Eric Massa, Baba Ram Dass and...What LSD Could Have Done

No gay stereotypes here

I've been speculating that my friend Eric Massa has been having a nervous breakdown because he spent his life so tightly closeted that he had never had to really confront the possibility that he was... bisexual or something. When he was outed, his entire world came crashing down around him, including his inner world-- all in the bright, unforgiving klieg lights of cheap national notoriety. Then a few days ago Noah raised the possibility that Eric's erratic behavior is caused by Rituximab, a genetically engineered chimeric monoclonal antibody used to treat non-Hodgkins lymphoma. a drug whose side effects sometimes include psychosis.

Eric's from a military family, went to Annapolis and has led a pretty regimented life. One of his kids remarked offhandedly that he always seemed angry.

I'll bet Eric doesn't read Out magazine. The newest issue has a short blurb about another man from our generation who had some trouble coping with his homosexuality, Richard Alpert. Never heard of him? How about Baba Ram Dass?

Both were important names-- of the same person-- when I was growing up. Alpert was a professor ay Harvard who worked with an old friend of mine-- the person who gave me my first acid trip-- Timothy Leary. I worked for Leary, briefly, in Millbrook, NY, where he and Alpert were doing LSD experiments. Soon after, Alpert went to India, immersed himself in spiritual Hinduism and came out the other side as an important teacher and the writer of one of the books most important to me in the world, Be Here Now. I never did ask Eric if he'd read it; I never thought he had. He should have-- that and maybe taken some acid.

The Out blurb riffs off a new book, The Harvard Psychedelic Club by Don Lattin, and it addresses Alpert's/Ram Dass' coming to terms with his sexuality.

Out: Entwined in Alpert's part of the story is that he was having relationships with men from a young age.

Lattin: At boarding school he was caught rolling around naked with another boy-- he described it as "wrestling." Coming of age, he wasn't sure what to do with [his sexuality]-- it was the '50s. He danced around it for a long time. He called himself a bisexual in the '70s and '80s. He had a steady girlfriend. But he was basically gay.

Out: In the book, he says of his first trip, "For the first time, I felt good inside. It was OK to be me."

Lattin: Psychedelics break down the barriers we construct around our sexuality. People really open up on them-- not necessarily in a sexual way, but in an emotional and spiritual way.

Out: What did his colleagues think about him being gay?

Lattin: Leary didn't want him to come out. He thought it would be bad for their reputation. That reinforced Alpert's internalized homophobia. Leary did an interview with Playboy in 1966 where he said all kinds of crazy things, and one of the most ridiculous was that LSD was "a cure for homosexuality."

Out: You write that Alpert decided "he was more homosexual than bisexual, but that being gay would never be his central, defining characteristic." What eventually led him to this resolution?

Lattin: He was on a spiritual quest-- another reason he didn't want to come out. It wasn't what he was about. The AIDS epidemic got him comfortable with dealing with his sexuality. He'd been doing grief counseling before [the crisis] and later saw himself as a counselor for people dying of AIDS, and many of them were gay. That really opened him up. Ultimately, he came to a reconciliation of his sexuality and his spirituality that's really beautiful.

Eric isn't taking my phone calls. I hope he's reading DWT, and I hope he's unwinding and relaxing and coming to grips with who he is in the context of his family and the rest of his life.

Do you have the self-confidence to pass Justice Roberts' Doughnut Test? Plus a (mercifully) unique slant on the Massa mess

Mmm, how yummy! And how gooey!

"I like people with a fair amount of self-confidence, who are going to be comfortable with expressing their views and defending those views without, you know, wilting."

-- Chief Justice John Roberts, at the U. of Alabama

by Ken

At first this story sounds not only interesting but surprising from our one and only chief justice. It suggests more awareness of individual character than I might have expected from someone whose life and judicial views (insofar as we have come to know them in this short but profoundly disturbing time) seem to reflect a fanatical commitment to rigid social orthodoxy and a worship (for want of a stronger term) of power and powerful people.

The story, which our pal Al Kamen passes along in today's WaPo "In the Loop" column with a hat tip to colleague Bob Barnes, is one that the chief told at the same confab with U. of A. law students which produced his much-ballyhooed pronouncement on the State of the Union address.

He developed a little self-confidence experiment once, he said, apparently when he was still an appellate judge. All the interviews were on one day, so he brought in a dozen powdered-sugar and glazed Krispy Kremes, and instructed his secretary to tell the applicants to help themselves.

"I figured anybody who had enough self-confidence to pick up a doughnut that's glazed or with powdered sugar would be the sort of person I was interested in," Roberts said. "I even remember saying, 'Anybody who has a doughnut, I'll hire.'"

Alas, at the end of the day, the doughnuts were untouched. "So I had to go back and look at their résumés," he said.

That our John is someone who values people who are "comfortable with expressing their views and defending those views without, you know, wilting" is not something I would necessarily have expected of him. However, as I think about it --

(1) It would be interesting to know just how much dissent Justice Roberts actually encourages, or even tolerates, and how he handles views that are fundamentally at odds with his own. My guess is that, given the degree to which his mind is already made up on all the things he believes in, the kinds of "views" he wants defended are varying opinions on legal technicalities. I can't help thinking that any real diversity of opinion is safely and reliably screened out by interview methods much more basic than the Doughnut Test. But again, I don't know what sorts of clerks he hires -- I'd be genuinely interested in knowing, and knowing also what the actual give-and-take among them is like.

(2) Even as a test of self-confidence, is the Doughnut Test really an absolutely reliable predictor? This sounds to me more like a sociological experiment having to do with people's response to stress (is there a much more stressful situation than a job interview with an appellate court judge?), or perhaps the dynamics of power. Did it never occur to the Doughnut Judge that to those young supplicants passing through his grinder he was the Man Who Controls the Doughnuts and My Future? The kind of candidate who would blithely munch on one of his prospective employer's doughnuts seems to me likely to be hiding a streak of sociopathy.

(I was puzzled for a while by that business of our John saying that he'd hire anybody who took a doughnut. What interviewee then would possibly not take one? Then I realized he meant that he remembers saying this to himself. Isn't it a little curious that even in casual conversation he so easily blurs the concepts of "saying" and "saying to oneself"?

(3) Powdered-sugar and glazed doughnuts??? Is this guy for frickin' real? I would ask if he's ever eaten one of either, except that he seems to have been at pains to make clear that they're favored treats of his.

It is humanly impossible to eat a powdered-sugar doughnut without having the powder distribute all over your person, and everything within roughly a three-foot radius, and a glazed doughnut impermeably coats every surface, including body parts and clothing, it comes in contact with. What if, say, you're asked to produce a clip you've brought to the interview, or the judge hands you a document to look at? How are you supposed to manage that with honey-glazed fingers? As if the interview situation wasn't stressful enough, are you really going to voluntarily add to it the menace of powdered sugar or doughnut glaze? That requires not confidence, but foolhardiness, or perhaps simple obliviousness.

(I have to wonder whether Justice Roberts isn't accustomed to having servants at the ready to mini-vac up the powder and to wet-nap the finger glaze.)

(4) I wonder whether the chief isn't perhaps confusing "self-confidence" with narrow-minded doggedness, a habit of thought with which he seems intimately familiar, though perhaps he calls it something else, like "steadfastness of purpose." Yes, it's important to be able to defend one's own views, but it may be more important to be able to hear other people's. I'm not sure that there's a Doughnut Test for this.


QUOTE OF THE DAY: THE ERIC MASSA MESS

"I think the country’s new obsession with Representative Massa is a very positive development.”

-- Tiger Woods, according to today's Borowitz Report

Andy B further reports: "The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the number of Americans making cheap jokes about Representative Massa rose to 48.5 million this week." That survey would presumably have been done before Andy added his really 
cheap jokes to the pile. (The above is the good one. If you're not inclined to check out the link for the others, the head, "Colleagues Praise Massa for Reaching Around the Aisle," should give you a clue.

#

Speculation: What To Make Of Eric Massa

Now, what's his excuse?

-by Noah

Like most progressives, I am disappointed about the Eric Massa situation. It’s not the first time a politician has disappointed the public and, it unfortunately, won’t be the last. Eric Massa was even one of the very few politicians who ever took the time to write me a no BS, bright, articulate note in response to something I sent him. As I write this, we don’t even know what remains to be heard about this particular example of a political career gone wrong. For instance, anyone want to bet that the catalog of text messages is coming? Yet, in my book, no matter what the media would have us believe, the Massa story certainly doesn’t top the stories of Nixon running, screaming out of his mind, down the halls of the White House or his VP, Spiro Agnew, accepting grocery bags of cash for services rendered right in his office; at least, not yet. Nor, for that matter, does it top administration officials having a financial interest in a company that rebuilds things in a country we just blew up. 

In the case of Eric Massa, I take the talk of sexual harassment very seriously and it may have gone back to his Navy days. If the reports are true, what happened aboard ship won’t be staying aboard ship. But, I find the changing stories and four different explanations for his sudden resignation more abnormal and disconcerting. It’s more than the usual Washington bad behavior and politician tap-dancing. It and the manner and tone with which it has been delivered are massively irrational and display a high level of fragmented reasoning, especially for a man who, a year and a half ago, seemed pretty bright and managed to organize and run a campaign so well that he won in a traditionally Republican district. However, behavior like he has exhibited in the last few days would have gotten him bounced from the Navy long ago, years before he rose to third in command on his ship. So, what happened? For the last few days, Eric Massa has looked, to me, like a guy having a breakdown. The intensity and the look of him bring the word ‘psychotic’ to mind. What may have been a wildcard guy just got a whole lot wilder and went over the edge.  
 
Was it all just Washington, or, is Massa going through psychosis? Clearly, this is a man with no grounding. Psychotics are often known to be very charming and often able to cloak their true state of mind for a long time. I hate to sound like a sort of amateur armchair shrink but, having worked in the music business for several decades, I’m familiar with psychosis, drug induced or not. I’m also a recent cancer patient so I have spent a lot of time googling the side effects of various medications. The stuff the docs give you for some cancers (fortunately, not mine) are much more serious than those medication ads we see on TV which seem to have 15 seconds of product name and 45 seconds of listed side effects, right down, it seems at times, to “Warning, some patients have been known to grow a second head.”

So, yesterday, knowing that Massa has had a recurrence of his cancer, the thing that he gave as his first of at least four reasons for resigning from Congress, I decided to google his cancer, Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, along with the word ‘psychosis.’ Go ahead. Do it yourself. You will see that there have been many articles written about the relationship between this particular cancer, the drugs prescribed for it, and psychotic behavior. I don’t know what drugs the man has been given, but here’s one example. I offer it not as an excuse for a man’s behavior, but, something did ring my alarm bell.

Washington has always been full of people who seem to be walking a tightrope over the mental abyss. I’ve always likened Congress to a building full of overgrown, immature paddle-fetish frat boys and sorority girls. The C Street Family Brothel/Fundamentalist Cell is just one example. There’s also Michelle Bachman, David “Diapers” Vitter, John Ensign, and even Bill Clinton and his fabulous cigar box, although he at least had some substance to go with his problem. None of those I just mentioned ever felt the need to resign. I used to live in Washington so I can say I’ve seen these types of people first hand. You can still see way too many of your Congresspeople and their aides at work in the bars around the Capitol building on any given late afternoon or evening. I suppose they would call it networking. But the case of Eric Massa is not just like Wilbur Mills being found in the Jefferson Memorial pool with a “showgirl.” Something irrational in a different way is going on and I haven’t heard any responsible voices asking what that something might be. How long has Massa been like this? It’s interesting to note that none of his staff or family has spoken up in his defense. What do his doctors think? If this were I, I would hope they’d be chasing me down with a syringe full of Thorazine. It just seems to me that this is more than just a candidate for top Washington Hall Of Fame Flameout of all time.
 
Meanwhile, the media only cares about the tabloid circus aspects of the story and they pile it on instead of seeing a man who, for whatever reason, needs help. What if he hurts himself or someone else? They’ll have putrid egg on their smug faces and they won’t even know it. The New York Daily News refers to Massa as “Creepy ex-Rep. Massa,” and even asks its readers for text messages:

Did you receive an "inappropriate" text message from ex-Rep. Massa? E-mail us privately and safely at news@nydailynews.com. Confidentiality is assured.

At best, the Daily News is being just as creepy as “Creepy ex-Rep. Massa.” What’s next? Tell on your parents day? Creepy Larry King was no different when he invited Massa on to his show and played let’s watch the freak show. And then there’s Glenn Beck. Now, that was surreal! That was grist for Lenny Bruce. Dueling wackos. Beck had tweeted his FOX-LOON followers that “All Americans need to hear him.” Beck and his teabagger legions were all eager to hear about “the corruption” just like Arlen Spector obsessively wanted to hear about “the breasts” during the Clarence Thomas circus of years ago, or the repressed holier-than-thou inquisitors at witch trials centuries ago. “Tell us about the corruption.” Watching Beck’s face was priceless as he realized the import of the fact that Massa had nothing for him in the way of dirt and had even begun the show with an admission of guilt and owned up to some of his actions. At one point, Beck was covering his mouth in disbelief at how bad and how deep he had stepped into it; trapped in the goo like the fat little beady-eyed rodent that he is. The ultimate for me was when Beck pleaded and begged Massa for something, dirt on those dreaded evil unions, dirt on Rahm, anything, and Massa told him that the core of the problem in Washington was the need for campaign finance reform. I would have loved to have been in the FOX control room for that one but I’ll have to settle for the look on Beck’s face as he wanted to just disappear from his own pathetic show into a hole. Uttering the words “campaign finance reform” in a FOX studio is an offence on the level of the Pope calling for free, hospital supervised abortions for anyone who needs one. It isn’t done. Roger Ailes must have been reaching for his heart medicine. I know in my soul that the producer was reaching for the kill switch and the screen was about to go black, but it didn’t. Instead, we got an oh-so-fine moment of comeuppance right on the telly.

Only An Idiot-- Like Our Mass Media-- Would Compare Eric Massa To Mark Foley... Now Sen. Roy Ashburn Is Something Else

When I was really young, like maybe 11 or 12, my mom must have sensed I was gay. I hadn't thought about it myself... didn't even know what it was, although I did feel some kind of undefined attraction for some of the older guys in the neighborhood (older meaning 16 or 17). Anyway, she told me she wanted me to meet someone and to hang around because he was coming over before dinner. It was her hairdresser, a guy with two first names, one of which was Michelle (or at least whatever it was was pronounced "Michelle," like in Bachmann). So Michelle is a walking, breathing stereotype. I can still recall the fluffy pink mohair sweater, the screamingly dyed blonde hair in a style that didn't look like anything any man I had ever noticed had. And his wrist was the limpest wrist I had ever seen. Maybe he was just putting it on thick for me. But it worked. Although I had a couple of discreet "experiments" while I was a teenager, I stuck with girls; I forced myself to, without even making a conscious decision. I knew I wasn't like Michelle; that's all.

I read Hubert Selby's then brand new 1964 now-classic Last Exit To Brooklyn and realized there are gay people in Brooklyn, although it was a painful revelation. Wikipedia synopsizes two of the 6 parts:

• The Queen Is Dead: Georgette, a transvestite hooker, is thrown out of the family home by her brother and tries to attract the attention of a hoodlum named Vinnie at a benzedrine-driven party. [And, yes, I'm certain that's where Morrissey got his song title.]

• Strike: Harry, a machinist in a factory, becomes a local official in the union. A closeted homosexual, he abuses his wife and gets in fights to convince himself that he is a man. He gains a temporary status and importance during a long strike, and uses the union's money to entertain the young street punks and buy the company of drag queens.

That kept me in the closet for another few years. It really all seemed so furtive and ugly and sad back then. The experiences I had-- as a hitchhiker going back and forth from Brooklyn to Manhattan-- weren't very satisfying. Girls were way better. But... something wasn't right and sometimes I got this unconscious feeling. By the time I was in college drugs were an integral part of my life-- and in a very big way. They do wonders for inhibitions... as well as for denial. I had sex with a guy who I really liked but when my girlfriend found out and demanded I make a choice, I picked her and quickly "forgot" I had ever even had sex with a guy, even though, in the depths of my consciousness I knew that that was exactly the right thing for me.

I had a big transitionary stage after graduation when I was celibate for years, traveling around Asia looking for myself. I found me... in Amsterdam (of all places) and when I went to a psychologist and told him I suspected I might be gay he was waiting for the punchline. Finally he asked me if I had come to see him to get addresses of places where I could meet other gay guys. I took that as a professional blessing-- and I didn't need any addresses because I lived directly across the street from the Vondel Park.

I started making up for lost time with a vengeance. But the closet had scarred me and it took another year before I was able to tell my family (back in America) and my old friends. I was lucky. My mother's reaction, after trying a little denial for a few moments, was "Does this mean you want to start wearing my wigs?" I didn't and there was never a bump, not even the tiniest one. No one ever considered inviting me to anything without my boyfriend or didn't accord him the same love and respect and acceptance they had always given girlfriends I brought home.

I was very lucky. Not every gay person is. Ex-Congressman Bob Bauman's wife, like him a devout Catholic and, also like him, devouter conservative, was-- again, like him-- a founder of the Young Americans For Freedom, had their marriage annulled when he was outed. He wrote the best book I ever read on the topic of a closeted conservative politician coming to grips with himself, The Gentleman From Maryland-- The Conscience Of A Gay Conservative. It should be a must-read for every closeted politician who winds up running for office. The blurb from Publishers Weekly:

Claiming that financial need compelled him to publish this "near-perfect Greek tragedy" of a life "flawed by a great weakness," ex-Congressman Bauman reveals with relentless candor the alcoholic and homosexual behavior that led to the ruin of his political career and marriage. His story is engrossing both on a personal level and as an expose of Washington's gay scene to which, he maintains, belong government, professional and corporate leaders of all political casts. While admitting his guilt, Bauman alleges that his indictment for sexual solicitation and attendant activities, based on evidence from paid FBI informants, was politically motivated by the Carter administration, "Tip" O'Neill and by a Maryland senator who considered him a potential rival. Now practicing law, Bauman still suffers from rejection of his professional talents and from social prejudice, he stresses, and, as a Roman Catholic, finds little comfort in his religion's ambivalent stance toward homosexuality.

Bakersfield state Senator Roy Ashburn, vicious homophobic Republican sociopath by day, bar trawler by night, should have read it long ago. It might have saved him a lot of misery. Outed last week when he was pulled over, drunk, with a young male he had picked up in a Sacramento bar, he actually went on a big Bakersfield radio station and told his constituents "I am gay." No shit, Sherlock! On personal leave since his arrest early Wednesday morning and avoiding the press, he figured he couldn't deny it any longer.

The arrest touched off rampant speculation about his sexuality after a Sacramento television station reported he had been at a gay nightclub in Sacramento just before he was pulled over by California Highway Patrol officers. But Ashburn had declined to comment.

He broke his silence in an interview on Bakersfield radio station KERN (1180 AM) with talk-show host Inga Barks on Monday morning, saying the incident had led to "restless nights" and "soul searching." Ashburn said he had "brought this on myself." When he told Barks he owed his constituents an explanation, she responded, "Do you want me to ask you … the question, or do you want to just tell people?"

"I am gay,'' Ashburn answered, "and so I … those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. But I am gay. But it is something that is personal and …. I felt with my heart that being gay didn't affect-- wouldn't affect-- how I did my job." He did not express any resentment that his sexuality had come under scrutiny, saying, "Through my own actions, I made my personal life public."

The episode, widely discussed on Internet blogs, in newspapers and on TV, spurred charges of hypocrisy against the senator from gay-rights activists who noted that Ashburn, a divorced father of four, had voted several times against legislation favoring gays and lesbians.

On Sept. 1, 2005, Ashburn voted against a bill that would have allowed same-sex marriages in California. The bill was later vetoed by the governor. Ashburn also was among the minority in voting against legislation last year that designated May 22 of each year as Harvey Milk Day.

"It is unfortunate he helped spread the bigotry that forced him to stay in the closet," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a group supporting gay marriage. "We hope he now takes this opportunity to educate people in his district and throughout the state that his sexual orientation is irrelevant.''

Ashburn defended his votes against gay-rights legislation, saying he was reflecting how the voters in his district felt.

Listen to the whole interview with a right-wing radio host Part I:



Part II, in which he shows he doesn't understand what it means to be a self-loathing Republican homosexual:



Now, what about Eric Massa? I know Eric for a long time-- and I don't know. He told me last week that he expected to get slandered, although he was expecting to get slandered by Republicans. He was very specific about that. He said they were out to get him because he was fighting for ending DADT. Today he's going on the Glenn Beck show to denounce the Democrats for screwing him up instead! (Apparently many of his new allies don't trust him or realize that he's mentally unstable now, adding to the personal tragedy of this guy.) I think he's in a great deal of pain and overwhelmed by a sense of desperation in regard to his crumbling life. All I can say is that I'm going to pray for him (rather than for Ashburn; I'm not that pure of heart at this point on my evolutionary journey). Oh-- and I'm going to continue to work towards eliminating the strictures that closets confine people in. Politically speaking, I could use some help on that one.


UPDATE: Oy Veh!

Hoyer, as expected, called Massa's wild charges absurd but the big news-- just as Glenn Beck is about to start his exploitation session with a dangerously sick man-- and who better than Glenn Beck?-- the Washington Post reports an even worse assessment than anyone expected.

Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) has been under investigation for allegations that he groped multiple male staffers working in his office, according to three sources familiar with the probe.

The allegations surrounding the former lawmaker date back at least a year, and involve "a pattern of behavior and physical harassment," according to one source. The new claims of alleged groping contradict statements by Massa, who resigned his office on Monday after it became public that he was the subject of a House ethics committee investigation for possible harassment.

The Nature of Rahm Emanuel

Rahm with one of his ConservaDem failures in Florida

We've been warning you about Emanuel here at DWT for a lot of years. And Eric Massa is no fan either. His frank, no-holds-bared description of the devious and corrupt bully, here (on WKPQ yesterday), jibes very well with what I've heard from countless other members of Congress. Make sure you click on the link and watch it.

He has more than a dirty mouth. Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive, and if he doesn't like that, he can come after me personally. Let me tell you a story about Rahm Emanuel. I was a congressman in my first eight weeks; I was in the congressional gym, I went down and I worked out and I went into the showers ... I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird and here comes Rahm Emanuel not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking a finger in my chest yelling at me because I wasn't going to vote for the president's budget. Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man? ...What the hell is he doing in the congressional gym? He goes there to intimidate Members of Congress... I didn't hit him but we had words and he hates my guts. He hated my since Day One and now he wins..."

Speaking of "Day One," this is a pretty creepy docudrama Massa and Emanuel made when Massa was first running in 2006. You can certainly see water and oil mixing here!



Mark Schmitt is the executive editor of the American Prospect and he thought today would be a good day to come to Emanuel's defense as progressives are urging Obama to get rid of this malignancy on his presidency before it's too late. In his eagerness to defend the worst calamity that has fallen on the Democrats in since the murder of JFK, Schmitt glosses over "the transparently planted defenses of Emanuel, notably Dana Milbank's in the Washington Post, [that] are littered with disparagements of his intramural rivals, and even of the president, that are disconcerting coming from someone whose primary obligation is to maintain order."

Schmidtt dismisses the arguments that people who participated in the 2006 election have made that Democrats did so well not because of Emanuel but despite him. Schmidtt, while acknowledging Emanuel's "transparently planted defenses," which we call self-hype, is somehow blind to the fact that the Emanuel story-- like the now thoroughly disparaged fairy tale he used to perpetrate about how he lost his middle finger single-handedly fighting a Syrian tank on the Golan Heights (when in fact he was making potholders and embroidering yarmulkes in a camp for rich American Jews far from any battlefield and lost his finger after it became infected and neglected following a battle with a pastrami at a summer job at an Arby's)-- was simply part of the myth he was creating about himself that lame "reporters" were eager to pass along without any kind of verification.

Schmidtt makes the case that Emanuel wasn't responsible for drafting a bunch of conservatives-- including an actual Republican he got to change his registration a few weeks before filing-- which poisoned the Democratic House caucus. Schmidtt is wrong. He never even mentions the case of Tim Mahoney, the worst of Emanuel's recruits (yes, the rich Republican he persuaded to run as a Democrat), for whom he and Hoyer axed union member and progressive anti-war Democratic activist Dave Lutrin in the Florida district Emanuel knew would flip to blue because he knew-- and didn't report (which seems very strange to begin with)-- that Mark Foley, the Republican incumbent, was molesting young male pages. Rahm's other big recruiting "score" in 2006, North Carolina reactionary Heath Shuler (who lives in the Family C Street cult compound) is white-washed as a populist by Schmidtt who never bothers to mention that the Blue Dog caucus whip has only voted with the Democrats 32.86% on the tough, closely contested House roll calls since Obama was elected. When Rahm talked him into running as a Democrat in North Carolina, he was leaning towards running as a Republican in Tennessee. His current roommates are Zach Wamp and Jim DeMint and he's one of the 20 Blue Dogs Boehner knows he can most count on the cross the aisle when he's most needed by the GOP. Schmidtt's "populist" is a xenophobic fanatic who worked with Emanuel to torpedo comprehensive immigration reform.

I was talking with a Member of Congress last week who was working for the DCCC and wanted to know which endangered Democrats Blue America was planning to help out in November. We went over the Frontline list and he agreed with me that almost none of them are worth re-electing because they're either unredeemably Republican and/or unredeemably stupid. At one point he said "This is like a list of the least worthy Democrats in Congress." He did try pushing Steve Driehaus (D-OH), Tom Perriello (D-VA), Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO), Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), Bill Foster (D-IL) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) but seemed satisfied that we were probably going to try raising money for Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Gary Peters (D-MI), Mark Schauer (D-MI), Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH). Schmidtt:

[T]he candidates Emanuel backed actually weren't, on the whole, all that conservative. Some are, like North Carolina's Heath Shuler, a social conservative/economic populist in a conservative rural district, or the three victors in Indiana. But the archetypal Emanuel candidate in 2006 was Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, not just a veteran but an admiral, who now represents the left in his primary challenge to party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter. According to my analysis of the Voteview database, the best political-science ranking of members of Congress by ideology [he's looking at the wrong data base and ought to try learning how to use ProgressivePunch], only 12 of the 41 Democrats elected in 2006 number among the most conservative 20 percent of all House Democrats in the current Congress-- which is to say that they are not dramatically more conservative than the caucus as a whole, even though they come from more marginal districts.

Schmidtt closes his post by extolling the virtues of Emanuel backing Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ) who has an even worse voting record than Shuler, scoring a breathtaking 20.0% on those same close-call contested votes in the 111th Congress. In fact, the only Democrats to cross the aisle more frequently on these kinds of votes than Mitchell were 3 arch-conservative Confederates, Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS) and Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL, who has now officially joined the GOP). Mitchell is exactly tied with Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL). Congratulations Rahm Emanuel and thanks for the brilliant insight, American Prospect.

Past Time To End The Demonizing Of Gay People In Politics, Religion And Society

I wish it was this simple: gay Democratic politicians are always comfortable in their skins, avoid living in the closet and are mentally healthy, while gay Republican politicians are always fearful and self-loathing, enduring a life-worse-than-death inside hideous closets and are deranged and sick individuals. There may be some truth to that but that's far from the truth.

As you know, DWT doesn't hesitate to "out" gay politicians who live in the closet and exist in a life of hypocrisy. When I see closeted legislators voting against equality for the LGBT community, I'm eager to let their constituents know what they're up to behind the scenes, the way we did with Mark Foley (R-FL) and Larry Craig (R-ID) long before they were caught, respectively, molesting young boys and haunting public toilets. Other Republicans living the same hypocritical lives who are waiting for their moments in the spotlight of national disgrace are congressmembers with homophobic voting records like Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), David Dreier (R-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Aaron Schock (R-IL), as just a few examples. I also know a very conservative Democrat, a Blue Dog, who's a closet case. Why isn't his name on this page? Simple-- as much as I loathe how he votes on almost every issue-- crossing the aisle to vote with the GOP enough to make people ask why he's even a Democrat-- on one issue he's diverges from his conservative allies-- issues involving equality and human rights for the LGBT community.

You've probably read that an esteemed old friend of this blog's, Eric Massa, is resigning from Congress, probably on Monday, with charges swirling around his head that he sexually harassed a male staffer. Hate-Talk radio host and GOP propagandist, Bob Lonsberry, has started a flood of slime flowing. There is no gay issue here, none whatsoever. I never asked Eric if he was gay or not and it was never an issue for me, even after the "story" started seeping out a few weeks ago. Why is that? First of all, Eric Massa has a 100% voting record on issues impacting the LGBT community. Since being elected, there have been 4 votes on "gay issues" (each regarding hate crimes) and Eric took a progressive stand each time. Aaron Schock, who was elected to the House on the same day as Eric, and who keeps going on TV and whining how he can't find the "right woman" while gays all over Peoria and DC collapse in gales of laughter, has a mirror image voting record-- a zero, has voted against equality each time. And the closeted Blue Dog? He voted right on 3 of the bills and on a procedural vote in between he voted with the Republicans. (Another couple like that and we'll be running a photograph of him with a cute caption.)

But Massa's service goes beyond the perfect voting record. He's been an outspoken leader for LGBT equality-- even while representing a strongly Republican district with a minimal interest in gay equality. Since he has a distinguished record as a military leader, he's been an advocate of abolishing the kind of painful and wrong-headed policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, something that institutionalizes the horrors of closetry for thousands of honorable gay men and women serving the country in the military. Last time I saw Eric was just a few weeks ago and he insisted on personally showing me a video he was very proud of, one that was broadcast on CNN while I was traveling abroad. We stood and watched it together. Please take a look.

And now take a look at a very different kind of video:



Conservative shitheads, probably predominantly the kinds of chickenhawks and bigots who populate the conservative bowel movement, are having a field day with Massa's misfortune. They're not talking about Roy Ashburn, a rabidly anti-gay fanatic Republican state Senator in California who was pulled over for drunk driving the other night when he left Faces, a gay bar in Sacramento, with a lad he had picked up there. Like Massa, Ashburn has a record beyond just a very consistent pattern of voting. He's organized anti-equality rallies. As Calitics reported on Thursday, the closeted homophobic sociopath's lust for males "was one of the worst kept secrets around Sacramento.  He would periodically appear in a gay bar, trying to be as discreet as a state senator can be in Sacramento.  He's not exactly a rock star or anything, but in a city built around state government, he's pretty recognizable."

Nor all the going closer to the root of this conservative psychosis about gay people: the latest-- as of yesterday-- sex scandal in the Catholic Church, the mothership-- even more than the GOP-- of closet queen homophobia. This one was exposed when a routine investigation of financial irregularities, corruption and graft accidentally led to a male prostitution network servicing the Vatican hierarchy, including a member of the Gentlemen of His Holiness (apparently some kind of deviant fraternity serving the anti-gay fanatic-in-a-dress, Ratzinger).

[N]othing quite compares to the reports of a gay prostitution ring that emerged this week. Citing a police document drawing on intercepted phone conversations, La Repubblica reported Wednesday that Mr. Ehiem procured men for Mr. Balducci. In one conversation, the paper quotes Mr. Balducci as asking Mr. Ehiem, “At what time does he have to return to the seminary?”

Over more than a year of taped conversations, Mr. Ehiem described the physiques of various men to Mr. Balducci. “I have a situation from Naples,” Mr. Ehiem says in one conversation, according to La Repubblica. “I have a situation from Cuba,” he says in another, continuing with “a German who just arrived from Germany,” “two black guys,” “the soccer player” and “the dancer for the RAI” state broadcaster.

Conservatives, whether in the Catholic hierarchy or the right-wing political parties around the world, need to take a good long look in the mirror and ask if it isn't long past time to stop demonizing gays and lesbians and cynically using their oppression as a divisive stepping stone to power. Eric Massa is an honorable man who may have slipped up and is doing the right thing by resigning-- unlike Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who actually broken the law, not just offended ethical standards. The Congress and the nation will be the poorer for Massa's retirement from public service. Here's his open letter to his constituents:

Two days ago as I sat reading my new annual CAT scan, having been told that the anomalies in the films may or may not be scar tissue, I decided to finally take the advice that my doctors have repeatedly given me, and that is to take care of my family and myself before my profession. After I decided not to run again I was told, for the first time, that a member of my staff believed I had made statements that made him feel “uncomfortable.”  I was told that a report had been filed with the Congressional Ethics Committee. At no point prior to this had any member of the Ethics Committee communicated with me directly-- if fact I first read it on the internet.  

I own this reality. There is no doubt in my mind that I did in fact, use language in the privacy of my own home and in my inner office that, after 24 years in the Navy, might make a Chief Petty Officer feel uncomfortable. In fact, there is no doubt that this Ethics issue is my fault and mine alone. But in the incredibly toxic atmosphere that is Washington D.C., with the destruction of our elected leaders having become a blood sport, especially in talk radio and on the internet, there is also no doubt that an Ethics investigation would tear my family and my staff apart. Some would say that this is what happens when you stand apart from political parties, which I have done. Others will say that this is what happens to a non politician when they go to Washington DC.  I want to make something perfectly clear. My difficulties are of my own making. Period. I am also aware that blogs and radio will have a field day with this in today's destructive and unforgiving political environment. In that investigators would be free to ask anything about me going back to my birth, I simply cannot rise to that level of perfection. God knows that I am a deeply flawed and imperfect person.   

During long car rides, in the early hours of the evening, late at night and always in private, I know that my own language failed to meet the standards that I set for all around me and myself. I fell short and I believe now, as I have always believed, that it is not enough to simply talk the talk, but rather I must take action to hold myself accountable. 

Therefore, effective at 5 PM on Monday the 8th of March I will resign my position as the Federal Representative of New York's 29th Congressional District in the 111th Congress. I do so with a profound sense of failure and a deep apology to all those whom, for the past year, I tried to represent as our Nation struggles with problems far greater than anyone can possibly imagine. I hope that my family, constituents, and fellow Members of Congress can accept this apology as being both genuine and heartfelt and I wish for them and all Americans only the best. I will take all actions possible to ensure that my personal health is secured in that I know that mine is a far more fragile lifeline than most. For the millions of fellow cancer survivors with whom I share this experience, they, more than anyone else, will understand the honesty and openness in this statement. 

I ask that members of the press respect the privacy of my family, my staff, and me at this time.

-Congressman Eric Massa

A Blue America volunteer was writing a letter to a TV producer about one of our current candidates and had mentioned that among our proudest achievements was having helped elect Eric Massa to Congress. She asked me if she should take his name out. I thought it would be better to put his name in bold letters. He's been a great public servant the country owes a great deal.

Why Eric Massa Supports Healthcare Reform Enough To Oppose Crappy Legislation

The first time I ever spoke with Eric Massa, just around five years ago, he impressed me for a number of reasons, his sterling, "non-politician" character being first and foremost. Once we got into discussing the most important issues of the day, I realized that this guy running for a congressional seat in upstate New York's most overwhelmingly Republican district, had more progressive, more forward-looking perspectives than candidates in far "bluer" districts. He told me there were three policy goals he had in running for office: fair trade policies that would help create jobs in America rather than ship them overseas, ending unwinnable wars of aggression in distant parts of the globe (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and reforming the way healthcare is delivered to the American people so that it is accessible to everyone in need.

So yesterday we had anti-Choice cultist Bart Stupak whining that Obama's bill wasn't anti-choice enough for his tastes, John Boehner changing tack and weeping that the bill isn't too long anymore but that it's now too short (Harry Reid told him to stop his sobbing), while the neo-fascist editorial page of the Wall Street Journal croaks that the process, which was begun in the 1940s and has been obstructed by the far right ever since, is moving too fast, and the Republicans plot to deluge the bill with hundreds of superfluous, obstructionist amendments unrelated to health or care or reform.

Meanwhile, Eric Massa has been true to the goals he espoused since being elected in NY-29 with a 5,000 vote margin over an entrenched incumbent on the same day McCain won the district 51-48% over Barack Obama. Last week Eric was filmed as part of Robert Greenwald's series, Brave New Conversations a survey of how leaders in various fields are working to make society and our world a better place for mankind. As part of the interview, Robert asked Eric about his views on single-payer healthcare, aware that, along with Dennis Kucinich, he was one of only two progressives to vote against the House healthcare reform bill. Please take a look and see how Eric came to his strong feelings about how to reform healthcare:

With So Few Gays In Congress, Is It Really Possible To Legislate Against Discrimination And Bigotry?

I was traveling back from Albania so I missed Eric Massa and his pal Duncan Hunter, Jr. when they were on CNN with Kyra Phillips on New Years Day. When I saw Eric the other day he asked me to take a look. Forget about Hunter and the stupidity, bigotry and predictable and marketable partisan anger. Hunter is just another GOP Ken doll lucky enough to have a job that doesn't require a mind. (After the "debate" he sheepishly told Eric he wouldn't tangle with him on that topic again. Hard to imagine what topic Duncan Hunter, Jr would tangle with someone on-- other than his specialty, hermaphrodites.)

When cornered by reporters on the illegitimacy of his premises, Congressman Hunter Jr. has chosen to turn on the gay men and women serving honorably in our Armed Forces and resort to homophobia.
 
He claims repealing DADT will open a Pandora’s Box, filling our military ranks with “transsexuals and hermaphrodites.” He insists that homosexuals don’t have the same discipline and moral integrity to keep them from mounting their heterosexual comrades in showers, barracks and close quarters. Setting aside the disrespectful and degrading element of this argument for just one second, the military has in place rigid policies against sexual misconduct, assault, and unbecoming behavior. We don’t need a ban on an entire gay demographic of men and women willing to give up their lives in defense of their country.
 
Rep. Eric Massa claimed Hunter is “disconnected from reality” if he believes he never had gay men serving alongside him while he was under fire in Fallujah.

I know I told you to forget Hunter. So sorry for all that. Now forget him.

The reason the clip is worth looking at is because it will help give you some insight into what leadership is all about. And that has nothing to do with a doofus like Hunter. Eric Massa and I don't agree on every single congressional vote. But its his character that makes him so much more admirable than your canned politician. New York's Southern Tier isn't exactly a hotbed of gay activism and although a friend of Ken's who is gay lives nearby, I doubt there are too many members of the LGBT community in New York's 29th CD. Even though over half the people-- if only 5% of the landmass-- of the dustrict is in Monroe County, Rochester's small but vibrant gay community is in another district. Massa doesn't even have Cornell or SUNY Binghamton in his district. Instead he has one of only 4 (out of 29) congressional districts in New York State that voted for McCain. The PVI is R +5. It was Bush's best-performing CD in NY in 2000 and 2004.

Eric is the first Democrat to represent the area in Congress since the mid-1800s. He's not taking strong, principled stands on controversial issues to pander to anyone. Taking a leadership role on abolishing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is different from passively voting for it. It means Eric is on the frontlines of a raging battle with screaming maniacs for whom hatred of gays is the center of their lives. He does it for one reason: he believes, based on a career in the military, that it's the right thing to do. Helping Eric win re-election to a very targeted seat would also be the right thing to do. But don't take my word for it. Take a look at the video below-- and then, if you agree, hit this link and imagine if we had a Congress without men like Eric Massa in it.

I Wonder How Long Before Obama Will Be Reciting The Speech Gorbachev Gave Babrak Karmal To Hamid Karzai

I've been spending some time talking with Democratic congressmen understandably nervous about how to confront the Afghanistan problem. None of the ones I talk to are for the war, of course, but some are reluctant to oppose Obama, who, they all seem to have convinced themselves, really is trying to do the right thing and does have a plan to get out in an orderly and timely fashion. They  may have convinced themselves, but they haven't convinced me.

The congressman I talked to yesterday doesn't talk that way and doesn't think that way-- and it's hard for me to think of him as "nervous" about anything. As I've heard him say before, he's been shot at on more continents than most people have been to, and his doctors once gave him a couple months to live because of a lethal cancer. Today Eric Massa, a lifelong naval officer from a military family, is one of Congress' leading lights opposing the occupation of and escalation in Afghanistan.

He was on the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee, and when he was asked to prepare a white paper on the feasibility of invading Iraq, he started it with a statement claiming it would be the worst strategic blunder the United States had ever made. He told me today that he feels Obama is going down a similar road. I've been reading Seth Jones' In the Graveyard of Empires, and Massa's assessment didn't take me by surprise... not even a little. Let me share a little of Jones' background material on the catastrophic Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The Russians' experience in the '80s sounds very much like what I was reading in the NY Times this morning. This is today:

In five days of fighting, the Taliban have shown a side not often seen in nearly a decade of American military action in Afghanistan: the use of snipers, both working alone and integrated into guerrilla-style ambushes.

...The Marine who was killed was struck in the chest as he ran, just above the bulletproof plate on his body armor, the Marines said. The others were struck in a hand or arm. (The names of the three wounded men have been withheld pending government notification of their families.) ... Whoever was firing remained hidden, even from the Marines’ rifle scopes. “I was looking and I couldn’t see them,” said Staff Sgt. Jay C. Padilla, an intelligence specialist who made the crossing with First Platoon. “But they were shooting the dirt right next to us.”

This is a couple decades ago, when the U.S. was deliberately using the Afghans to destabilize the Soviet Union and give them their very own Vietnam experience:

The mujahideen, with ISI assistance, relied on two of the oldest tactics of warfare: the raid and the ambush. Soviet conscripts referred to the Afghan mujahideen as dukhi, or ghosts. Since the Soviets were vulnerable to guerilla warfare, the local troops slowly picked them apart in rural areas through a campaign of sabotage, assassinations, targeted raids and stand-off rocket attacks. As Mohammed Yousaf acknowledged, "Death by a thousand cuts-- this is the time-honored tactics of the guerilla army against a large conventional force. In Afghanistan it was the only way to bring the Soviet bear to its knees; the only way to defeat a superpower of the battlefield with ill-trained, ill-disciplined and ill-equipped tribesmen, whose only asset was an unconquerable fighting spirit welded to a warrior tradition."

In rural areas the situation worsened over time for the Soviets as mujahideen forces gained popular support and control. The Soviets never committed the forces needed for a purely military conquest of the mujahideen, and, according to one assessment, they would have needed more than 300,000 troops to attain even a small chance of controlling the mujahideen... The Soviet troops alienated local Afghans.

What fools! Imagine an occupying force alienating the locals! Who could ever do something so foolish? Thank God all that accidental killing of women, children and other noncombatants doesn't count-- nor do those pesky predator drones that seem to have shot up every Afghan wedding since around the time a drunken Dick Cheney blasted 78-year-old Harry Whittington in the face.

Initial Soviet assessments of the war were optimistic, but by 1985, Soviet leaders had become increasingly concerned. At a Politburo session on October 17, 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev read letters from Soviet citizens expressing growing dissatisfaction with the war if Afghanistan. At the same time, Gorbachev also described his meeting with Babrak Karmal in which he said the Soviet Union would pull its troops from Afghanistan.

"Karmal was dumbfounded," Gorbachev noted. "He had expected anything but this from us, he was sure we needed Afghanistan even more than he did, he's been counting on us to stay there for a long time-- if not forever."

This is why Gorbachev believed it was essential to repeat his message. "By the summer of 1986, you'll have to have figured out how to defend your cause on your own," Gorbachev continued to Karmal, who was beside himself with shock. "We'll help you, but with arms only, not troops. And if you want to survive you'll have to broaden the base of the regime, forget socialism, make a deal with truly influential forces, including the Mujahideen commanders and leaders of now-hostile organizations."

Gorbachev's ultimatum was grounded in good intelligence, and Soviet military assessments were bleak. Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet deputy minister of defense, told the Politburo: "At the center there is authority; in the provinces there is not. We control Kabul and provincial centers, but on occupied territory we cannot establish authority. We have lost the battle for the Afghan people."

So have we-- and the sooner President Obama realizes that and deals with it, the sooner the killing and devastation will end. And who knows, maybe we'll stop wasting the billions and billions of dollars that are going for nothing whatsoever, except to make war profiteers even richer.

This is the video of Eric Massa speaking on the floor of Congress which we have up on the Blue America page No Means No:

Will The GOP Really Campaign This Year On Privatizing Social Security And Medicare?

We need real fighters for regular families willing to stand up to Wall Street and its shills

Earlier today we took a look at Wall Street's Great White Hope-- or at least the Republican version of it-- in their unceasing battle to control America: Paul Ryan. Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee has come up with a formula of balancing the budget by 2080 and it is primarily based on gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, programs Big Business, Wall Street and the GOP never accepted as legitimate and opposed from day one and have always dreamt about trashing. Now, desperate for campaign cash to exploit the unfocussed populist anger at Washington, Republicans are trying to cut a deal with Wall Street.

Republicans are stepping up their campaign to win donations from Wall Street, trying to capitalize on an increasing sense of regret among executives at big financial institutions for backing Democrats in 2008.

In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down on Wall Street.

GOP strategists hope to benefit from the reaction to the White House's populist rhetoric and proposals, which range from sharp critiques of bonuses to a tax on big Wall Street banks, caps on executive pay and curbs on business practices deemed too risky.

And what Republicans have been most successful at currying favor with Wall Street? If money paid is any indication, as we saw earlier, Ryan is way up there in the world of bankster esteem, someone they relate to as strongly as the "Democratic version" of the same sock puppet, Harold Ford. Like we saw earlier, Wall Street interests have lavished almost $2 millions on building up Ryan's political career. And they want more than just the lockstep votes he gives them for their pernicious agenda. Those same Wall Street special interests haven't been quite so friendly to New York populist Eric Massa. Wall Street pretty much ignores him-- other than flooding his opponents with cash-- and the total he's gotten in his entire career from the Financial/Insurance/Real Estate sector is $137,331, one of the smallest of any member of Congress. And watching how Massa reacted to Ryan's push to wreck Social Security and Medicare, you can certainly see why Big Business doesn't support him! He pointed out this morning that Ryan's budget outline "puts in writing the specifics of what the Republicans would like to do to address the recession-- and they start by privatizing Social Security, and dismantling Medicare. If implemented, this budget would put the full weight of this recession on the shoulders of seniors who paid into Social Security for their whole lives." That isn't the message Wall Street wants getting out there.

“With bailed-out Wall Street banks giving out $100 million bonuses, I can't understand why House Republicans also want to give them Social Security. My jaw almost hit the floor when I found out that House Republicans actually introduced a budget which would turn over Social Security to Wall Street executives and destroy Medicare. Everyone deserves to know exactly where their member of Congress stands on this critical issue and today I am reiterating my opposition to this radical plan. It is absolutely unconscionable to put the cost of this recession squarely on the backs of our seniors who have worked hard all their lives to earn their Social Security and Medicare payments. Returning to failed Bush-era ideas, like putting the retirement of our seniors into hedge funds, is exactly what we don't need as our economy begins to grow and improve.”

Yesterday Jeb Hensarling was trapped by Chris Matthews into admitting on Hard Ball that the GOP plan to end Social Security for future generations-- and that's the next step in the old right-wing strategy... persuading the public that Social Security is "going broke" and must be "addressed."

Last year, when the House voted 260-166 to retroactively prohibit TARP-assisted institutions from granting golden parachutes to senior executives and granting bonuses to the top 25 executives, only the most craven Wall Street servants voted no. Of course Paul Ryan was one of them-- as were the big GOP bankster puppets, Eric Cantor (R-VA-$3,677,585), Spencer Bachus (R-AL-$4,107,424), John Boehner (R-OH-$3,369,029), Roy Blunt (R-MO- $3,080,155), Pete Sessions (R-TX-$2,929,240), Mark Kirk (R-IL-$2,879,320), Mike Castle (R-DE-$2,684,612), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX-$2,440,100), and David Dreier (R-CA-$2,199,788), and a handful of slimy anti-family Blue Dogs from Heath Shuler and Bobby Bright to Tim Holden and Walt Minnick.

Same thing when the House passed 247-171 to prohibit TARP-assisted institutions, and housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from granting unreasonable or excessive compensation and bonuses not based on performance. Ryan and all the paid-off Wall Street shills voted no. Ditto when Congress passed 237-185 a bill Wall Street went insane over-- to give shareholders a say on pay and on golden parachutes; require compensation committees in corporate boards to be made up of independent directors; require financial institutions, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to disclose their compensation structures if they include bonuses; and empower bank regulators to prohibit risky compensation practices if they imperil a bank’s safety and soundness-- Ryan was one of the leaders of the GOP/Blue Dog obstructionism to the bill.

And in December the House passed a bill to reform Wall Street with 100% opposition from the Republicans and from a couple dozen of their Blue Dog allies. H.R. 4173 managed to get by, 223-202, and is designed to bring transparency and accountability to the financial system, reform corporate pay practices, protect consumers from predatory lending practices, foster corporate responsibility, and end Bush-era taxpayer-funded bailouts. Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Boehner lead the opposition to all these bills. They think ending Social Security and Medicare is a better way to handle the Bush-era deficits, deficits that would never have happened with their active support, of course.

Regina Thomas, a former Savannah state Senator who has a long record fighting for small businesses and ordinary working families against "special interests," is running against pro-Big Business advocate and Blue Dog John Barrow in Georgia's 12th CD. Regina has been devoted to expanding Medicare, not gutting it and fighting reactionaries like Ryan and his GOP and Blue Dog allies comes second nature to her. It's what she's been doing for her entire career. "The Republicans and the Blue Dogs would like to turn the clock back on all the protections for working families that came out of the New Deal, Social Security and Medicare being two of their top priorities. But Americans are smarter than that and we know what the Law of the Jungle is and we understand what unregulated predators do to the fabric of the society we have built with our sweat and blood over the generations. The Republicans' "Only the Strong Survive" ethos isn't just immoral, it's also been a proven failure all through history. It's bad for our families and it's bad for our country."

If you think Republicans are going to stop their class warfare-- ever-- you are sorely mistaken. It's why ordinary Americans have to fight for campaign finance reform and prevent self-serving corporate management from using their companies' money to buy elections. Every Blue America candidate is either a co-sponsor or, if not currently in office, has promised to become a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would end the cycle of campaign fundraising that allows corporations to put their puppets-- whether the John Boehners, Paul Ryans, Eric Cantors or John Barrows, Rahm Emanuels or Harold Fords-- into positions of power. If you'd like to help Regina win a House seat in GA-12, please consider a donation to her campaign here.


UPDATE: Marcy Winograd Is The Polar Opposite of Paul Ryan

While Ryan's budget calls for phasing out Social Security payments, Marcy Winograd has a much more far reaching proposal aimed not at narrow ideological goals but at solving the underlying problems facing our economy. It takes the form of new jobs legislation and would do the exact opposite of what Ryan is proposing. Marcy wants to offer seniors incentives to retire early with social security benefits at age 60. "If we used stimulus money to provide scaled-back social security benefits to early retirees, their jobs would then be available to younger unemployed Americans," says Winograd, adding, "this would be the quickest and most effective way to put a million people to work.  We need a shot in the arm to revive our economy, otherwise this recession, which threatens to develop into another Depression, could plague us for years."

Today, full social security benefits are paid for retirement at age 66, with early retirement permitted between age 62 and 66, at a proportionally scaled-back benefit level.  Early retirees do not add to social security costs because they accept permanently scaled-back benefits.  The majority of retirees accept this reduction of their benefits in order to retire at some point between age 62 and 66.
 
"It is reasonable to expect that a substantial number of workers would retire at age 60 or 61, if they were offered the same level of benefits that they would qualify for at age 62," says Winograd.  "These extra early retirement benefits would be paid for out of stimulus funds already appropriated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."
 
This incentive for early retirement could be offered for six months after Congressional enactment.
 
Census Bureau statistics suggest there are more than four million active workers who are between 60 and 62.  Within the six month duration of the program, an additional 1 million will reach age 60, bringing the number eligible for this program to more than 5 million.
 
Experience with the present social security program suggests that it is likely that 20% of these 5 million workers would accept this temporary opportunity to retire early, opening a million jobs to those presently unemployed who would appreciate an opportunity to apply their skills.
 
Payments under this special early retirement program are estimated to average $1,000 per month.  The direct cost of one million workers retiring an average of 15 months prior to regular social security eligibility would be $15,000 each, a total of $15 billion, a very low cost for opening one million jobs.  By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has projected the cost of tax incentives to business to encourage job creation at $55,000 per job.
 
An additional necessary incentive to acceptance of early retirement would be to extend existing provisions for health insurance for early retirees to those who accept the proposed special early retirement.  The American Recovery and Retirement Act (ARRA) of 2009 provides a 65% subsidy for the cost of health insurance under COBRA, through a tax credit to employers for the cost of providing health insurance to employees who retire between 62 and 65.  This lasts until they become eligible for Medicare at 65, with the retirees paying only 35% of the cost.
 
This same benefit should be offered to those who retiree between 60 and 62.  The estimated cost of this health care benefit would add approximately $3 billion to the cost of the program, bringing the total cost of opening 1 million jobs thru earlier retirement to $18 billion. 
 
"If we want to create more jobs now, rather than a year or two down the road, we need to think outside of the retirement box.  People who are sixty, who have worked their entire lives, may be ready to retire early, to spend more time with their grandchildren or learn a new language.  This Retire-Early-Give-Your-Job-to-Someone-Else legislation is a win-win proposal for all: the seniors, the unemployed, and the average American feeling the ripple effects of the economic downturn.  I urge Congress to act on this proposal without delay."

You Know Why Americans Are Unhappy About The Healthcare Bill, Right?

Yesterday's biggest news-- biggest news the mainstream media buried so they could continue talking more about how minority rights champion Harry Reid should resign for using the words, "light skinned Negro"-- isn't something Obama, or Reid for that matter, should feel very good about. In fact, both Democrats-- and their advisors and colleagues-- should hang their heads in shame. Greg Sargent's Plum Line broke the story early in the morning. It's nothing progressives following the healthcare debate didn't already intuit but it's far from what is constantly insinuated in the mainstream media.

You see, most people who don't like the healthcare reform bill, are disgruntled for the right reasons: the bill doesn't go nearly far enough to provide healthcare coverage, to control costs or to regulate the avaricious insurance gangsters. This is the most tepid and insubstantial reform imaginable, something designed-- unsuccessfully-- to get Republicans to not make such a godawful ruckus.

Well, it wasn't only designed for that. It was also designed to please the Big Insurance Giants and other bad players in the Medical Industrial Complex who Obama and the Democrats are counting on to keep funding their political careers. Is that working, you ask? Well... Since 1990 Big Insurance has given 62% of $325,222,386 in bribes to Republicans and 37% to Democrats. Last year it was 55% for the Republicans and 45% for the Democrats. But in the current cycle-- lo! and behold!-- Big Insurance is suddenly supporting more Democrats than Republicans! So far this cycle has seen 53% go into Democratic coffers and 47% accrue to Republicans. What a coincidence! And who's getting the big money from Big Insurance this cycle? Powerful players in the reform game:

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $197,600
Chris Dodd (D-CT) $165,750
Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND) $135,400
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) $130,700
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $126,450
Melissa Bean (D-IL) $123,550
Barney Frank (D-MA) $120,099
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) $113,450
Eric Cantor (R-VA) $111,450
Robert Bennett (R-UT) $107,400

It's much the same story at the Medical Industrial Complex. Since 1990 their $869,112,200 in bribes allocated to members of Congress went largely to Republicans-- 56% as opposed to 44% for Democrats. The current cycle sees a complete turn around. Either the Medical Industrial Complex has turned progressive or the Democrats have sold out. You be the judge. In the 2010 cycle the Democrats are getting 59% of the loot and the Republicans are down to their lowest percentage in recorded history: 41%. And whose palms have been the most generously crossed?

Harry Reid (D-NV) $649,975
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) $478,550
Arlen Specter (D-PA) $471,810
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $456,500
Ron Wyden (D-OR) $361,821
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) $340,510
Richard Burr, (R-NC) $330,132
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $321,300
Kendrick Meek (D-FL) $311,550
Chris Dodd (D-CT) $295,570

One name you'll never find on any of those lists of members of Congress getting megabucks from corporate interests is Raúl Grijalva, chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and one of the most tireless and unrelenting fighters for the kind of healthcare working families are asking for. He seemed frustrated with new polling from CBS. A few hours ago he told DWT that “It’s unfortunate that this reform effort has gotten away from the common sense of the American people. At this point, the convoluted response we seem to be pursuing could end up leading to a weaker system.”

The CBS poll shows that among those dissatisfied with the healthcare reform legislation "more people think reform doesn’t go far enough in multiple ways than think it goes too far."

The CBS poll finds that Obama’s approval rating on health care has dipped to 36%. But the poll also asked whether people think the reform proposal, in various ways, goes too far, is about right, or doesn’t go far enough:



In every one of those polled-- covering Americans, controlling costs, and regulating insurance companies-- more think the bill doesn’t go far enough.

Do you know any progressive blogs that haven't been shouting that from the rooftops for months? Many Democrats don't seem to want to hear it though... do they?

Since I first met him in 2005 Eric Massa (D-NY) has never wavered from his insistence that what American families need and want is single-payer healthcare. He was one of only two progressives to vote against the bill because he felt-- like most Americans seem to-- that it doesn't go nearly far enough. When we told him about the CBS poll he said, "Our current healthcare system is beyond flawed and I'm deeply concerned that the reforms being offered do not go far enough to cut costs and improve healthcare for all Americans. For Healthcare reform to truly be reform, we can't have a series of half measures which fundamentally alter the process to buy the support of a handful of Senators. The last W.H.O. survey showed that the United States had the highest per capita costs, but only ranked as the 37th best overall care in the world. Strengthening the monopolistic powers of the for-profit HMOs is not the right way forward and that's why I have been on record supporting Single Payer healthcare as the best option for almost half a decade.”

Unlike Massa, Donna Edwards (D-MD) voted for the legislation in the House, after fighting as hard as she could-- something she's continuing to do on a daily basis-- to improve it. She tells me that she thinks the House can succeed in making it more affordable with better subsidies for less fortunate families. She is also clear that this is just step one and that Congress will be working on healthcare reform next year and the year after and the year after that. This poll didn't come as a surprise to her, not in the slightest. I spoke with her last night and she said "[The CBS poll] is further evidence of what many of us in Congress already know-- Americans want bold action when it comes to health care reform that will expand coverage, control costs, and hold insurance companies accountable. The American people understand the importance of this opportunity, and I will work to convey this message to my Congressional colleagues as we navigate the process to achieve health care reform for the first time in decades. It is a call for us to do more, not less."


UPDATE: Today's Bonus Video

This is why Alan Grayson is the most beloved member of Congress... well, most beloved among regular Americans, not among the people who wish our country will fail:

Jim DeMint Still Too Scared To Debate Eric Massa

2 proud sons of South Carolina who made different decisions about what to do with their lives

South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint was born in Greenville in September, 1951. Eight years later, September, 1959, Eric Massa was born in Charleston. Two sons of South Carolina-- but on very different tracks. The son of a career naval officer, Eric Massa's life has been dedicated to serving his country. Long before being elected as the congressman from an Upstate New York district, he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and then served in the U.S. Navy for 24 years, wrapping up a distinguished military career as aide to NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark. He ran for office as a staunch supporter of working families, particularly in regard to universal health coverage and the kind of FAIR trade that encourages domestic job growth, rather than the misnamed "free trade" that has seen millions of good-paying American jobs shipped overseas.

DeMint is the product of a tragic divorce and a hellish religious education. Though a right-wing hawk, he carefully avoided the Vietnam War and military service and, after college and its many deferments, went to work doing marketing research, starting his own firm and always known to be in pursuit of financial advancement. He ran for Congress on a platform extolling greed, selfishness, dog whistle bigotry and elitism.

Now in the U.S. Senate, DeMint is the leader of the obstructionist bloc that has formed around the idea of doing everything in their power to hinder the normal functioning of government in the hope of sabotaging Obama's presidency. As we pointed out on Monday, more and more Americans are losing patience with DeMint's cavalier attitude towards the security of the country as he pursues his partisan agenda. His Democratic opponent for the South Carolina Senate seat, Chad McGowan, has called on DeMint to stop putting his politics ahead of the nation's safety. Alan Grayson and Rush Holt have deconstructed the right-wing talking points that try to project Republican national security failures onto President Obama. Massa has gone even further, calling DeMint out as a coward and challenging him to a national security debate. On the Ed Schultz show a few days ago, Massa even offered to do it on DeMint's home turf (Fox News) so he would feel less frightened. Yesterday he did a video for Crooks and Liars reiterating the thus far unanswered challenge to the chickenhawk DeMint:



Republicans have targeted Massa and he's up against a multimillionaire self-funder. If you can help this courageous American hero, please contribute to his re-election campaign here.