Encouraging Ignorance

Why is it such a successful formula? A little while ago Rush Limbaugh pretended to review President Obama's speech (transcript, here) yesterday in Osawatomie, Kansas (a great name, thanks to the Osage and the Pottawatomie tribes). He imagined

Barack Obama yesterday said that the free market is "a license to steal." A license to steal! A license to steal. This from the guy who has stolen as much wealth from the private sector as he can under the guise of "stimulus spending." No, not personally. I don't mean he's enriched himself. I mean he's enriched his ideology, the Democrat Party.

Yes, he imagined Barack Obama said that the free market is "a license to steal." Rather, President Obama had said

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.

Barack Obama did not say something different than what Rush Limbaugh claimed the President said. He said the opposite: the free market has never been a free license. Obama said the free market works best when there is open competition, creating "better services and better prices." Further, he argued, profits are made by not "exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe"- by not being "a license to steal." He did not even say that the free market should not be a license to steal; he said it is not.

Later in the speech, the Socialist-in-chief added "Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there."

But why do Limbaugh's listeners, most of whom are likely Republicans and the vast majority (and beyond) of whom are conservatives, appear to believe these things Rush puts into the mouths of leading Democrats.

Presumably, a disproportionate number of Limbaugh listeners are Fox News watchers who, it appears know less than people who watch no news. The Huffington Post last month reported on a survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University:

The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study, which controlled for demographic factors like education and partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government" compared to those who watch no news.

Overall, 53% of all respondents knew that Egyptians successfully overthrew Hosni Mubarak and 48% knew that Syrians have yet to overthrow their government.

In 2010, a survey conducted by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, had found "Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it" to believe things that were just not true. The previous year, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll had demonstrated that Fox News viewers were far less informed about health care legislation than were viewers of CNN or MSNBC.

It's not the fault of viewers, of course, any more than it's the fault of Limbaugh's listeners that he lies to them. Fox News wasn't established to keep its audience informed, but rather as ignorant as possible and angry at Democrats, two objectives fully consistent with each other. Similarly, Limbaugh is not intent on educating his audience, at which point much of it would question his diatribes in favor of the more narcissistic elements of the free market system, as well as his frequent forays into racial bigotry. It's a formula that has made Rush Limbaugh extraordinarily wealthy, and he sees little need to mess with success.

Share|

Barack Obama, Commander-In-Chief

You would expect at least a Republican not to refer to President Obama as commander-in-chief. But there it is: former GWBush speechwriter Michael Gerson, now a columnist for The Washington Post, says the 44th President "fully inhabits the public role of commander in chief."

Barack Obama does inhabit the role of commander-in-chief. But not for me, not for Michael Gerson, and not for you- unless you're currently holding down the fort in Kabul.

The President of the United States, pursuant to Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." If commander-in-chief for anyone, President Obama has been commander-chief of Private Bradley Manning, who was serving in the 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad when he was arrested for allegedly passing classified information to the website WikiLeaks. Arrested in October 2009 and held in solitary confinement since July, 2010, Manning now, according to Politico's Josh Gerstein

is demanding that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testify as witnesses at a preliminary hearing set to begin next week.

A defense lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning made the request Friday deep in a 20-page list of defense witnesses for a so-called Article 32 hearing scheduled to start Dec. 16 at Fort Meade, Md. The hearing, akin to a probable cause hearing in the civilian justice system, is to consider whether Manning's case should be referred for a full-scale court martial.

Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, released the request for witnesses Saturday via a posting on his blog. The names of Obama and Clinton were deleted from the version Coombs posted on the internet (and hereon our site). However, their identities are evident from the explanations of why their testimony would be relevant to the case.

The defense request alleges that comments Obama made about Manning's case — and his guilt — during a political fundraiser in San Francisco in April represent "unlawful command influence" since the president acts as commander in chief of the armed forces.

"Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a superior officer in the chain of command is prohibited from saying or doing anything that could influence any decision by a subordinate in how to handle a military justice matter," the defense request says. Obama "made improper comments on 21 April 2011 when he decided to comment on PFC Manning and his case. On that date, he responded to questions regarding PFC Manning's alleged actions by concluding that 'We're a nation of laws. We don't let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He [PFC Manning] broke the law.'"

Obama made the comments while shaking hands at a fundraiser where some guests earlier burst out in song to protest Manning's treatment. The president's back and forth about Manning was captured on a mobile phone camera.

Coombs said he wants to question Obama about the "nature of his discussions with members of the military regarding this case and whether he has made any other statements that would either influence the prosecution of this case or PFC Manning's right to obtain a fair trial." Manning's defense also wants to ask Obama about the alleged lack of impact of WikiLeaks's disclosure of the leaked U.S. military reports on Afghanistan, as well as open government issues and the phenomenon of overclassification.

Raise your hand if you believe Barack Obama, Private Manning's commander-in-chief, will testify at the preliminary hearing.

No hand appears raised. President Obama is claimed by the mainstream media as our Commander-in-Chief. He appears to have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and judged before the fact a criminal matter, likely prejudicing a hearing. And he might be held exempt from testifying.

If President Obama chooses, or is forced, to testify, he will be fulfilling a function in his role as Commander-in-Chief. If he is held exempt (and chooses not to testify), it will make a mockery of Article II, Section 2. And we will welcome the outrage which no doubt would ensue from Michele Bachmann and other tea party supporters who claim a fidelity to the United States Constitution unrivaled by anyone.

Share|

Courting Conservatives

Yesterday, I drew attention to the statement of Reagan and World War II historian Craig Shirley "There really aren't any conservative Democrats anywhere and there really are very few liberal Republicans anymore." Judging by their actions, I argued, there are very few, if any, liberal or even moderate Republicans in Congress but a few conservative Democrats.

That would have been better substantiated if posted today, when we learn from Manu Raju and John Bresnahan of Politico

The White House and top Senate Democratic leaders are quietly mounting a pressure campaign to keep Sen. Ben Nelson from retiring, fearing their majority will be in greater peril if the two-term Nebraskan decides to quit.

In back-channel discussions, private meetings over Chinese food and in conversations on the Senate floor, party leaders have been regularly checking in with the conservative Democrat to talk to him about the race, assuring him that not only would he have greater influence and seniority in another term, but the Democratic machine will fully engage in his race if he runs again....

Democrats find themselves in an intense courtship with one of the least loyal members of their caucus — Nelson is a perennial swing voter who frustrates his leaders by often refusing to take sides on key bills until the last minute. But keeping the majority is far more important for Democrats than fealty to the party, which is why Nelson has become the center of attention.

Elsewhere in the article, the reporters describe Nelson as a "moderate," though if Ben Nelson is a moderate, Barack Obama really is a socialist. Digby notes the GOP is "engaged in hand-to-hand political combat" while "Democrats are still fighting the last war, moving their useless Maginot Line ever backwards to the point where having the majority translates into slightly less kooky conservative policies than what we'd have with the Republicans."

Politico, which has become a virtual arm of the political Establishment, appears to applaud the party for emphasizing "keeping the majority" over "fealty to the party." It is fair to ask, however, what constitutes fealty to a party led by Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer eager to assume the position toward Wall Street For nearly the past three years, it really has been less fealty to party than disregard and distaste for principle.

Next Up: Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief

Share|

Historian Humor

Historian/comedian Craig Shirley appeared with guest host Michael Smerconish on Hardball Thursday and, as they would say 60-70 years ago, let loose with a couple of knee slappers.

At roughly 1:05 of the segment, Smerconish innocently asks the author of December 1941 about Newt Gingrich's relationship with the Washington establishment. Reagan historian Shirley compares the former House Speaker to Ronald Reagan (really), contending "you can be in Washington without being of Washington" and Newt "never joined the culture of Washington, per se."

In 2003 Gingrich founded the Center for Health Transformation, a for-profit organization in office space on Washington's K Street, synonymous with "lobbying." He resigned upon entering the GOP presidential race, leaving the organization to be headed by Nancy Desmond, a former aide of his. But in a 2005 article found by Media Matters, The Washington Post reported

Aide Rick Tyler, however, acknowledged there were political reasons for diverging from the standard nonprofit lobby group model.

Having been formally reprimanded by the House in 1997 for violations associated with the political use of tax-exempt organizations -- which were structured similarly to the new center -- Gingrich decided that a nonprofit would have invited enormous scrutiny. Organizing as a for-profit company, however, permits him to operate "under the radar," Tyler said.

"He's making more money than he ever thought possible and doesn't have to tell everybody where it's coming from," marveled former adviser Rich Galen. "He has the amount of influence he chooses to have. I suspect there is virtually no one in this town of either party who will not take a call from Newt Gingrich, if only to hear what he has to say."

It was a model Gingrich employed when he made $1.6 million- $1.8 million connecting members of Congress with Freddie Mac lobbyists. There, too, Newt could technically claim he was not a "lobbyist," a toxic term in American politics, because he insisted his contract with the secondary mortgage giant be written so as to preclude the designation. So he now claims he served as a "historian" for Freddie Mac of which, before his involvement was discovered, he was a fervent critic.

That did not stop Gingrich, who is so not "of Washington," from asserting during one of the GOP debates in October “…if you want to put people in jail — I want to second what Michele said — you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and let’s look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.” Nothing says "not of Washington" better than quietly peddling influence for an outfit, then calling for sending politicians up the river when they listened to you (or not).

But historian/comedian Craig Shirley didn't stop there. Critiquing Congress, at approximately 2:10 he says "There really aren't any conservative Democrats anywhere and there really are very few liberal Republicans anymore." More accurately, there are conservative Democrats and no liberal Republicans in Congress.

At least in terms of their voting record. We all know about the nearly united front Republicans have created when tax cuts, health care, or the debt ceiling have been debated. But the existence and strength of conservative Democrats is demonstrated by ongoing congressional deliberations on the defense authorization bill. An amendment sponsored by Republican Senator McCain and Democratic Senator Levin, according to Glenn Greenwald

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it alsounquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

(2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) with more expansive language: to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who “substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces” (Sec. 1031); and,

(3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs. 1033-35).

A measure sponsored by Democratic Senator Mark Udall, which would have stripped this section from the bill, has been defeated 37-61. Among the 61 Senators who are approving this vast extension of the government's power to conduct the war on terrorism are 16 Democrats. Not all of those Democrats are conservatives, of course; but in the case of Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Hagan, Landrieu, and Pryor, the argument is easily made. (Two Republicans, Paul and Kirk, voted with Udall; Paul is unquestionably very conservative and the jury is still out on the guy from Illinois).

You've heard it dozens of times, and now you've heard it from Craig Shirley. An antagonistic environment exists inside the Beltway and both parties are to blame. (Shirley blames Democrats even a little more, taking a swipe at former President Carter.)

But one side, in Congress and particularly in the Oval Office, always is ready to compromise, then compromise some more, while the other makes political hay in obstructionism. So when you hear Craig Shirley talk about World War II, listen closely. But when he talks politics, remember that he's only doing stand-up.

Share|

Building On Newt's Brainstorm

I've argued that Reverend Al Sharpton was a very poor selection to host the 6:00 p.m. (eastern) hour on MSNBC, given Sharpton's past eagerness to divide people by ethnicity and his lack of qualifications for this prime journalistic assignment.

But Sharpton served a public purpose yesterday by discussing with Lee Saunders, Secretary/Treasurer, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Newt Gingrich's most recent statement demonstrating the extraordinary grasp of issues with which much of the right and the mainstream media credit him. Displaying great depth and breadth, the former House Speaker commented in part

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.

Gingrich, notably, did not limit his sloppy generalization to "some," "many," or even "most" poor children, but implied that slothfulness applied to the entire group. Emphasizing the "insult to poor children" and eschewing stereotypes, Sharpton noted "the poor are some of the hardest-working people in America."

But not only do many of the poor work hard; it's also that hard-working people are poor. Sharpton stated "4.3 million people earn the federal minimum wage or less. That's $7.25 an hour. That's a yearly salary of $15,000." Meanwhile Gingrich, casting his nose downward upon low-wage employees, recommended children be "paid part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in (or) as the assistant librarian." AFSCME's Saunders remarked

For him to suggest -- and it`s an outrageous suggestion, and it`s even vicious -- for him to suggest that children can take the place of workers, of janitors in schools, it`s just completely off the charts. And he is living on a different planet. So what he`s suggesting is that we`re going to lay off the mothers and the fathers and employ the children, and we are a better country than that.

Poor children, Gingrich seems to believe, have no positive role models. But they do have some positive role models- men and women who go to work every day, sometimes to two jobs. And some of them are janitors. Newt would like to see those janitors thrown out of work, to be replaced by youngsters who will have seen neighbors and relatives work hard- and then removed from their jobs. Now, that's a great message.

A janitorial position, while low-paid, apparenly is no walk in the park. The Huffington Post's Dave Jamieson explains

Despite its relatively modest pay, a janitor's job isn't as easy as Gingrich seems to think it is. According to the Labor Department, a janitor needs to be able to carry out a long list of duties and repairs during a typical day: Mop and polish floors, handle dangerous chemicals, even perform basic electrical and plumbing repairs. At schools, they also need to interact well with children and, at times, clean up their vomit.

A janitor's job is also more dangerous than most American occupations -- and hardly fit for children, according to the Labor Department's description of the work. Janitors, it notes, "may suffer cuts, bruises, and burns from machines, handtools, and chemicals. They spend most of their time on their feet, sometimes lifting or pushing heavy furniture or equipment. Many tasks, such as dusting or sweeping, require constant bending, stooping, and stretching."

Gingrich's proposal need not be totally disregarded, but instead refined. Instead of giving the child a clerical or janitorial job, we'll give him (or her) a career, one combining an academic focus with a skill increasingly in demand. Little Jeremiah or little Ashley could be paid a small fee, perhaps $30,000 per month, to be historians with outfits in the secondary mortgage market. While these positions evidently require little sense and even less work, Jeremiah and Ashley can become the envy of their classmates and role models for all poor children, the drug pushers and prostitutes of Newt Gingrich's stereotype.

Share|

Winning By Hook Or By Crook

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Following the 2000 presidential election, "won" by Governor George W. Bush on the strength of a 537 vote (out of 5.9 million cast) margin in the State of Florida, the United States Commission on Civil Rights conducted an investigation of voting irregularities in Governor Jeb Bush's Sunshine State. The Commission found "The most dramatic undercount in the Florida election was the uncast ballots of countless eligible voters who were wrongfully turned away from the polls. Statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to the widespread denial of voting rights" (while) " the disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters."

The Commission noted "poorly designed efforts to eliminate fraud, as well as sloppy and irresponsible implementation of those efforts, disenfranchise legitimate voters and can be a violation of the VRA. Florida’s overzealous efforts to purge voters from the rolls, conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign, resulted in the inexcusable and patently unjust removal of disproportionate numbers of African American voters from Florida’s voter registration rolls for the November 2000 election."

Observing "African American voters were placed on purge lists more often and more erroneously than Hispanic or white voters," the Commission found that the abridgment of voting rights was a result not merely of incompetence, inefficiency, or neglect and found

This overall lack of leadership in protecting voting rights was largely responsible for the broad array of problems in Florida during the 2000 election. Furthermore, state officials ignored the pleas of some supervisors of elections for guidance and help. Especially at the highest levels, officials must take responsibility for leading on matters for which they have authority and, to the extent they do not have sole authority, to take the initiative for working with other key officials.... This was not a responsibility that officials were willing to accept during the 2000 election.

Writing in Rolling Stone in late August, Ari Berman explained

In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process.

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.

Voter suppression is a solution in search of a problem. While Rush Limbaugh and other Republican leaders stoke the fears of the faithful over alleged voter fraud

A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility. A much-hyped investigation in Wisconsin, meanwhile, led to the prosecution of only .0007 percent of the local electorate for alleged voter fraud.

The centrist, pragmatic politics of the Obama Administration notwithstanding, the GOP assault on the right to vote belies the meme of the mainstream media that they're all the same: Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, at each other's throats, coarsening public discourse and obstructing high-minded independents and moderates from solving all the nation's woes. Digby observes

This long term Republican project is a slow, inexorable erosion of the voting franchise, making it as difficult as possible for people of color, the elderly and the young to vote.It is an assault on the democratic process itself, the fundamental method by which we choose our representatives. Now, it's true that we often choose unwisely and that the people are often duped into thinking that their representatives are one thing when they are another. But it's the only method we have for democratic government so if you want to change things, this is one function that must be protected.

Both parties are woefully corrupt and inept, but only one of them is engaged in systematic vote suppression. It doesn't make the other side heroes, but it does show one important distinction between the two.

Share|

Newt Gingrich, Defined And Confirmed

A week and a half ago on the roundtable discussion on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour, George Will noted Newt

Gingrich's is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that it embodies everything that is disagreeable about modern Washington. He's the classic rental politician.

The conservative syndicated columnist went on to explain

People think that his problem is his colorful personal life. He'll hope that people concentrate on that rather than, for example, ethanol. Al Gore has recanted ethanol. Not Newt Gingrich. Industrial policy of the sort that got us Solyndra, he's all for it. Freddie Mac, he says, hired him as a historian. He's not a historian.

And all that is without mentioning Gingrich's personal life which, really, is his personal life- or would be, if he left it at that. Yet, being the classic rental politician, the former House Speaker is pursuing a means for it to enhance his candidacy.

The Family Leader in July announced "THE MARRIAGE VOW: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY" (all emphasis the organization's). It includes a 14-point "candidate vow" emphasizing an "adherence" to "faithful sexual monogamy" and mandating "personal fidelity to my spouse," "respect for the marital bonds of others," belief in "robust childbearing and reproduction" as a national goal, "rejection of 'Sharia Islam'," and "commitment to downsizing government" (how did that get in there?).

The pledge has been signed by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and no others.

But that has not stopped the Classic Rental Politician. In July, Gingrich was asked whether he had signed the pledge and responded "No, we’ve talked about it. Vince Haley, who’s my policy director, is gonna work with Bob and others to work through some things." According to the Des Moines Register's Jason Clayworth, the Family Leader has narrowed its decision upon whom to endorse for the GOP nomination to four individuals- Santorum, Bachmann, Perry- and Gingrich, a personal favorite of the organization's CEO, Bob Vander Plaats, with whom he allegedly has financial ties. According to Clayworth, "Vander Plaats said today that his group has been in communication with the Gingrich campaign about the pledge and expects to hear something from them shortly."

The mind reels- or maybe not, given that the vow includes a determination to pare down the size of government, by which The Family Leader is not referring to the defense budget or the cozy relationship between the federal government and Wall Street.

Gingrich could have gone any of four ways. He could have adopted the approach of Mitt Romney, who in July said he "strongly supports traditional marriage but he felt this pledge contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign." He could have been a little bolder and declared that he won't sign any pledge, identifying them as a gimmicks and a prime manifestation of the interest group politics which the American people find "disagreeable about modern Washington."

Or he could have gone courageously where no other politician has dared to go. He might have declined to sign the pledge by arguing that public behavior is more important that private behavior in someone asking to represent 300 million-plus individuals in a nation of culturally diverse individuals and families. He might have noted that in a country facing such enormous challenges at home and abroad (which he could have blamed on President Obama), he- and other candidates- ought to be judged on the basis of their policies, experience, and ability to move the conservative agenda forward.

Such honesty would have been asking too much of any office-seeker, of course. Alternatively, Newt might have differentiated himself from his main rival by simply signing the pledge, which would at least have been definitive.

But, no. Instead, the classic rental politician will sign, but only under certain conditions. For Newt Gingrich- as for, it appears thus far, The Family Leader- Groucho Marx's aphorism applies: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

Share|