in Colorado, where a referendum designed to close the so-called gun show loophole shared the ballot with the presidential ticket. Gore publicly backed the proposal, while Bush opposed it.

Though the referendum passed with 70 percent of the vote, Gore lost the state. Clinton said that the reason was because a good chunk of the referendum's opponents were single-issue voters who automatically rejected Gore as anti-gun.

And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban "devastated" more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms- and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.

"I've had many sleepless nights in the many years since," Clinton said. One reason? "I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable," he explained- saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.

Perhaps Clinton claimed to be "sleepless" because he forgot that Foley was from Spokane rather than Seattle. As explained here, however, Clinton's continuing narrative that the assault weapons ban cost the Democrats control of the House in 1994 is way overdone.  It is analogous, however, to the former President assuring fundraisers in Houston in 1995 "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."

By now we shouldn't be surprised.  It's the same man who rescued the economy by raising taxes and then expressed some regret, who signed an assault weapons ban and then blamed it for allegedly sinking his party, and who now imagines liberals belittling gun control opponents.  (And rewarded Wall Street pigs on his way out of the White House.)  Similarly, last fall, after President Obama noted merely that a President has to "figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot" rather than merely how to "maximize profits," the former President felt compelled to declare "I don't think we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work."

Bill Clinton is a master of the straw man argument, but also of portraying himself in the same tradition as the fictional Paul Biegler, Sam Ervin, and even Tim Pawlenty, who periodically sports a southern accent. The guy who say he "know(s) because I come from this world" has been reportedly

raking in huge sums of money by speaking to groups and corporations. It is estimated that he earned around $41 million as a speaker. His standard fee is $150,000. It is also speculated that between 2003 and 2007 the former President received an amount of $15 million paid by Ron Burkle in exchange for his 'advice' on potential investments and opportunities for investors.

Former President Bill Clinton has moved to his new home in Bedford Hills, NY from his old home at Chappaqua. It is believed that the house was bought for $10.9 million. Though the house is only eight miles from his previous abode, this new property offers much more privacy and security. The new 'Clinton Estate' sits on over 20 acres of land and covers around 7,000 sq ft of living space. The new home looks like an English country cottage and it features lots of fireplaces, ceilings that have wood beams, a stable for horses and a dressage ring, an in-ground pool that is heated. Apart from these, there are a couple of guest houses too.

It's a tough life, flying around the country raising money and then having to face the indignity of periodically returning to a humble abode with 7,000 feet of living space, a stable for horses and a dressage ring, and a heated in-ground pool.   The real burden, however, is having to live on 20 acres of land with extraordinary privacy and security when, as he and the mainstream media periodically remind us, Bill Clinton is really just the average Joe who loves those plain, working-class folks.

Share |

Don't Ask About That


John Dickerson of Slate notes

Mitt Romney is coy about his running mate. He’ll only speak about the topic in the broadest terms. His staff won’t talk about it at all. To be fair, they don’t know much about the subject. It’s something very personal to Romney.

I am talking about his religion.

In a speech at the Bush Presidential Library in December, 2007 to address concerns among GOP voters about his religion, presidential candidate Romney remarked

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. 

Similarly, when asked last year by CNN's Piers Morgan about homosexuality, Romney remarked "I'm not a spokesman for my church. And one thing I'm not going to do in running for president is become a spokesman for my church or apply a religious test that is simply forbidden by the constitution, I'm not going there. If you want to learn about my church, talk to my church."

When John F. Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in October, 1960, he asserted "Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject," he would base his views solely on what he believed to be in the best interests of the nation.

Romney sees things differently.   After he delivered a commencement address in May at Liberty University, the college founded by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell, the New York Times reported he "made the case that he is bound theologically and politically to the same belief and value system as Christian conservatives, though he never explicitly mentioned his Mormon faith."     As can be seen in the transcript, Romney hit all the Christian sweet spots with references to:  the "purpose driven life," popularized by right-wing minister Rick Warren; "to God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever," drawing on Hebrews 13:8; "the grace of God,"; the modern Christian figures C.S. Lewis and Chuck Colson; and "heroic souls like (John Wesley), (William) Wilberforce, (Dietrich) Bonhoeffer, John Paul the Second, and Billy Graham" (what, no Presbyterians?).

While the candidate does not address his religion or even his spiritual faith when he's questioned by a member of the media, he's not above sending a dog whistle to partisans, whether at a famous evangelical educational institution or telling supporters in Ohio “As I’m sure you do, I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired. I believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence.”  

Barack Obama never has made the extraordinary suggestion that the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are divinely inspired, which puts those two doctrines peculiar to one nation on a par with the Bible.    Yet, his faith was addressed by the Gas and Oil Party and the mainstream media in the context of his pastor, a scary figure to many Americans.

But there are additional reasons journalists should not be so intimidated as to sidestep the religious belief of a presumptive presidential nominee, particularly one who suggests to supporters that it plays a role in approach to secular matters.    As Taylor Marsh observes

It would be great if no politician had to do the faith walk, but since no atheist is allowed near a national ticket it’s pretty clear that there is a litmus test for candidates, so knowing something about what informs them matters.

Dickerson summarizes

But there’s more to Romney’s religion than the theological side. As Joanna Brooks, who writes frequently on Mormonism, argues so persuasively, “It is important for readers to know that Romney developed his leadership style in a non-democratic, patriarchal, hierarchical church culture where he rarely encountered open challenge.” Romney has been a leader in several different arenas: in government, in business, in helping organize the Olympic Games, and in his church. The campaign asks us to examine and approve of three of those four areas—and then walls off discussion of Romney’s religious leadership.

Share |

Romney Clarifies


In 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated "If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States. The workers deserve to know that someone's standing with them.”     President Obama in early 2010 urged Congress (which agreed) to freeze the pay of federal civilian workers through 2013.     Recently, President Obama chose barely to lift a finger in support of the effort of the Wisconsin Democratic Party to recall Governor Scott Walker, who promises to continue his effort to destroy public sector unions.

Blogger Taylor Marsh identifies Barack Obama as someone who "only thinks about himself, handing out goodies to get your vote then selling out larger principles when he’s elected." She accuses the President of "bailing on labor in Wisconsin because you weren’t able to figure a way to be involved and spin a win or a loss was political cowardice of the first order for a Democrat, a party who owes labor a hell of a lot."

But while the description is accurate, Marsh's prescription is unjustified.  She has concluded that she won't cast a vote for president this year, in part because "it doesn’t much matter this year who’s elected."

Actually, it does.    At a Chamber of Commerce event in Nashua, New Hampshire on January 9, Mitt Romney stated (video, from CBS News, below)

It also means that if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.

After Republican candidate Jon Huntsman and Democrats promptly attacked the candidate for allegedly not caring about the unemployed, Romney explained to reporters

I believe in the setting as I described this morning where people are able to choose their own doctor, choose their own insurance company. If they don't like their insurance company or their provider, they can get rid of it...

And I bought it, having been assured that Romney was not referring to firing people directly, but rather ending a relationship with an individual or company, such as in landscaping, plumbing, or roofing, providing services to him.     The wool having been pulled over my eyes, it now has been lifted and my vision improved.     Criticizing President Obama for his remarks at a press conference on Friday, Romney maintained

he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

No talk there about insurance companies, bureaucrats, or even undifferentiated government bureaucrats.    No, the former governor put it on the line- he wants to fire the people who put out our fires, arrests thieves, rapists, and murderers, and teach our children.

President Obama is indifferent to the plight of government workers, a disproportionate number of whom are minority.   Given a chance, he would sell them out to obtain his Grand Bargain, or for a six pack of beer, cold or not.

But Mitt Romney, unless he finds it merely tactically wise to announce that he's targeting police officers, is not indifferent.   He is actively hostile.      And if the Heroes Of 9/11 are on his radar, a President Romney isn't stopping there.





Share |

Guns, Not Race



Taylor Marsh is a leading liberal/progressive blogger and fervent supporter of Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.        Blogging on Friday about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman episode, Marsh's post received 114 comments.       She contended, in relevant part

If Zimmerman doesn’t pursue, regardless that he was carrying a legally concealed carry weapon in a state where Stand Your Ground is the law, there is no altercation and Trayvon Martin isn’t killed.

Bill Cosby made a statement this week that this isn't about race it's about guns.      It sounds to me like a statement from someone who doesn’t own a firearm. I say this because we do and I’ve had this debate with people who don’t.

Cosby’s statement begs the question, if Trayvon Martin was white, would George Zimmerman have followed him, suspecting something suspicious? Or are people going to once again contend it’s all about the hoodie?

We are oh, so impressed that Marsh (with her husband) owns a firearm.      She gives no particular reason this would give her unique insight into an incident about which there is still less known than unknown.       She does, though, helpfully link to the article to which she refers and in which the legendary comedian

said the national uproar over the killing of teen Trayvon Martin should be over guns, not race.

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union"  that aired Sunday, Cosby said calling George Zimmerman a racist was pointless.

"What is solved by saying, 'He's a racist, that's why he shot the boy'?" Cosby said.

Since first speaking out about the case earlier this month, Cosby has repeatedly said that the Feb. 26 slaying of the unarmed teen shows there is a need to get guns off the streets.

"When a person has a gun, sometimes their mind clicks, that this thing will win arguments and straighten people out," Cosby told CNN.

"I'm not saying you can't have it in your home to protect yourself... you've got to protect yourself in your own home," he added.

"But I also believe that when you tell me that you are going to protect the neighborhood that I live in, I don't want you to have a gun," he said. "I want you to be able to see something, report it and get out of the way."

Cosby also said during the interview, which was taped on Thursday, that he once owned a gun but no longer does.

In the past two decades, the 74-year-old comedian has become outspoken on issues of violence, parenting, education and drug use in black and minority communities.

His own son, Ennis, was shot dead by a Ukrainian restaurant worker while changing a flat tire on the side of a Los Angeles highway in 1997.

Last week, Cosby told NBC's David Gregory, "When you have a gun, you may not realize it, but you put it on your person and you mean to pull (the trigger) and kill somebody."

Probably, as Marsh maintains, if Trayvon Martin were white, he would not have been followed.      However, even as a young black man who seemed threatening to Zimmerman, Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had not possessed a firearm.     If the the neighborhood watch monitor had been armed with a knife or some other deadly weapon, Martin very likely would still be alive.

As Zimmerman's actions probably demonstrated, civilians are not police officers, highly trained, accountable, and cognizant of the need to act with discretion.     Cosby understands "when you tell me that you are going to protect the neighborhood that I live in, I don't want you to have a gun.     I want you to be able to see something, report it and get out of the way."

Race, as Cosby realizes, very likely played a role in the killing.      It is difficult to determine from the New York Daily News piece whether he believes Martin was shot primarily because the latter was black or the former is a racist.     But as as Cosby argues, there is little to be gained and nothing to be solved by pinning analysis of the event on the idea that Zimmerman is a racist.

There is, though, much good that can be accomplished by emphasizing the possible role of Florida's Stand Your Ground law and the undeniable role of the possession of a firearm by someone who probably should not have owned a weapon and clearly should not have brought it to the task he undertook that night.

Make no mistake about it:    if George Zimmerman is found guilty of second degree murder (and perhaps if convicted of only manslaughter), the right will have a field day.       Stand Your Ground, they'll boast, did not stand in the way of convicting a killer.     Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they'll say.     Nonetheless, Trayvon Martin would not have been killed if the wrong person hadn't owned the weapon he did.      This trumps any racial motivation, as Bill Cosby understands.      Were it that more on the left saw it as clearly as does he.



Share |

Be Careful What You Wish For


Progressive/liberal blogger and Hillary Clinton enthusiast Taylor Marsh has noticed Oprah Winfrey on the sideline and believes OWN "is missing history."     She asks

at a time when women are utilizing power to move policy and politics in America, with Democrats depending on women to win in November to keep the Senate, what’s the network’s contribution to the discussion?

As far as I can tell it’s silence.

Nodding to her own book about former Senator Clinton, Marsh notes

Secretary Clinton’s former presidential campaign unleashed the Hillary Effect, with female ambassadorships in Washington growing dramatically once she came to State. But long before that the Hillary Effect helped put a woman on the Republican Party’s national ticket, which ignited a conservative women’s movement that lit the Republican Party on fire, with Sarah Palin’s Tea Party power, before it collapsed, leading to huge wins in 2010 and historic victories for the right across the country in state legislatures. In media, it catapulted women across network and cable shows, from morning shows to evening news.

While "women are leading in ways that seem revolutionary, from reproductive demands to economics and Occupy," Marsh notes "on Oprah’s OWN network it’s as if time has stood still or remains viewed from a pillow."       Nevertheless, she states, Winfrey "has the power and money to bring the best of liberal, conservative and independent thought to her network, putting together a political division that could be unique."

She could, but she won't.     An enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, Winfrey campaigned for the Illinois senator in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  Wikipedia cites a study by two economists who, without considering Texas, Michigan, North Dakota, Kansas or Alaska  (to which their methodology was inapplicable), concluded that Winfrey's efforts netted Obama 1,015,559 votes toward his nomination.      The researchers argued that the then- talk show host boosted the campaign's coffers and was especially influential in Iowa, in which Obama scored a critical, early victory.

Marsh, a solid progressive and staunch feminist (not in that order), clearly believes Oprah could join the "women(who)  are leading in ways that seem revolutionary, from reproductive demands to economics and Occupy."     But those issues do not seem to be at the top of the Oprah Winfrey list of priorities.    At the Democratic convention, she declared

And what I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country. And I only pray in the deepest part of my being that America will rise to this moment. And I feel that what he was able to offer us as individual citizens and as a united country was something that we have never seen before. I really, I think it's the most powerful thing I've ever experienced. I often wondered what it would be like to sit and listen to Lincoln speak or Roosevelt speak or what it would have been like to have been old enough to understand what Martin Luther King was saying 45 years ago today. And what he did brought that home in a way that I could never have imagined.

Barack Obama was nominated- and Winfrey disappeared, choosing not expend her political capital  in the race between the Democratic nominee and the McCain-Palin duo.   While in 2010 Republicans "shellacked"  (as Obama later put it) Democrats and set back the goals of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and King, Winfrey tended to her entertainment kingdom.     Predictably, she now is back on board, telling CNN she is "100%" (points for not saying 110%; or 200%; or 1,000%) behind Obama, calling him a "masterful leader" and vowing ""If he or his office called me tomorrow and said that they needed me I would do whatever I thought would be of service."  

Progressives yearning for an activist Oprah Winfret might  ponder how reliable an ally she would be.     We know she cares about Barack Obama.     Not so obvious is whether she is  a Democrat (not necessary, but germane) and a progressive.    And it is even less clear that she cares about the women's movement, the security net for the elderly and the poor, or the stranglehold the ultra-wealthy have on American government.  





Share |

Accomplishments Of Some Sort

Wow, really?

The folks at Politico have discovered that an unpopular President facing off against the candidate of an extremely unpopular party will try to turn the next presidential election on its head. Obama's team will attempt to portray the election as a choice, rather than a referendum.

They will, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin report, attack Mitt Romney on personal grounds and on ideological grounds. (What a novel concept!) The President's team already has spoken of Romney's "weirdness" and will emphasize "his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko."

Cynically- though realistically- Obama critic Taylor Marsh thus observes

Let’s also not kid ourselves that Obama and Romney are all that different. Neither are ideologues. Both believe in nothing but their own fortunes and futures. Either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good. And both are willing to do anything to get to live in the White House. They’re craven egotists who believe in their own persona and the preciousness of their own man self.

If only. If only "either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good." With contact(s) inside the Administration, Robert Reich is "told"

So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it’s politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama – to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington’s paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public’s attention from the President’s failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia.

Marsh would be embarrassed to realize that she is being generous. Far from demanding "a deal that makes (him) look good," President Obama will, as he has the past two years, "claim victory over whatever outcome emerges." It's not quality, but quantity, that counts, for then the President can maintain that he got it done. Whatever "it" is.

Share|

Race, Again

The problem with Joan Walsh is not that she is wrong but that she may be right.

The Salon editor wrote last week

Switching candidates now would be just another symptom of progressives' inability to dig in for a long haul of taking our country back from the plutocrats who now run it. It's tough work. I think, sadly, Obama is probably the most progressive Democrat who could be elected right now. (Admittedly, it's still early, and it's still theoretically possible for Obama to do something so outrageous as to change my mind.) I'd rather see liberals put time and money into electing courageous folks to the House and Senate than a quixotic attack on Obama, which would split the party racially -- almost 90 percent of African-Americans still support the president in most polls -- and probably hand the White House to Republicans.

Barack Obama may in fact be the "most progressive" Democrat who could be elected President right now. That depends, though, on how one defines "progressive." If Matt Bai is to be believed, Barack Obama himself does not even consider himself a progressive.

And it depends on the meaning of "right now." The next presidential election will be held more than 22 months from now and the political climate could change drastically by then, just as it has veered sharply right since November 2, 2008. (Thank you, President Obama.) Further, Obama might be even more unpopular in autumn of 2012 than he is now, though if he is, the Democratic "brand" will have been hurt even further, rendering any Democratic presidential nominee an underdog.

Wresting the Democratic presidential nomination from Barack Obama would be a long shot, no matter the circumstances. But that, Walsh fails to acknowledge, would not be the sole motivation of challenging him in the primaries/caucuses. Robert Kuttner notes that a salutary effect might ensue if "it gets the attention of the White House, and raises the possibility, however faint, of a more progressive Obama."

Curious is Walsh's argument "I'd rather see liberals put time and money into electing courageous folks to the House and Senate than a quixotic attack on Obama." She understands that a challenge to the re-nomination of incumbent Obama would lessen the likelihood that the eventual nominee, Obama, would be re-elected; yet, she seems to be either a)encouraging a challenge to incumbent Democratic members of Congress, which would make it more likely the seat would go Republican; or b)encouraging greater support in the general election for progressive Democrats who, presumably, can join other Democrats frustrated by the Eisenhower Republican occupying the White House.

Walsh criticizes the possibility of this "quixotic attack on Obama, which would split the party racially -- almost 90 percent of African-Americans still support the president in most polls ."

Yet, the Congressional Black Caucus is clearly disenchanted with the President. Following the CBC's meeting with Vice-President Biden, Vice Chairman Barbara Lee rightly remarked

We are extremely concerned that the cuts that could be made should this package pass would disproportionately hurt the poor, and low income communities and further erode the safety net. We don’t want to create a situation today that will exacerbate the conditions for Americans who are already hurting. That would be unfair and that would be unwise.... I do think that a major part of our objection is that we feel that it’s going to be bad for African Americans. The Republicans have said, for example on health care reform, that one of the ways they plan to attack it is by the appropriations process, by starving the provisions, and I think this is the first step.

Nonetheless, in a guest op-ed in the New York Times, Ismael Reed less sensitively, less thoughtfully, and more crudely takes Walsh's thoughts and ups the ante:

When these progressives refer to themselves as Mr. Obama’s base, all they see is themselves. They ignore polls showing steadfast support for the president among blacks and Latinos. And now they are whispering about a primary challenge against the president. Brilliant! The kind of suicidal gesture that destroyed Jimmy Carter — and a way to lose the black vote forever.

Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

Taylor Marsh responds:

Did white working class have a beef with Obama during the midterms because they are used to “getting it all”? Did seniors? Did women? Hardly, because each of the groups who tilted to the Right with their midterm vote all believe Pres. Obama doesn’t understand their plight, is ignoring it or selling them out....

There are most assuredly “whispers” and conversations about Barack Obama being weak, politically incompetent and hopelessly flailing for direction, but it’s nothing compared to the defensive, inartful and desperate push from Obama’s fan boys and girls that he can’t be challenged because he’s the first African American president.

Still, challenging the renomination of Barack Obama probably would be fruitless, possibly damaging, and might "split the party." But risk of the latter effect is no reason to be intimidated from calling out the President when he betrays not only the principles of his party but also his campaign promises. And if an "attack" does split the party in that manner, Democrats have a bigger problem than a spineless president lacking conviction.

Share|

Few Impressed

Back in June, Rachel Maddow rattled off President Obama's legislative achievements and prononounced them "a big freaking deal" (video below). Although she acknowledged cause for some disappointment in Obama 44, it appeared, as this blogger noted, "like somebody put the arm on her and she's now in the stable."

Running down the legislative victories of almost any president during his first term will make it appear not only that he's a winner, but that the administration has been a huge success. However, Robert Reich, though an Obama supporter, observes:

A stimulus too small to significantly reduce unemployment, a TARP that didn't trickle down to Main Street, financial reform that doesn't fundamentally restructure Wall Street, and health-care reforms that don't promise to bring down health-care costs have all created an enthusiasm gap. They've fired up the right, demoralized the left, and generated unease among the general population.

This leaves the Democrats in a difficult position. They have to prove a negative proposition—that although these initiatives cost lots of money or require many new regulations, conditions would be or will be a lot worse without them.

President Obama has initiated half-way measures that change little while ramping up opposition and the enthusiasm of the Republican base, leaving, as Reich notes, "the Democrats in a difficult position." Opposition to Obama- and yes, that is more so opposition to Obama than to his policies, whatever they are- is building toward November, toward the day when Republican and many independent voters will express their hostility toward this president. That, obviously, will manifest itself in a vote against other Democrats, while liberal/progressive voters are unenthused.

Reich's article was written before this harbinger in a slightly right-of-center, but largely bellwether, state, in which CNN reports:

More than 70 percent of Missouri primary voters Tuesday cast ballots in favor of Proposition C. The measure would allow state residents to opt out of mandatory health insurance, a key part of the new health care reform law, which was pushed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. The proposition prohibits the federal government from requiring people to have health insurance or penalizing them for not having such insurance.,,,

"Ultimately the courts are going to have to decide about states rights and federal authority when it comes to the Obama health care law. For now this is no more than another Republican talking point to use to energize voters for November and to try to keep the Democrats on the defensive," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report.

Compromise, then compromise some more, then compromise some more with Republicans (unsuccessfully) and Blue Dog Democrats (successfully) and secure passage of a health care plan which will deliver to private insurance companies 30+ million more customers with no public competition. Most Democrats were not fooled into euphoria while most Republicans seem to believe the law presages the end of the world or, worse yet, socialism. The obsession with placing a "W" (not Bush) in the win column, with legislation meaningful or otherwise was repeated recently with

The recently enacted financial regulatory legislation (which) offers another example. Although the legislation has riled Wall Street and fueled Republican opposition, it lacks many of the large-scale changes reformers were seeking. For example, it neither limits the size of big banks nor explicitly ties banker compensation to long-term performance. And despite Paul Volcker's entreaties, many risky trades will continue to be subsidized by protections the government accords to commercial banking. In short, the financial reforms do not rule out more bank bailouts down the road—a specter critics are already exploiting.

Enactment of relatively feeble financial reform legislation is unlikely to convince many Americans of the Democratic Party's commitment to economic justice and, as Taylor Marsh blogged earlier today about health care:

Whether the vote last night ends up meaning anything or not, it is a real shot in the arm to Tea Party Republicans for the midterms, while not doing much for the enthusiasm gap that’s been widening for months.

The mandate without a public option was always a loser. Missouri just confirmed it in case anyone’s still doubting, with discovery on the Virginia lawsuit certainly to be interesting to watch.

The incremental, yet defeatist, approach to governing mapped out by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel may, perversely, assist Barack Obama in his re-election bid in 2012. In the meantime, behold its destructive impact on his party.

Share|

Rand Paul, Misinformed

Fresh off his victory in the Republican senatorial primary in Kentucky, Rand Paul was questioned on The Rachel Maddow Show about his implication (expressed in a series of interviews) that he would have voted against the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination by private businesses serving the public.

Salon's Joan Walsh implores "you've got to watch the whole interview." And so here (in two parts) it is.

And here is the transcript of this extraordinary interview. (You can get the video almost anywhere; but where else but but on this site can you be bored reading the transcript?)

Joining us now is the candidate himself. He can very ably speak for
himself, Dr. Rand Paul.

Dr. Paul, thank you so much for coming back on the show and
congratulations on your big victory last night.

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel, and thank you for that wonderful intro
piece, quite a collection.

MADDOW: I know this must feel like frying pan and into the fire here,
so soon after the election with really being the focus of this national
storm right now. Everybody is trying to figure out what you meant by these

things. But let‘s talk about it.

PAUL: Yes.

MADDOW: Was “The Courier-Journal” right? Do you believe that private
business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black
people or gays or any other minority group, as they said?

PAUL: Well, I think to put things in perspective, when “The Courier-
Journal” does not endorse a Republican, that‘s not something very unusual
in our state. They typically don‘t endorse Republicans, and it‘s a very
Democratic paper.

But with regard to racism, I don‘t believe in any racism. I don‘t
think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of
racism. You know, one interesting historical tidbit, one of my favorite
historical characters is William Lloyd Garrison. And one of the
interesting things about desegregation and putting people together, do you
know when it happened in Boston?

MADDOW: What do you mean, the desegregation? In general?

PAUL: You know when we got—you know, when we got rid of the Jim
Crow laws and when we got rid of segregation and a lot of the abhorrent
practices in the South, do you know when we got rid of it in Boston?

MADDOW: I—why don‘t you tell me what you‘re getting at?

PAUL: Well, it was in 1840. So I think it is sort of a stain on the
history of America that 120 years to desegregate the South.

But William Lloyd Garrison was a champion and abolitionist who wrote
about freeing the slaves back in the 1810s, ‘20s and ‘30s and labored in
obscurity (ph) to do this. He was flagged, put in jails. He was with
Frederick Douglass being thrown off trains.

But, you know, they desegregated transportation in Boston in 1840, and
I think that was an impressive and amazing thing. But also points out the
sadness that it took us 120 years to desegregate the South. And a lot of
that was institutional racism was absolutely wrong and something that I
absolutely oppose.

MADDOW: In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination,
though, if there was a private business, say, in Louisville, say, somewhere
in your home state, that wanted to not serve black patrons and wanted to
not serve gay patrons, or somebody else on the basis of their—on the
basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn‘t like as a private
business owner—would you think they had a legal right to do so, to put
up a “blacks not served here” sign?

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, you know, you look back to the
1950s and 1960s at the problems we faced. There were incredible problems.
You know, the problems had to do with mostly voting, they had to do with
schools, they had to do with public housing. And so, this is what the
civil rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to—I
don‘t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.

PAUL: I‘m not—I‘m not—

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we
don‘t serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I‘m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I
would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do
have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.
But I think what‘s important about this debate is not written into any
specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of
speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we
limit racists from speaking?

I don‘t want to be associated with those people, but I also don‘t want
to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and
uncivilized behavior because that‘s one of the things freedom requires is
that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn‘t mean
we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting
muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of
any racism or discrimination, and I don‘t in any form or fashion.

MADDOW: But isn‘t being in favor of civil rights but against the
Civil Rights Act a little like saying you‘re against high cholesterol but
you‘re in favor of fried cheese?

PAUL: But I‘m not against --

MADDOW: I mean, the Civil Rights Act was the federal government
stepping in to protect civil rights because they weren‘t otherwise being
protected. It wasn‘t a hypothetical. There were businesses that were
saying black people cannot be served here and the federal government
stepped in and said, no, you actually don‘t have that choice to make. The
federal government is coming in and saying you can‘t make that choice as a
business owner.

Which side of that debate would you put yourself on?

PAUL: In the totality of it, I‘m in favor of the federal government
being involved in civil rights and that‘s, you know, mostly what the Civil
Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism.

MADDOW: When you—

PAUL: And I‘m in favor of—I‘m opposed to any form of governmental
racism or discrimination or segregation, all of the things we fought in the
South, in fact, like I say, I think it‘s a stain on our history that we
went 120 years from when the North desegregated and when those battles were
fought in the North. And I like to think that, you know, even though I was
a year old at the time, that I would have marched with Martin Luther King
because I believed in what he was doing.

MADDOW: But if you were in the—

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: But, you know, most of the things he was fighting—most of the
things he—

MADDOW: I‘m sorry to interrupt you. Go on, sir.

PAUL: Most of the things he were fighting—most of the things that
he was fighting were laws. He was fighting Jim Crow laws. He was fighting
legalized and institutional racism. And I‘d be right there with him.

MADDOW: But maybe voting against the Civil Rights Act which wasn‘t
just about governmental discrimination but public accommodations, the idea
that people who provided services that were open to the public had to do so
in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

Let me ask you a specific so we don‘t get into the esoteric
hypotheticals here.

PAUL: Well, there‘s 10 -- there‘s 10 different—there‘s 10
different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10
deal with public institutions. And I‘m absolutely in favor of one deals
with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to
modify that.

But you know, the other thing about legislation—and this is why
it‘s a little hard to say exactly where you are sometimes, is that when you
support nine out of 10 things in a good piece of legislation, do you vote
for it or against it? And I think, sometimes, those are difficult
situations.

What I was asked by “The Courier-Journal” and I stick by it is that I
do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with
institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, bussing,
all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some
discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.

And I think that‘s a valid point, and still a valid discussion,
because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and
their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to
abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because
people say abhorrent things—you know, we still have this. We‘re having
all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a
newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe
in abhorrent things, you know?

So, I think it‘s an important debate but should be intellectual one.
It‘s really tough to have an intellectual debate in the political sense
because what happens is it gets dumbed down. It will get dumb down to
three words and they‘ll try to run on this entire issue, and it‘s being
brought up as a political issue.

I think if you listen to me, I think you should understand that—I
think you do, I think you‘re an intelligent person. I like being on your
show. But I think that what is the totality of what I‘m saying—am I a
bad person? Do I believe in awful things? No.

I really think that discrimination and racism is a horrible thing.
And I don‘t want any form of it in our government, in our public sphere.

MADDOW: The reason that this is something that I‘m not letting go
even though I now realize it would make the conversation more comfortable
to move on to other things and I think this is going to be a focus for
national attention on you, I guess until there‘s at least clarity on it, is
that issue of the tenth, not the nine, but the tenth out of the 10 portions
proportions of the—the tenth of the Civil Rights Act that you would
want to have discussions about. As I understand it, what you‘re saying,
that‘s the portion of the Civil Rights Act that said you can‘t actually
have segregated lunch counters here at your private business.
I mean, when Bob Jones University in the year 2000 --

PAUL: Well, it‘s interesting. Actually, it‘s even—

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: Hold on just one second. Until the year 2000, Bob Jones
University, a private institution, had a ban on interracial dating at their
school, their private institution. If Bob Jones University wanted to bring
that back now, would you support their right to do so?

PAUL: Well, I think it‘s interesting because the debate involves more
than just that, because the debate also involves a lot of court cases with
regard to the commerce clause. For example, right now, many states and
many gun organizations are saying they have a right to carry a gun in a
public restaurant because a public restaurant is not a private restaurant.
Therefore, they have a right to carry their gun in there and that the
restaurant has no right to have rules to their restaurant.
So, you see how this could be turned on many liberal observers who
want to excoriate me on this. Then to be consistent, they‘d have to say,
oh, well, yes, absolutely, you‘ve got your right to carry your gun anywhere
because it‘s a public place.

So, you see, when you blur the distinction between public and private,
there are problems. When you blur the distinction between public and
private ownership, there really is a problem. A lot of this was settled a
long time ago and isn‘t being debated anymore.

MADDOW: But it could be brought up at any moment. I mean, if there -
let‘s say there‘s a town right now and the owner of the town‘s swimming
club says we‘re not going to allow black kids at our pool, and the owner of
the bowling alley in town says, we‘re not actually going to allow black
patrons, and the owner of the skating rink in town says, we‘re not going to
allow black people to skate here.

And you may think that‘s abhorrent and you may think that‘s bad
business. But unless it‘s illegal, there‘s nothing to stop that—there‘s
nothing under your world view to stop the country from re-segregating like
we were before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 --

PAUL: Right.

MADDOW: -- which you‘re saying you‘ve got some issues with.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is, is that there‘s nothing right
now to prevent a lot of re-segregating. We had a lot of it over the last
30 or 40 years.

What I would say is that we did some very important things in the ‘60s
that I‘m all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools,
desegregating public transportation, use public roads and public
monopolies, desegregating public water fountains.

MADDOW: How about desegregating lunch counters? Lunch counters.
Walgreen‘s lunch counters, were you in favor of that? Possibly? Because
the government got involved?

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Right. Well, what it gets into is, is that then if you decide
that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you
say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant,
even though the owner of the restaurant says, well, no, we don‘t want to
have guns in here.

The bar says we don‘t want to have guns in here, because people might
drink and start fighting and shoot each other. Does the owner of the
restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?
These are important philosophical debates but not very practical
discussion. And I think we can make something out of this—

MADDOW: Well, it‘s pretty practical to people who were—had their
life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen‘s lunch
counters despite these esoteric debates about gun ownership. This is not a
hypothetical, Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Yes, but I—yes. Well, but I think what you‘re doing,
Rachel, is you‘re conflating the issue.

MADDOW: No.

PAUL: You‘re saying that somehow this abstract discussion of private
property has any bit of condoning for violence. This—there‘s nothing in
what I‘m saying that condones any violence and any kind of violence like
that deserves to be put—people like that deserve to be put in jail. So
nobody‘s condoning any of that.

MADDOW: Well, I understand that you‘re not condoning violence, but
the people who were beating for trying to desegregate Woolworth‘s lunch
counters weren‘t asking to beaten. They‘re asking—

PAUL: Those people should have gone --

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: -- for private businesses to be desegregated by the
government. You‘re saying those people should have gone to different
places? Left them segregated?

PAUL: People who commit—people who commit violence on other
individuals should go to prison and go to jail. And there‘s nothing we
should ever do to condone violence on other individuals.

MADDOW: And should Woolworth lunch counter should have been allowed
to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no.

PAUL: What I think would happen—what I‘m saying is, is that I
don‘t believe in any discrimination. I don‘t believe in any private
property should discriminate either. And I wouldn‘t attend, wouldn‘t
support, wouldn‘t go to.

But what you have to answer when you answer this point of view, which
is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up.
But if you want to answer, you have to say then that you decide the rules
for all restaurants and then you decide that you want to allow them to
carry weapons into restaurants.

MADDOW: I can—we could have a fight about the Second Amendment.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: But I think wanting to allow private industry—private
businesses—

PAUL: It‘s the same fight. It‘s the same fight.

MADDOW: -- to discriminate along the basis of race because of
property rights is an extreme view and I think that‘s going to be the focus
nationally on your candidacy now and you‘re going to have a lot more
debates like this. So, I hope you don‘t hold it against me for bringing it
up. I think this is going to be a continuing discussion for a long time,
Dr. Paul.

PAUL: Well, I think what you‘ve done is you bring up something that
really is not an issue, nothing I‘ve ever spoken about or have any
indication that I‘m interested in any legislation concerning. So, what you
bring up is sort of a red herring or something that you want to pit. It‘s
a political ploy. I mean, it‘s brought up as an attack weapon from the
other side, and that‘s the way it will be used.

But, you know, I think a lot of times these attacks fall back on
themselves, and I don‘t think it will have any effect because the thing is,
is that every fiber of my being doesn‘t believe in discrimination, doesn‘t
believe that we should have that in our society. And to imply otherwise is
just dishonest.

MADDOW: Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for the United States
Senate in Kentucky, where he‘ll be representing not only his own views
about how to live but what kind of laws we should have in America, sir, I
enjoy talking with these things about you. I couldn‘t disagree with you
more about this issue, but I do respect you for coming on the show, and for
being able to have this civil discussion about it. Thank you

PAUL: Thank you, Rachel.

Walsh, in a post entitled "Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul," warns her readers not to view the video "if you can't stand to see a politician sweat." Really, though, you should, anyway.

Salon's editor-in-chief wrote that the Tea Party favorite "implied the First Amendment gave business owners the right to be racist" and in fact Paul did make a tortured analogy with the Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Digby, who has been blogging for months about the danger represented by Paul, and for longer about the even greater dangers of libertarianism, referred to "the crude racism" of the candidate's now former campaign manager and the "obnoxious racist views" of his father, Ron Paul.

It's hard to tell if the GOP nominee is truly bigoted. He claims that he would have marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., though that may be only a crude attempt to shield himself from criticism and, a little more credibly, maintains "every fiber of my being doesn‘t believe in discrimination, doesn‘t believe that we should have that in our society."

It doesn't matter. Former President GW Bush would claim purity and innocence "in my heart," yet, while not a racist, successfully destroyed faith in government. However, Paul, like Bush, is a public citizen, with the former aiming to become one of a select group of 100 legislators for the United States of America. Of far greater significance than Paul's heart, or his intent, is his legislative philosophy.

And of that he has left no doubt. As a libertarian, Paul believes in the right to discriminate. He remarked

Well, there‘s 10 -- there‘s 10 different—there‘s 10
different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act, and nine out of 10
deal with public institutions. And I‘m absolutely in favor of one deals
with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to
modify that.

It's swell that Rand Paul opposes a government discrimination. As a conservative and libertarian, he presumably has little use for the public sector, anyway, unless it benefits him personally. Permitting discrimination in the private sector, though, is more than an enormous loophole.

As Taylor Marsh notes, Paul's views about the benevolence of the private sector, unencumbered by government regulation, reflect naivete and a "lack of experience in the real world." Evidence that Ron Paul is a bigot is limited, largely irrelevant, alienates individuals of similar views, and unhelpfully diverts our attention to the greater threat. Paul apparently believes that if he talks enough about his love for Martin Luther King, his opposition to institutional racism and Jim Crow laws, and support for free speech, we won't notice his political shell game. But we must keep our eye on the ball because libertarianism, as Digby notes

inexorably leads to a society in which racism is normal and tolerated and where those who have the social power and economic clout are able to rig the game in their favor. You know --- the America of 40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act. It's not like we never gave Rand's libertarianism a chance to work.

Share|

Agreeing With Palin (?)(!)

As an astute blogger and supporter of Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Taylor Marsh invariably produces insightful and perceptive posts.

But not always and, oddly, not in an item critical of Sarah Palin.

In a recent Facebook entry, the former Alaska governor gets it right when she writes

Many, many Americans and our allies know that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the consequences will be catastrophic for our interests in the Middle East, and we want our government to do everything in its power to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. We foresee a regional nuclear arms race beginning as other countries seek their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Iran. Nuclear non-proliferation efforts would be over. The U.S. and our allies in the international community would be shown to be impotent – after long claiming that Iranian nuclear weapons could not and would not be tolerated. And Israel would face the gravest threat since its creation. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the mullahs would be in a position to launch a Second Holocaust.

Critical of Palin's analysis, Marsh asks us to

consider the Palin hyperbole, “Second Holocaust.” It preposterously assumes and ignores that Israel is no longer an ostracized state in a world of enemies, but a formidable democratic nation with strong world allies who would come to her aid in a heart beat if any such calamity was even close to bearing down on the people of Israel. Never again is an emphatic pledge people of the world consider a bond with Israel, which will never be broken; certainly not because some wacko Iranian mini me of a man wails it will be so.

The people of the world. Who, exactly, would that be? It's hard to determine how the "people of the world" would react to a threat to Israel, but not so hard to imagine how the governments in Beijing and Moscow would react. Palin criticizes the Administration's opposition to "bipartisan efforts to pass the Iran Sanctions Act" and in an article (to which the ex-governor's piece links) appearing on foreignpolicy.com on March 5, 2010, Josh Rogin explains

A senior Senate aide close to the process said the House and Senate will soon move to conference on resolving the two versions of the Iran sanctions legislation, one led by Rep. Howard Berman, D-CA, and the other sponsored by Chris Dodd, D-CT. The State Department had been negotiating with key senators over Dodd's bill, seeking an exemption for any countries they determine to be "cooperating" with the U.S. on the sanctions regime.

This Washington Post article makes it seem like the Obama administration is just beginning to push for exemptions for all the P5+1 countries, including Russia and China, but actually that's been the State Department's position since December.

Marsh, obviously referring to Ahmadinejad, asserts this "bond" will not be broken "because some wacko Iranian mini me of a man wails it will be so"- but in fact Palin argues (emphasis mine) "with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the mullahs would be in a position to launch a Second Holocaust."

Maybe Marsh should not include herself among these vigilant "people of the world," inasmuch as she maintains "Palin also focuses on the photo op snub, putting Israel before the United States in her rhetoric, which is something the right does often." In a Politico piece to which Palin links, Laura Rozen examines the infighting over Israel within the administration and reports a similar phenomenon:

He [Ross] seems to be far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests,” one U.S. official told POLITICO Saturday. “And he doesn't seem to understand that this has become bigger than Jerusalem but is rather about the credibility of this administration.”

What some saw as the suggestion of dual loyalties shows how heated the debate has become.

An administration official suggests Dennis Ross is more sensitive to Israel than to the U.S.A. And Marsh asserts Palin is "putting Israel before the United States in her rhetoric, which is something the right does often." The accusation of dual loyalty is a traditional refuge of anti-Semites. Taylor Marsh probably is not an anti-Semite, given that those folks are not wont to cite worldwide pro-Israel sentiment, no matter how exaggerated the claim. Still, her charge is unfortunate.

Marsh accurately notes "Sarah Palin ignores that it was Prime Minister Netanyahu who set the whole back and forth in motion by embarrassing this country and Vice President Joe Biden on Israeli soil when he came calling." However, Charles Krauthammer points out that Prime Minister Netanyahu

apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.

The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president the language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Credit Marsh for recognizing "once again we get from the right a lot of bluster, but no constructive idea of just how we are going to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, because it’s a matter of when not if; though whether they will be able to deliver it is another issue." There is sufficient concern from conservatives regarding the threat posed by Iran's interest in nuclear weapons, but insufficient recommendations for action. Unfortunately, the blogger follows by contending "Of course, Palin never addresses Israel’s nuclear capabilities, because this isn’t how the right thinks or doesn’t." Well, no, the right can be accused of many faults; promoting moral equivalence is generally not among them. Israel is believed to have possessed a nuclear capability for decades now but, as evil as some believe it is, has somehow resisted the temptation to launch such an attack, no matter the provocation.

Perhaps the cliche "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" applies to Sarah Palin. She is not right twice a day, but perhaps twice a year, and this would be one of those times.

Image Makeover

Mark Halperin of Time reports on Barack Obama speaking to approximately 600 paying guests at a reception at the Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center in downtown Jacksonville. The candidate warned

The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

He’s got a feisty wife.

You may have noticed the pre-emptive play of the race card. But I found even more interesting,though less significant, the juxtaposition between the charge that Obama's opponents will claim "he's got a feisty wife" and this (apparently accurate) description of Michelle Obama's appearance on ABC's "The View" on June 19:

she played up traditional first lady attributes such as graciousness, comportment, good grooming and style.

No one (except Taylor Marsh) doubts that softening Mrs. Obama's image is wise, but how does one go about confronting opponents for complaining that Michelle is "feisty" and then go about trying to change her into the traditional first lady- in fact, the stereotypical traditional wife?