Class, Regional Warfare

Not content to play simple class warfare, Republicans may be adding regional warfare to the mix.

We all remember Governor Sarah Palin enthusiastically exclaiming at a campaign rally last October in North Carolina:

We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe--- We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.

Mrs. Palin never specified which cities and suburbs she believed are not part of the "real America" and why their inhabitants are such malingerers while "everyday Americans" are "running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us."

Fortunately, the McCain-Palin ticket was soundly defeated the following month, due apparently to divine intervention. But the sentiment continues, and thrives in some quarters of the GOP stable.

President Obama on Tuesday signed an executive order establishing a task force "to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight." Nowhere in his statement, in the Presidential Memorandum announcing the initiative, nor in the statements of the First Lady (who will be heading the effort) was there any reference to regional disparities.

That didn't stop Rush Limbaugh, who that same day, shuffling about to find some reason to criticize the initiative, bellowed

Do you know what else they put out about this childhood obesity thing? There it is right there! First Lady unveils campaign to fight childhood obesity. Guess where, what region of the country do you think, ladies and gentlemen, the largest number of obedience children happen to be? Ticktock, ticktock, ticky-tock. That's right, the South. The South is where there are more fat kids than anywhere in the country. That's what they say. I saw it reported in the news today. The South is where there are more fat kids than any other place. I wonder why. Cornbread? Road kill? Who knows what they're eating in the back of their pickup trucks down there. You people in the South you understand I'm your friend. I'm just telling you what these elitists think. So childhood obesity is apparently now a regional problem, particularly in the South.

Sure, Rush is their friend. That’s why without any prompting from, or inference by, the First Lady or the President, Limbaugh is reminding them “The South is where there are more fat kids than anywhere in the country”- but shielding himself from criticism by contending “That’s what they say. I saw it reported in the news today.” Yet, it is “these elitists”- unnamed Democrats- who are demeaning Southerners.

Of course, this regional warfare is not unrelated to GOP class warfare, but an integral part. And it’s only fitting that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin would be in the vanguard of stirring up hostility in the country they claim to love. Not only are they both on the far right, fact-challenged, and masters of ad hominem, but Rush relentlessly promotes her on his program. They may deserve each other- but this country deserves neither.

Not A Fan Of Her Fans

It's easy to ridicule Sarah Palin because she entered crib notes on her left palm sometime prior to a question and answer session with a very friendly interviewer before a very friendly audience in order to answer questions which she may have been informed of. Easy and accurate, though more appropriate to criticize than ridicule.

It may have been simply that she needed those few words to remember her core values. Or perhaps it was something a little different, especially given that apparently few if any people there suspected anything.

A pattern is developing. On November 29, 2009 Palin stopped in Indiana on her tour to promote Going Rogue and apparently gave the back of her palm hand to her fans. As The Huffington Post reported at the time (video below)

The local Borders outlet had handed out 1,000 wristbands to book purchasers; the wristbands were supposed to procure fans Palin's signature on their hardback copies of "Going Rogue." But several dozen people who had been promised signatures were turned away empty-handed after waiting hours in poor weather, a local news outlet, the Indy Channel, reported.

"We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold, my kids were crying," one man was quoted saying. "They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don't want to support Sarah."

Another woman told Indy Channel, "We bought two books from Borders to have our receipt and our wristband to get it signed tonight. My books are going back to Borders tomorrow."

The angry crowd turned on Palin as she returned to her "Going Rogue" tour bus. Video below shows people booing and shouting at the bus, and shouting "Sign our books Sarah!" as the engine revved up and Palin departed.

Last Sunday, the former governor spoke at a motivational seminar in Cypress, Texas (a suburb of Houston) but a lost of people missed out on hearing her. Reporter Josef Jarod found

"I wasn't motivated" one man said to me in the elevator as I left the speech, "she sounded un-prepared and erratic and focused an awful lot on her script."

It was 9:30 AM, and Just half an hour earlier Sarah Palin had wrapped up a "motivational" speech about "achievement" at the Toyota Center in downtown Houston. Though Palin was to be the headliner of the all day business seminar which featured a dozen other speakers like General Colin Powell and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. She was the first to perform."

"I was also kind of amazed that they let her go first, I mean, we weren't even all seated yet when she started." Palin started her speech at 8:00 AM sharp, she was the first person out of the gates - there wasn't even a Master of Ceremonies. And given the fact that morning rush hour in Houston was exceptionally bad today, it meant there were going to be a lot of unhappy ticket holders(particularly as some paid as much as two hundred dollars.)

"She already gave her speech?!" One man exclaimed in the lobby after arriving minutes too late, "What the hell, I was stuck in traffic... why wouldn't they save the best for last?!" Several elderly women with Palin lapel pins who were trying desperately to hurry through security were also distraught when they heard the news, "Ohhh Noooooo! Nooooo!"

Sarah Palin had another engagement in California later in the afternoon and didn't have a minute to waste.

This came a day after Mrs. Palin, portrayed as a politician of unshakable family values and conservative ideology, answered in Nashville, Tennessee that question about core principles. She could have jotted notes down onto a clipboard, not unlike one of the founders of modern American conservatism (now largely warped by Palin and others), the late William F. Buckley Jr. No intellectual slouch he.

But that would have taken a little more effort- seven words wouldn't have done it. Instead, she chose to deceive her audience which, understandably, was unaware of what she was doing. It was an Academy Award-caliber performance, a subtle glance at her left hand. She didn't want to reveal herself, but to obscure herself. And that, viewed in light of her appearances in Noblesville, Indiana in November and Nashville, Tennessee last weekend, shows more than a little contempt for her followers.

As Performance, Passable

Sarah Palin deserves credit.

She gave a politically savvy answer when Chris Wallace asked her on Fox News Sunday "Should the rule "don't ask -- don't tell" for the Military be revealed?" (Note: I believe Matthews said "reversed" or "rescinded"- and if not, certainly meant to.) Palin shrewdly responded

I don't think so right now. I'm surprised that the President spent that on his State of the Union speech when he only spent about nine percent of his time in the State of the Union on national security issues. And I say that because there are other things to be worried about right now with the Military.

I think that's kind of on the back burner. It's sufficient for now.

To put so much time and effort and politics into it, unnecessary.

Palin could not have supported rescission of "don't ask, don't tell" without engendering significant controversy. However, she qualified her answer: not "right now;" "other things to be worried about:" "kind of on the back burner;" unnecessary "to put so much time and effort and politics into it."

Translation: I'm against it until it becomes politically advantageous to modify my position. Flexibility in this case is a virtue, if a little disingenous.

Flexibility is one thing. Charging the President of the United States with disregarding the interests of the American people is something else. This exchange got a lot of attention, but not enough:

WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

It was good of Wallace to ask Palin "you're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card," after she did suggest that he would cynically play the war card. Unfortunately, the FOX News host failed to follow up when Palin responded

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

She stated "I'm not suggesting that"- and then did suggest just that: "if he did...." The proper answer, if there were anything proper about Sarah Palin, "no, I'm not." Then she could have proposed such an action. Or not.

All in all, though, the former governor got through an interview, albeit with one so friendly that it employs her, nearly unscathed. And without peeking at anything which might have been written on her palm.

Palin Defends Limbaugh

Sometimes with Sarah Palin you say: She didn't just say that, did she?

Interviewed by Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday, the former Governor explained

Name calling by anyone -- I teach this to my children, you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone, it's just unnecessary. It just wastes time.
Let's speak to the issues and --

As Bush 41, characteristically avoiding pronouns, would have put it- good idea, can't disagree with any of it.

There would be only one problem. In her response immediately prior to that, when Wallace referred to Limbaugh saying "I mean, these people, these liberal activists are quote, kooks." Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?" And Sarah Palin- honest- replied

They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh.

No, we wouldn't want to engage in any name calling- unless the name is "kooks" and the people so described aren't right-wing.

This would be startling, were it not Sarah Palin. The "kooks" remark, in which Mrs. Palin did not engage in name-calling, came as Wallace asked whether Rush Limbaugh should apologize for what the former referred to as "the R word."

After calling people she disagrees with "kooks," Palin claimed "Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct --" It is less likely Limbaugh was using satire than, say, he was experiencing unnatural excitement at repeating the reportedly offensive term. He exclaimed:

We didn't do anything about it, you F-ing retards." I think the big news is the crack-up going on. But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are "retards," "retards." I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are Looney Tunes. I'm not going to apologize for it. I'm just quoting Emanuel. It's in the news. I think the big news is that he's out there calling Obama's number one supporters "F-ing retards

That would be four times using the "R" word; nothing pithy, wry, ironic, subtle, or vaguely satiric about it. The tipoff: Rush slammed "our politically correct society," thereby hinting he believes there is absolutely nothing wrong with the term- only with the people who were the object of Emanuel's attack.

Palin went on to assert "I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with "F-ing retards." And we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. That's a big difference there."

If Palin is right that Limbaugh did not call "a group of people whom he did not agree with "F-ing retards," the talk show host must really like those liberals. Otherwise, he wouldn't have remarked "But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are 'retards,' 'retards.'"

A little historical perspective is due here. Once upon a time in America when the term "retarded" was completely acceptable (and in fact considered more appropriate and favorable than "handicapped"), there was a word considered completely offensive. That word was "retard" because a retarded person was not a "retard." There is a difference between bigotry and hostility, the latter displayed by Emanuel. Rush Limbaugh's rant was not only offensive but also bigoted, coming not in a moment of anger but after some reflection. And if Sarah Palin had any integrity, she would have said so.

Palin And Her Palm

Toward the end, the President said:

Jeb, with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.

Now, look, let's talk about the budget once again, because I'll go through it with you line by line. The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. -- $1.3 [trillion.] So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the -- a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by the Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true.

And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade -- had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000 when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for.

You had a prescription drug plan -- the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades -- that was passed without it being paid for. You had two wars that were done through supplementals. And then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That's $8 trillion.

And so it went, this having been the lion's share of the response to the question about the federal budget posed by Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas at the Q&A session on January 29. The answer was given by a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter," as a former Alaska governor, whom 53% of Republicans believe is more qualified than he to be President of the United States, refers to him.

No reason to belabor, 11 days later, the slaughter by the President of the not-so-innocent GOP legislators at their retreat in Maryland. A slaughter without teleprompter, handwritten notes, or even notes written on hand, which contrasts nicely with the question-and-answer session Sarah Palin was afforded following her speech at the tea party.

We since have learned it was "ENERGY," "TAX CUTS," and "LIFT AMERICAN SPIRITS" written on her left hand. Not details about the budget, health care, of job creation strategies. Talking points. She had TALKING POINTS written on her left hand.

Why that would be is a matter of conjecture. Stefan Sirucek at The Huffington Post argues, reasonably, "The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs." Doug Molitor calls her an "imbecile"- but this is harsh and inaccurate, given that Palin has become one of the two leading candidates for her party's presidential nomination while being shallow and uninformed, hardly a trivial accomplishment. However, the characterization does give me an excuse to post Molitor's video (below), complete with his own ideas for what Palin could have written on her palm.

Or it may be this: Sarah Palin doesn't know what she believes. Howard Fineman, citing Palin's (inspirational, vacuous) speech in Nashville, is on Countdown tonight saying of her "it's not about ideas; it's all attitude." That could be why the ex-governor, implying support for a declaration of war against Iran, cited the position of anti-war Pat Buchanan, confusing him with the pro-war Daniel Pipes. Or why Mrs. Palin, who is associated with no policy more than anti-abortion rights, could agree to speak at a fund-raiser for a Canadian hospital, notwithstanding its practice of end-of-life counseling ("death panels") and of performing abortions.

With Sarah Palin, it's all about the music, not the lyrics; substance optional.

Paul Ryan To The Elderly: Drop Dead

Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin wants to cut elderly people out the size of the national deficit and debt and thinks he has found a way to do it. The ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee thereby has become a darling of the conservative GOP establishment, kind of a wonkish Scott Brown, or maybe Brown without the centerfold.

The idea is that fiscal sanity can be achieved only by curbing the growth of federal entitlements- Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, an idea the Washington media and political establishment embraces. For Medicare, that means vouchers which elderly people (“seniors” are what your sons and daughters will be after their junior year of high school or college) would use to pay for health care, whose costs have been rising faster than the rate of inflation.

The linchpin of Ryan's proposal is that the voucher would grow more slowly than medical costs. In scoring (PDF) this proposal, part of the euphemistically-named "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2010," the Congressional Budget Office found it is "indexed to grow at a rate halfway between the general inflation rate, as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), and the rate of price inflation for medical care, as measured by the consumer price index for medical care (CPI-M).” While per capita spending is expected to grow at an annual rate of nearly 5% over the next 75 years, the value of the voucher, according to the CBO, would grow at an annual rate of 2.7 percent.

Health care costs will rise, the value of the voucher not so much. Although federal spending on health care obviously would decline, the CBO notes enrollees’ spending for health care and the "uncertainty" surrounding that spending would increase. Spending would increase for two reasons noted by the CBO: Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance.

And for a third reason: when customers are pursuing insurance with a greater number of dollars, insurance rates likely would rise for that reason alone. Subsidies sometimes are necessary; requiring the purchase of health insurance, the Democrats' health care plan would be doomed to failure without subsidies (and is problematic with them). But they will increase the asking price of a policy.

Ryan here embraces the holy grail of conservatism, ""free-market" principles. He tells the Washington Post's Ezra Klein "This sector isn't immune from free-market principles." (Funny, isn't it- when asked about the public option, which would have offered competition to the insurance industry and thereby lowered insurance costs, Representative Ryan and his compatriots were conveniently silent about "free-market principles.")

Democrats, of course, don't have to take this lying down, though having recently seen their Senate majority shrivel to a mere 18, they may do so. But in the House, two Representatives already have introduced a resolution expressing the chamber's commitment to resist privatization of Social Security, another part of Ryan's "road map." Republicans can choose, in effect, to renounce a prominent member's plan- or go on record wanting to begin eviscerating arguably the most popular federal program ever.

The same approach could be taken to Ryan's privatization scheme for Medicare, another program that serves elderly people well, notwithstanding the efforts of the private health insurance industry to bankrupt America and take the program down with it. Under his scheme, if health care costs rise more than 2.7% per year- which they will- additional costs would not be covered.

The CBO explains it as "Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law." Matthew Yglesias explains it as "If grandma’s got a bunch of money, then she can spend her money. If not, then the plug is pulled."

Now, that's a death panel.

Attacking Obama, Rush Scorns Christianity

This past week, President Obama made his second off-handed remark about the character of the Las Vegas, Nevada business community, pointing out

You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.

That is undeniably true, as was his remark a year ago to fat-cat bankers "You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime." (Actually, they could, but that was the problem.)

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday charged

He's gotta have something in for Las Vegas. Maybe he lost a bunch of money there. Maybe got rolled by a hooker there. I don't know what it is, something happened.

If he did, it must have occurred several years ago, for, in the run-up in January 2008 to the Nevada caucus/primary, the Los Angeles Times reported

Barack Obama has warned about the dangers of gambling -- that it carries a "moral and social cost" that could "devastate" poor communities. As a state senator in Illinois, he at times opposed plans to expand gambling, worrying that it could be especially harmful to low-income people.


So Barack Obama has been right about gambling at least three times. Probably Rush has been right about gambling at least once- say, when a Democratic politician has defended the practice- but given Limbaugh's preference for high-stakes gambling on Wall Street, his partiality to gambling generally is understandable.

But if his remark about prostitutes and the President of the United States is glaringly loathsome, Rush was more ironic when in the same riff he curiously remarked

By the way, I'm just saying, just a little side note here, but gambling is forbidden in the Koran. Just a little aside. Just saying.... And again the Koran prohibits -- gambling is forbidden in the Koran, I'm just saying.

Your first reaction might be- should be: Why doesn't he just come right out and claim that the President is a Muslim?

Fair enough (the reaction, not the charge). Rush may have no evidence- but that doesn't matter- it has never stopped him before. But what's stunning is the implication that Obama may be a Muslim (or at least Muslim-lite) on the basis that he's critical of gambling!

There is nothing un-Christian about gambling, you protest, and point out there is nothing in the Holy Bible about gambling. Admittedly, gambling is not mentioned (nor, for that matter, is abortion). But if not unmistakable that gambling runs counter to biblical principles, it is barely mistakable (as against the promotion of gambling, which is unmistakablly antithetical to Christian principles). The Old and New Testaments are the dominant expressions of Judeo-Christian principles, and Rush has no objection to individuals being Christian. Or Jewish. Just not Muslim.

This website notes that Scripture contains only disdain for the love of money, as in:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs (1 Timothy 6:10, NIV).

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NIV).

Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless (Ecclesiastes 5:10, NIV). (For more on Ecclesiastes, see video below).

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5, NIV).

The get-rich-quit mentality comes in for its share of criticism:

Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow (Proverbs 13:11, NIV).

A faithful man will abound with blessings, but whoever hastens to be rich will not go unpunished (Proverbs 28:20, ESV).

And Paul kind of wraps it up in the 31st verse of the tenth chapter of the first book of Corinthians: "Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

This doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh is not a Christian. Or that gambling, even promiscuously, consigns one to Hell (it doesn't, and couldn't). Or even that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, although belonging to a Protestant Christian church seems a little incompatible with the Islamic faith. It just means that for Rush Limbaugh, Christianity, or abortion, gay rights, or guns, or wars and the military are just so much background noise. It's that a zeal for gambling in Las Vegas (though relatively inconsequential) is entirely harmonious with that other passion of the talk show host, the gambling that our corporate titans so avidly pursued until they brought the American economic system to the brink of collapse. And nothing else gives Rush such a rush.

I'm just saying.




next up: unknown, but at least it won't be Rush.