How High A Percentage Of Republicans Are Drunk When They Vote? Chomsky And Brooks On The GOP Base

On July 4 NY Times in house conservative establishment guy, David Brooks, penned another of his what's wrong with Republicans? pieces. Short version: Trump is Satan and congressional Republicans, for a variety of horrifying reasons, won't stand up to him. And look what they're doing to working class voters, which Brooks, identified as a "core Republican constituency." He wants to know why "working-class conservatives seem to vote so often against their own economic interests." Drunkenness? Really?

My stab at an answer would begin in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many Trump supporters live in places that once were on the edge of the American frontier. Life on that frontier was fragile, perilous, lonely and remorseless. If a single slip could produce disaster, then discipline and self-reliance were essential. The basic pattern of life was an underlying condition of peril, warded off by an ethos of self-restraint, temperance, self-control and strictness of conscience.

Frontier towns sometimes went from boomtown to Bible Belt in a single leap. They started out lawless. People needed to impose codes of respectability to survive. Frontier religions were often ascetic, banning drinking, card-playing and dancing. And yet there was always a whiff of extreme disorder-- drunkenness, violence and fraud-- threatening from down below.

Today these places are no longer frontier towns, but many of them still exist on the same knife’s edge between traditionalist order and extreme dissolution.

For example, I have a friend who is an avid Trump admirer. He supports himself as a part-time bartender and a part-time home contractor, and by doing various odd jobs on the side. A good chunk of his income is off the books. He has built up a decent savings account, but he has done it on his own, hustling, scrapping his way, without any long-term security. His income can vary sharply from week to week. He doesn’t have much trust in the institutions around him. He has worked on government construction projects but sees himself, rightly, as a small-business man.

This isn’t too different from the hard, independent life on the frontier. Many people in these places tend to see their communities the way foreign policy realists see the world: as an unvarnished struggle for resources-- as a tough world, a no-illusions world, a world where conflict is built into the fabric of reality.

The virtues most admired in such places, then and now, are what Shirley Robin Letwin once called the vigorous virtues: “upright, self-sufficient, energetic, adventurous, independent minded, loyal to friends and robust against foes.”

The sins that can cause the most trouble are not the social sins-- injustice, incivility, etc. They are the personal sins-- laziness, self-indulgence, drinking, sleeping around.

Then as now, chaos is always washing up against the door. Very few people actually live up to the code of self-discipline that they preach. A single night of gambling or whatever can produce life-altering bad choices. Moreover, the forces of social disruption are visible on every street: the slackers taking advantage of the disability programs, the people popping out babies, the drug users, the spouse abusers.

Voters in these places could use some help. But these Americans, like most Americans, vote on the basis of their vision of what makes a great nation. These voters, like most voters, believe that the values of the people are the health of the nation.

In their view, government doesn’t reinforce the vigorous virtues. On the contrary, it undermines them-- by fostering initiative-sucking dependency, by letting people get away with their mistakes so they can make more of them and by getting in the way of moral formation.

The only way you build up self-reliant virtues, in this view, is through struggle. Yet faraway government experts want to cushion people from the hardships that are the schools of self-reliance. Compassionate government threatens to turn people into snowflakes.

In her book Strangers in Their Own Land, the sociologist Arlie Hochschild quotes a woman from Louisiana complaining about the childproof lids on medicine and the mandatory seatbelt laws. “We let them throw lawn darts, smoked alongside them,” the woman says of her children. “And they survived. Now it’s like your kid needs a helmet, knee pads and elbow pads to go down the kiddy slide.”

Hochschild’s humble and important book is a meditation on why working-class conservatives vote against more government programs for themselves. She emphasizes that they perceive government as a corrupt arm used against the little guy. She argues that these voters may vote against their economic interests, but they vote for their emotional interests, for candidates who share their emotions about problems and groups.

I’d say they believe that big government support would provide short-term assistance, but that it would be a long-term poison to the values that are at the core of prosperity. You and I might disagree with that theory. But it’s a plausible theory. Anybody who wants to design policies to help the working class has to make sure they go along the grain of the vigorous virtues, not against them.

The following day, also in the Times, George Yancy reached out to the great Noam Chomsky and asked, "Given our 'post-truth' political moment and the growing authoritarianism we are witnessing under President Trump, what public role do you think professional philosophy might play in critically addressing this situation?" And he wanted to know more about this "Republican base." Chomsky's vision was entirely unrelated to Brooks'.

We have to be a little cautious about not trying to kill a gnat with an atom bomb. The performances are so utterly absurd regarding the “post-truth” moment that the proper response might best be ridicule. For example, Stephen Colbert’s recent comment is apropos: When the Republican legislature of North Carolina responded to a scientific study predicting a threatening rise in sea level by barring state and local agencies from developing regulations or planning documents to address the problem, Colbert responded: “This is a brilliant solution. If your science gives you a result that you don’t like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved.”

Quite generally, that’s how the Trump administration deals with a truly existential threat to survival of organized human life: ban regulations and even research and discussion of environmental threats and race to the precipice as quickly as possible (in the interests of short-term profit and power).

...Of course, ridicule is not enough. It’s necessary to address the concerns and beliefs of those who are taken in by the fraud, or who don’t recognize the nature and significance of the issues for other reasons. If by philosophy we mean reasoned and thoughtful analysis, then it can address the moment, though not by confronting the “alternative facts” but by analyzing and clarifying what is at stake, whatever the issue is. Beyond that, what is needed is action: urgent and dedicated, in the many ways that are open to us.

...I don’t think things are quite that bleak. Take the success of the Bernie Sanders campaign, the most remarkable feature of the 2016 election. It is, after all, not all that surprising that a billionaire showman with extensive media backing (including the liberal media, entranced by his antics and the advertising revenue it afforded) should win the nomination of the ultra-reactionary Republican Party.

The Sanders campaign, however, broke dramatically with over a century of U.S. political history. Extensive political science research, notably the work of Thomas Ferguson, has shown convincingly that elections are pretty much bought. For example, campaign spending alone is a remarkably good predictor of electoral success, and support of corporate power and private wealth is a virtual prerequisite even for participation in the political arena.

The Sanders campaign showed that a candidate with mildly progressive (basically New Deal) programs could win the nomination, maybe the election, even without the backing of the major funders or any media support. There’s good reason to suppose that Sanders would have won the nomination had it not been for shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers. He is now the most popular political figure in the country by a large margin.

Activism spawned by the campaign is beginning to make inroads into electoral politics. Under Barack Obama, the Democratic Party pretty much collapsed at the crucial local and state levels, but it can be rebuilt and turned into a progressive force. That would mean reviving the New Deal legacy and moving well beyond, instead of abandoning, the working class and turning into Clintonite New Democrats, which more or less resemble what used to be called moderate Republicans, a category that has largely disappeared with the shift of both parties to the right during the neoliberal period.

Such prospects may not be out of reach, and efforts to attain them can be combined with direct activism right now, urgently needed, to counter the legislative and executive actions of the Republican administration, often concealed behind the bluster of the figure nominally in charge.

There are in fact many ways to combat the Trump project of creating a tiny America, isolated from the world, cowering in fear behind walls while pursuing the Paul Ryan-style domestic policies that represent the most savage wing of the Republican establishment.

...The most important issues to address are the truly existential threats we face: climate change and nuclear war. On the former, the Republican leadership, in splendid isolation from the world, is almost unanimously dedicated to destroying the chances for decent survival; strong words, but no exaggeration. There is a great deal that can be done at the local and state level to counter their malign project.

On nuclear war, actions in Syria and at the Russian border raise very serious threats of confrontation that might trigger war, an unthinkable prospect. Furthermore, Trump’s pursuit of Obama’s programs of modernization of the nuclear forces poses extraordinary dangers. As we have recently learned, the modernized U.S. nuclear force is seriously fraying the slender thread on which survival is suspended. The matter is discussed in detail in a critically important article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in March, which should have been, and remained, front-page news. The authors, highly respected analysts, observe that the nuclear weapons modernization program has increased “the overall killing power of existing U.S. ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three-- and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”

The significance is clear. It means that in a moment of crisis, of which there are all too many, Russian military planners may conclude that lacking a deterrent, the only hope of survival is a first strike — which means the end for all of us.

...In these cases, citizen action can reverse highly dangerous programs. It can also press Washington to explore diplomatic options-- which are available-- instead of the near reflexive resort to force and coercion in other areas, including North Korea and Iran.

...[W]ho is the [Republican] base? Most are relatively affluent. Three-quarters had incomes above the median. About one-third had incomes of over $100,000 a year, and thus were in the top 15 percent of personal income, in the top 6 percent of those with only a high school education. They are overwhelmingly white, mostly older, hence from historically more privileged sectors.

As Anthony DiMaggio reports in a careful study of the wealth of information now available, Trump voters tend to be typical Republicans, with “elitist, pro-corporate and reactionary social agendas,” and “an affluent, privileged segment of the country in terms of their income, but one that is relatively less privileged than it was in the past, before the 2008 economic collapse,” hence feeling some economic distress. Median income has dropped almost 10 percent since 2007. That’s apart from the large evangelical segment and putting aside the factors of white supremacy-- deeply rooted in the United States-- racism and sexism.

For the majority of the base, Trump and the more savage wing of the Republican establishment are not far from their standard attitudes, though when we turn to specific policy preferences, more complex questions arise.

A segment of the Trump base comes from the industrial sector that has been cast aside for decades by both parties, often from rural areas where industry and stable jobs have collapsed. Many voted for Obama, believing his message of hope and change, but were quickly disillusioned and have turned in desperation to their bitter class enemy, clinging to the hope that somehow its formal leader will come to their rescue.

Another consideration is the current information system, if one can even use the phrase. For much of the base, the sources of information are Fox News, talk radio and other practitioners of alternative facts. Exposures of Trump’s misdeeds and absurdities that arouse liberal opinion are easily interpreted as attacks by the corrupt elite on the defender of the little man, in fact his cynical enemy.

Not that that negates the drunk and stoned theory of a good part of the base, right?

Republicans don't know what to do about The Donald; Democrats THINK they do

The Donald makes rabbit ears!

by Ken

On Wednesday, as I dared to "dream of a day when we won't have The Donald to kick around anymore," I quoted a couple of chunks from Noah's June 17 post, "Political Groundhog Day: This Time Trump Actually Officially Declares He's Running":

I expect The Donald to do well in these here upcoming Clown Car Debates that everyone is talking about. He is, if nothing else, a crowd-pleasing entertainer. His jingoism, simplistic quarter-baked answers to complex multi-layered problems, and his extensive bigotries play well to the brainwashed pitchfork-and-torch crowd that drives the Republican Party. His substance-lacking one-liners will get cheers and ratings from the single-digit-IQ GOP yahoo base. . . .

Trump says what most republicans think. He speaks for them, and he spoke for them loud and ugly in his announcement. The republican mind comes from Bizarro World, and Trump is a perfect manifestation of its bizarro code. The Trump campaign will be a farce, and let's hope the joke doesn't end up being on all of us.

Since Wednesday, I'm bound to report, an inordinate amount of "inside" campaign chatter has focused on . . . The Donald's poll surge! The Washington Post's Philip Rucker, for example, penned a piece headlined "As Donald Trump surges in polls, Democrats cheer," noting that "the flashy real estate mogul with a big bank account and an even bigger ego has rocketed into second place in recent national polls and in the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire."

Later Philip gshares some specifics (links onsite):

In Iowa, Trump is tied with Ben Carson for second place behind Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker with 10 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. In New Hampshire, a CNN-WMUR poll last week had Trump in second place behind former Florida governor Jeb Bush with 11 percent.

Trump also comes in second behind Bush in a new national CNN-ORC poll released Wednesday.

In Iowa, Trump is tied with Ben Carson for second place behind Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker with 10 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday. In New Hampshire, a CNN-WMUR poll last week had Trump in second place behind former Florida governor Jeb Bush with 11 percent.

Trump also comes in second behind Bush in a new national CNN-ORC poll released Wednesday.

Matt Davies, Newsday

BELIEVE ME, I DON'T WANT TO WRITE ABOUT HIM
ANY MORE THAN YOU WANT TO READ ABOUT HIM

Yet at the moment the subject seems kind of inescapable, for two reasons.

First, crazy as it sounds, it's not absolutely impossible that this snowflake could actually win, not just the GOP nomination but the whole enchilada. Crazy things happen. As Noah wrote in an e-mail the other day while we were kicking this stuff around:

Personally, I think that if Minnesota elected Jesse Ventura, Texas elected George Bush and Rick Perry, New Jersey elected Chris Christie, etc. we should not take Trump lightly. We live in a society where Kardashians are celebrated for absolutely nothing and even Steve Doocy can get a high-paying job.

Second, and this is a reason-twofer, the kind of appeal The Donald is having -- to the unapologetic haters of the Republican base, just as Noah foresaw -- not only reminds us of some ugly truths about the American electorate but poses serious problems for the Republican Party with regard to the 2016 presidential election and every other election the party wishes to participate in.

Here we need to back up a bit, because in quoting Philip Rucker, I've jumped over his starting points, which have to do with what Philip then refers to as The Donald's "antics," starting with the guns-blazing assault on Mexican immigrants in his announcement speech and proceeding through his hardly less inflamatory responses to the pretty intense backlash.

The comments — and many more since — have prompted an uproar among Latino groups and acrimonious breakups between Trump and various corporate partners. His outlandish rhetoric and skill at occupying the national spotlight are also proving to be dangerously toxic for the GOP brand, which remains in the rehabilitation stage after losing the 2012 presidential race.

And the sentence setting out The Donald's boffo poll results, as quoted above, Philip begins by saying, "Despite -- or perhaps because of -- such antics."

Looking at the lineup of the 50 (or is it closer to 60 now?) 2016 GOP presidential wannabes, one notes several dozen who probably wish it coulda been them, and are chafing at The Donald's mogulistic fearlessness in saying things that are part of their core beliefs and probably as much part of their personal style as of the mogul's. These are, in all likelihood, they say when they're talking strictly among intimates or known political sympathizers.

They also know, however, that you can't say that stuff publicly, at least not without a whole lot of verbal camouflage. The Donald dispensed with the camouflage and gave the base a hard-on, or pehaps what they get instead of ("even better than") a hard-on.

As Philip writes:

Trump, who claims to be worth $9 billion, has staked out populist-sounding ground in the campaign so far, railing against the impact of illegal immigrants, particularly from Mexico, on the U.S. economy and vowing to “build a great wall on our southern border” to keep them out. That message, along with promises to restrict Chinese imports and other protectionist measures, could resonate particularly well with some white, blue-collar male voters, angry over the slow economic recovery and suspicious of elite opinion in Washington.

John Darkow, Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune

MIGHT THE DONALD LIVE TO REGRET HIS FEARLESSNESS?

What's more, it's hard not to wonder whether The Donald is paying a way higher price than he imagined. The only reason I can imagine for him to have gotten involved in all these presidential campaign chat-ups is for the publicity. And while I'm sure there's ego involved here, I think it has more to do with his sense that it's a relatively cheap way to score publicity of a kind you really can't buy anyway, and since he fancies himself as king of the deal-makers, the payoff comes in the form of a growth spurt in his deal-making.

But what he has been experiencing since his campaign announcement is a heap of deal-losing. Philips hits the highlights:

Univision said it would not air his Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants; Trump sued the Spanish-language television network for $500 million. NBC­Universal severed all ties to him this week; he called the network “so weak and so foolish.”

And on Wednesday, the Macy’s department store chain dumped him, saying it would no longer sell his menswear line. Trump said the retail chain had “totally caved.” Later Wednesday, Trump’s luxury hotel chain said it had been alerted to a possible credit-card breach.

Since Philip wrote his piece, Serta has announced that it won't renew its Trump-brand mattress-selling deal. Noah passed along this news with the question "Trumpy to lose sleep?"

Is it possible that it didn't occur to The Donald when he decided to just let his mouth run free that he could make himself, and the Trump "brand," this toxic to present -- not to mention future -- business partners? Univision and NBC-Universal and Macy's and Serta all went into business with Trump because they thought they could make money together. Now they don't seem to think so. And it's not just that Spanish-speaking people are part of NBC's target viewer base and Macy's and Serta's hoped-for customer base, although goodness knows that would be bad enough. You'd expect that all the companies that are fleeing The Donald like the plague are discovering ripples of resistance expanding to wider sections of their customer base.

To put it baldly: Can the base haters who salivate at hearing Latino immigrants ridiculed and reviled buy enough mattresses to offset the ill will attaching to Serta's brand? Again Noah made an intriguing point about our boy: "The same arrogance/foolishness that caused him to declare bankruptcy for various of his enterprises caused him to lose his business deals."

Clay Jones

WHAT THE HECK CAN OTHER REPUBLICANS DO?

But that's a problem for The Donald, and I don't think many of us will shed tears for him. I'm not sure many DWT readers will shed tears either for Republicans who have to figure out how to respond to The Donald's "antics."

Philip quotes David Axelrod:

Every Republican candidate now has to calculate how they deal with him, particularly in the debates. If he says something outrageous and no one challenges him, that’s bad for them and bad for the Republican Party.

No matter how those other Republicans feel, they have no easy path.

• Many (most?) of those dozens of GOP presidential candidates who have no substantive disagreement with The Donald likely aren't happy about being forced to declare a position.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, told reporters last week that Trump’s comments were “not helpful” to the party’s efforts to reach more diverse voters. But, he added, “we don’t get to pick and choose who runs, who doesn’t.”

• And it's just as big a problem for GOP candidates, presidential and otherwise, who aren't quite that far gone but now face this immense challenge to match The Donald hate-for-hate in the battle for the hears and minds of the GOP base. Think of the candidates who are already accused of "not being conservative enough." How eager are they to make it perfectly clear that they don't share Mr. Trump's views.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala has advice for Republicans who "don’t know what to do about" Trump:

The truth is, it’s very simple. What they say to friends in private is what they ought to say to the country in public, which is, ‘That guy’s out of line.’ ”

At last count, the number of GOP presidential candidates who have made such statements is approximately zero. Of course if those gleeful Democrats think they can ride the Trump Problem to victory, they may be kidding themselves, as long as they're content to present themselves as The Party That's Less Awful Than That Other Party.

John Cole, Times-Tribune (Scranton)

#

Dare we dream of a day when we won't have The Donald to kick around anymore? (Soon, please!!!)

Macy's joins the ranks of companies cutting the cord

Ooh, this isn't quite what The Donald said originally, is it?

by Ken

There are mysteries that, even as they begin to fade from view, actually become more rather than less mysterious.

As you may have noticed, a number of companies that have had business ties with Donald Trump have taken steps to extricate themselves from the unholy grasp since his bizarre, grotesque, repellent performance announcing his 2016 presidential candidacy. Bizarre or grotesque or repellent Corporate America can live with. Possibly even any two out of the three. But put all three together, and Media Central, we've got a problem.

Now our Noah made some interesting points about that bizarre, grotesque, repellent performance. It was crafted, he suggested, to appeal to a particular audience -- the famous Republican "base," the apparent calculation being that there are sizable swaths of the American public that like the right kind of bizarre, grotesque, and repellent, that in fact are waiting to stand up and cheer for it. On June 17 he wrote, in "Political Groundhog Day: This Time Trump Actually Officially Declares He's Running":

I expect The Donald to do well in these here upcoming Clown Car Debates that everyone is talking about. He is, if nothing else, a crowd-pleasing entertainer. His jingoism, simplistic quarter-baked answers to complex multi-layered problems, and his extensive bigotries play well to the brainwashed pitchfork-and-torch crowd that drives the Republican Party. His substance-lacking one-liners will get cheers and ratings from the single-digit-IQ GOP yahoo base. . . .

Trump says what most republicans think. He speaks for them, and he spoke for them loud and ugly in his announcement. The republican mind comes from Bizarro World, and Trump is a perfect manifestation of its bizarro code. The Trump campaign will be a farce, and let's hope the joke doesn't end up being on all of us.

(Noah went on to wonder whether this would be any worse a joke than those represented by, you know, the other GOP presidential wannabes.)

And so while civilized, sane people have properly recoiled in horror at the spectacle of this sleazy, fraudulent media whore yammering about building "a great, great wall" between us and Mexico to keep the rapists, drug dealers, and criminals out, the apparent calculation is that there are people out there festering for a champion to tickle their ear canals with talk like this.

Nevertheless, if you're, say, NBC, however accustomed you may be to lying down with dogs, there comes a point when the flea count when you get up is just too high, when whatever upside there may have been to consorting with such a creature can't being to outweigh the public embarrassment he has turned himself into. And apologies like the apparent one in the Tweet atop this post only call attention to the embarrassment, because anyone who has any recollection of the anti-Mexican rants he delivered knows that "unfair trade deals that the US so stupidly makes with them" bears no resemblance whatsoever to the psychotic filth that spewed forth from his demonic maw that day.

Again, the Republican "base" probably won't care that The Donald lies every time he opens his mouth -- hell, every time he draws a breath. Their, er, "reality" depends on lies -- the real world just the way they wish it was, just the way St. Ronnie of Reagan promised them it could be. Reality, he told them, is what you want it to be, if that's what you want reality to be. And the "base" very badly needs reality to be what they want it to be, because they can't begin to cope with, you know, the real thing.

And so, as Ashley Curtin reports for "Nation of Change":

You’re fired! After Donald Trump recently revealed his rhetoric plans to control illegal immigration, NBC “dumped” Trump’s beauty pageants and confirmed he will no longer be part of the show, “The Apprentice.”

The network, which came under pressure after Trump’s controversial illegal immigration statements, called his statements demeaning.

“Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump,” the network said in a statement. “To that end, the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which are part of a joint venture between NBC and Trump, will no longer air on NBC. In addition, as Mr. Trump has already indicated, he will not be participating in ‘The Apprentice’ on NBC.”

And that's not all.

[R]ight after Trump’s speech, Univision announced it would not air Trump’s “Miss USA” pageant in Spanish on July 12 saying that “respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values.” The leading Spanish-language network, which serves millions of Mexicans and Mexican Americans in the USA, went on to say that Trump’s statements on illegal immigration were “insulting and offensive,” according to USA Today.

And now there's Macy's. ThinkProgress's Esther Yu-Hsi Lee reports (links onsite):

The retail clothing giant Macy’s became the latest company to cut ties with 2016 Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, following his campaign launch speech in which he claimed that some Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers.

In its announcement on Wednesday, Macy’s made a strong statement in support of immigrants — saying that “respect for the dignity of all people is a cornerstone of our culture” and that Trump’s remarks “are inconsistent with Macy’s values” and that his “disparaging characterizations” aren’t an accurate portrayal of Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Latinos.

“Macy’s is a company that stands for diversity and inclusion,” a statement released to CNN reads. “We have no tolerance for discrimination in any form. We welcome customers, and respect for the dignity of all people is a cornerstone of our culture. We are disappointed and distressed by recent remarks about immigrants from Mexico. We do not believe the disparaging characterizations portray an accurate picture of the many Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Latinos who have made so many valuable contributions to the success of our nation.”

“In light of statements made by Donald Trump, which are inconsistent with Macy’s values, we have decided to discontinue our business relationship with Mr. Trump and will phase-out the Trump menswear collection, which has been sold at Macy’s since 2004,” the company concluded.

There was already momentum for Macy’s to end its business relationship with Trump. Over 700,000 people have signed a longstanding moveon.org petition for the company to cut ties with Trump, a petition that gained steam after his nativist remarks. The petition was initially created in the wake of Trump’s involvement in questioning the president’s birth certificate and his stance on climate change, KTLA reported.

Macy’s move to sever its decade-long tie with Trump comes after Univision and NBC canceled their business partnerships with Trump, saying the NBC reality show “Celebrity Apprentice” will no longer support him as host. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slims’ Ora TV has also ended a project with the real estate mogul. And in the fallout of Trump’s statement, Miss Mexico has declined to be in the Miss Universe pageant.

In response to the upheaval, Trump stated on Wednesday that “clearly NBC and Macy’s support illegal immigration, which is totally detrimental to the fabric of our once great country.”

As we've already noted, The Donald is now pretending that he didn't say what he went to such pains to say, apparently under the misimpression that there's no limit to what you can get away with saying publicly as long as it's steeped in far-right-wing looniness and hatred. If he had read the fine print, he would have discovered that that guarantee isn't "ironclad" either -- properly stated, it says that "there's almost no limit to what you can get away with saying" (boldface emphasis added).

So The Donald yammers about suing, which sounds to me like more bluster, because if he feels the need now to lie about what he said, doesn't it occur to him that in a courtroom not only will everyone be under oath, but there is abundant video of him in action. So let him sue. Mostly it will show that whoever said, "There's no such thing as bad publicity" similarly overstated, meaning perhaps the more fudgeable "There's almost no such thing as bad publicity" (again, boldface emphasis added).

BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERY?

Oh yes, I started by speaking of a mystery that grows more mysterious even as the subject of the mystery begins to recede from view. The mystery I refer to is: Why the hell was anyone paying any attention to this useless buttwipe to begin with? How did it happen that there were people across this great land who settled in front of their TVs and thought, "What I'd really like to watch now is some of that feller 'The Donald' Trump." Do I really have to explain what's wrong with this picture?

Celebrity Apprentice, for goodness' sake? Except perhaps for shut-ins who had literally nothing else to do, and who couldn't bear not to have the TV on, and either weren't able to change the channel or only got the one channel -- except for them, can anyone think of any reason why anyone, anyone at all, would have watched more than maybe two minutes of Celebrity Apprentice?

It's easy to say now, "You're fired, The Donald!" But --

Oh wait, just because it's easy to say doesn't mean we shouldn't say it. You're fired, The Donald. Now please, please just go away.

Just because it's so easy to say doesn't mean
we shouldn't say, "You're fired, The Donald."

#

GOP candidates flip-flop in the breeze -- all except Scott Walker, who just lies

With a Doonesbury bonus: The deep roots
of modern conservative policy-making

"None of the leading Republicans," says E. J. Dionne Jr., is willing to offer a more fundamental challenge to the party’s rightward lurch over the past decade."


"Unfortunately for the Republican Party and the country, [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker’s careful parsing of shape-shifting counts as one of the cerebral high points of the debate among the party’s 2016 presidential candidates."

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in his Washington Post column
"The right's political correctness"

by Ken

In case you're coming late to Governor Walker's "shape-shifting," it's the lying scumbag's way of explaining that he's not a "flip-flopper," not he!, no way, no matter how often or how conveniently he may change his positions on any subject to suit alterations in the political temper of the moment. As E. J. Dionne Jr. explains the governor's position -- and I'm going to trust him, in part because I consider him a highly trustworthy observer and for the rest because I'm damned if I'm going to watch the vile sack of filth:

“A flip would be someone who voted on something and did something different,” the Wisconsin governor explained last week on Fox News. His altered views on immigration don’t count because he is not a legislator. “These are not votes,” he helpfully pointed out.

Oh.

E.J., declaring this "sheer brilliance!," goes on to note a lucky -- for Governor Walker, that is -- coincidence:

Other than former Florida governor Jeb Bush, Walker’s major rivals at the moment are Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). They have all cast lots of votes. So Walker can accuse them of flip-flopping while claiming blanket immunity for himself.

If the governor had an honest cell anywhere in his lying carcass, he could have offered the simpler and truer explanation that when he takes a position, only his all-consuming self-servingness comes into play, and never the truth, except possibly for his apparently inborn aversion to it. And as a right-winger, he has official sanction to lie, which he exercises at all opportunities except when he's cornered and can't come up with a suitable lie.

I assume E.J. doesn't feel it necessary to point out the obvious: that Governor Walker's new position on flip-flopping is utter bullshit, just like everything else he says. You either take a position or you don't, and while everyone is certainly entitled to change a position, and indeed should be encouraged to do so when they find their previous position unsatisfactory, you can't pretend that you haven't changed your position. Well, you can, but then you would be lying. Which is certainly nothing that would faze Governor Walker. It's where he lives.


At last week's Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City (which Howie wrote about earlier today), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker makes sure that none of his rivals can tell more lies per microphone minute -- and the Right kinds of lies -- than he does.

The immediate issue for the governor is his flip-flop on immigration. And this leads E.J. to his mournful observation that his creative obfuscation "counts as one of the cerebral high points of the debate" among his party's 2016 presidential aspirants. "The shortage of philosophical adventure and the eagerness of GOP hopefuls to alter their positions to make them more conservative," says E.J., "a Republican primary electorate that has moved so far right that it brooks no deviation."

And so, E.J. notes, even Rand Paul, currently best known for his one-man stand against the Republicans' official position on the national-security state (they're all for it, in case you've forgotten), "even Paul has recast his foreign policy positions to make them sound more hawkish and thus more in keeping with prevailing Republican views."

The same is true, E.J., says of the band of self-styled "reform conservatives," who seem incapable of taking any even slightly unorthodox position without simultaneously declaring their unbroken fealty to the most rightward of right-wing "beliefs," or at least the beliefs of the moment.

With occasional exceptions, they have been far more interested in proving their faithfulness to today’s hard-line right than in declaring, as conservatives in so many other democracies have been willing to do, that sprawling market economies need a rather large dose of government. Conservatives, Levin says, are “eager to build on the longstanding institutions of our society to improve things.” Good idea. But somehow, the successes of decades-old governmental institutions in areas such as retirement security, health-care provision and environmental protection are rarely acknowledged.

"Where, for example," E.J. wonders,

is the candidate willing to acknowledge that, like it or not, there’s no way that anywhere close to all Americans will be able to get health insurance unless government plays a very large role? Where is the Republican who will admit that if the party had its way on further tax cuts, many programs Americans like would fall by the wayside?

And this is awkward, E.J. points out, because "many Republicans, especially reform conservatives, know that most Americans who criticize government in the abstract still welcome many of its activities."

Yet stating this obvious fact is now politically incorrect on the right. Conservatives who condemn political correctness in others need to start calling it out on their own side. Otherwise, Scott Walker’s artful redefinition of flip-flopping could become the 2016 Republican debate’s most creative intellectual contribution.

What E.J. is again too polite to point out is that these same right-wing pols have done much to create this situation by encouraging and exploiting the hardening of the Republican base's position -- precisely because it then makes that base so poliically exploitable.

Which doesn't create much of a problem as long as your only consideration is the personal gain you can derive from swearing loyalty to what the base wants to hear at any given moment. But if in a moment of weakness you want to consider what might be good for the country or for Americans generally, well, if you know what's good for you, you'll keep your trap shut.

The comfort lies in knowing that if at any moment there's a change in the voodoo bromides the organized American crazies want to hear, you can always change your position -- as long as you don't have a voting record to answer to, according to one newly enunciated lying-scumbag theory.


IS THE SKY BLUE? OR, THE DEEP ROOTS
OF MODERN CONSERVATIVE "THINKING"

DOONESBURY     by G. B. Trudeau

[Click to enlarge.]

#

President Obama Gets Twitter Account: Racist Republican Base Goes Wild!

When the New York Times asked "Jeff Gully" about his handiwork, he wanted to know how much he would be paid to comment.

by Noah

Well, OK. I know. The republican base went wild a long time ago. They especially went wild when America elected a black man as its president. We all know where the vast majority of republicans stand on race. We've heard the "jokes" about whether the White House should still be called "the White House" and all that.

Whether it's Rancid Paul saying he would not vote for Civil Rights legislation, Mittens Romney's veiled use of the KKK's "Keep America American" slogan (he merely dropped the n), the name of Rick Perry's ranch (Niggerhead), or just the pictures of Obama carrying watermelons or dressed as a witch doctor or with a noose around his neck which republicans e-mail to each other, republicans have made it perfectly clear that being a racist is a cherished qualification for membership in their party. You don't have to point to the likes of media loudmouth Tucker Carlson or former republican politician and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. This stuff goes to the very top of the party.

It ain't just their base. The top eggs the base on, using them as shock troops in their culture wars. The base eggs the candidates on, screaming for a return to the 1950s or, even better, the 1850s. It's a vile vicious circle. They have their radio talkers and other media. They feed on their conspiracy Internet sites. Hell, we all know they even have their own FOX News "Let me tell you about the negro" TV network, all stirring the hateful stew. I'll never forget seeing Mike Huckabee and Bill-O going on and on about how President Obama is not "a traditional American," over and over again, even pointing out that he never played Little League baseball but plays basketball -- and we know what that means. Oooh, basketball! Say no more. Throw in a few extra "Kenyans" and some birth certificate gibberish too!

With such a sick environment so successfully created, an environment where racists can feel so comfortable proclaiming their racism, it came as no surprise that when President Obama went live with his @POTUS Twitter account, it took no more than ten minutes for the republican base to start hurling the contents of their fetid little repug minds at him, and, really, at everyone who voted for him, but, mostly him. Sure, they showed us what they are, but we already knew that. These are the same crowd that boo soldiers and yell “Let him die” at their debates, and shout out “You lie” from the peanut gallery that is Congress. Would it surprise any rational person if we found that some of these hateful tweets actually came from certain people in Congress, or maybe some republican governor’s office?

Here's one of the very first tweets to @POTUS from Republican World:

And another:

To be fair, and I'm always fair, this is not to say that every single republican is a racist. Some of them who by their own words and actions obviously are may even think they aren't. They will tell you to your face that they aren't, and then they vote for candidates, such as the ones I mentioned, who clearly are, by word and deed, so…

The wingnut party membership doesn't just use the N-word, in their tweets to the president. Fag and faggot also make regular appearances in the great republican tweet catalog. I guess that's not surprising when you have their World Net Daily, a popular and often quoted republican "news" site, claiming that President Obama is secretly gay and is even secretly married to a man, etc.

Oh, and then there's the cuteness of the tweet at the top of this post, substituting "Rope" for "Hope," with that lovely picture. The tweeter, Jeff Gullickson, of Minneapolis, says this tweet got him a visit from the Secret Service. His mom must be so proud; if he hasn't killed her and stuffed her in the attic. When asked for comment by the New York Times, Gullickson e-mailed back asking how much they would pay.

THEY INSIST, WE'RE NOT RACISTS!



In our society being a racist happens to get you in the door to Republican World faster. Call it the republican form of affirmative action. The reaction to @POTUS is a reflection of the essence of the republican party. You won't see a tidal wave of top-level republicans telling their voters to shut up or act more civilized. If you want to get anywhere in the republican party, you have to throw a few racist bones to the voters yourself or you will always be ignored when it comes to anything else you have to say -- and your poll numbers will tank too. You will not pass go, you will not be nominated.

Sorry, but once you've thrown that bone, you have contributed to the disease of racism and you are a racist. No excuses. You've joined up. Go ahead, lie to yourself all you want. We know what you are. "Supporting voter ID isn't racist," my ass!

Some republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, echoing slavery-era owners, have gone so far as to say that African-Americans were happy being slaves. Then, there's Rush Limbaugh's constant reference to the president of the United States as "the Half-rican-American."  Not a day goes by when some republican politician or media slime somewhere (start with Drudge or FOX) doesn't utter something blatantly racist. One could fill a 30-volume encyclopedia with their crap. It's who they are. In a way, it's a good thing that they have gotten so emboldened about expressing their true feelings for all to more easily note. If our country is lucky, the public will soon tire of them all.

WHO'S PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

Republicans will even claim that it is Obama who is always playing the race card. To republicans, Obama does not have to say a word to play the race card. All he has to do is walk in front of a TV camera and, well, see? Look, there he goes again! Just look at him!

Racism is what drives the engine of the republican party and they know it. They are masters of using the politics of white supremacy, fear, latent or overt hostility, and anxiety to motivate their base. They embrace and use it lovingly.

So the republican reaction to @POTUS was no surprise. The core of the republican party leapt at the chance to express their inner freakchild and continues to do so.

There is, however, a way to stop their vile tweets, and it plays beautifully into the twisted workings of the republican mind and that mind's love of seeing conspiracy where there is none. Here it is. All we have to do is spread the word among republicans that @POTUS is President Obama's dastardly plan to create a database of easily traceable anti-Obama people so that they can be more easily rounded up and placed in FEMA Concentration Camps.

#

"Big Chris" Christie is all but elected president; can someone explain how he's going to get nominated?

[Click to enlarge.]

by Ken

Now that the nomination of Chris Christie as the 2016 Republican candidate for president is all but official, even as the sure-to-be-virulent "hell no" of the party's farthest-right wing is acknowledged, a spell of craziness. So, for example, we have the normally cool-headed Froma Harrop imagining arguing the Large One coming to ground in the White House and arguing, "A President Christie Would Spell Tea Party's Doom."

Can you hear the smashing of tea party china? Christie is everything the right-wingers can't stand. If he becomes the face of the Republican Party, it's all over for them. To the right, Christie is an existential threat.

Huh? I think this rests on the assumption that Big Chris's huge popularity in New Jersey has been based on accomplishing something other than making large numbers of Jerseyites feel better for no especially good reason, except in the case of his Superstorm Sandy response, when his visibility sounded just the note that people under that kind of stress like to see in a leader.

Now this much I can buy:

The tea party's ruling emotion is a desire to smite those who won't bow to its high-def vision of righteousness. So Christie's promise to work with others -- including the radicals' designated enemies -- would amount to playing with the devil, would it not?

But does it really mean that he can preempt the Teabaggers by working with more moderate Republicans and even Democrats? From my Christie-watching, I see his mode of "working with others" as the now-traditional Republican one: He's happy to accept the support of anyone who agrees with him. For cripes' sake, so was Ronald Reagan.

Does anyone really believe that a President Christie could maintain 65 percent approval ratings if he accomplished nothing more as president than he has as governor of New Jersey? And I don't see much reason to think the would accomplish even that much.

I admit it's intriguing to imagine how far-right Republicans would react to a Big Chris presidency. But are we anywhere near seeing such a thing happening? Can a Republican really be nominated over the veto of the Far Right? The party's extreme wing went along, grumbling mightily, with the Young Johnny McCranky and Willard Romney nominations -- and look how well that worked out. And that was with McCranky and Willard doing everything they could think of to win the hearts and minds of the loonies.

Teabagging, it should be remembered, thrives rather than wilting under adversity; victimhood is these people's native state. It's governing that's the real challenge for them, as witness the mess they've made with their share of control of the House of Representatives, where all they've achieved is not governing. Which probably doesn't torment them, seeing as how they really don't believe in government to begin with.

In case anyone needs to be reminded of how improbable it is that Big Chris can thread his way through the nominating process, let's pretend for a moment that it's not enough that the Teabaggers hate Big Chris. As Ryan Cooper pointed out in a washingtonpost.com "Plum Line" blogpost, "Chris Christie and the Tea Party bind," there's somebody else the Teabaggers hate.

Christie may face the same challenge that has dogged the Republican Party since 2009: The GOP base’s fear and loathing of President Obama.

Christie is in a Tea Party bind. This country has elected Obama twice now. But the GOP base may well remain unremittingly hostile to Obama's entire agenda and legacy. Republican primary voters may continue to insist on total repeal of Obamacare and possibly total resistance to the implementation immigration reform (which has a real shot at passing by 2016). If the GOP nominee is going to have a chance of winning the 2016 election, he or she may have to make peace with significant parts of Obama's legacy. But can someone who does that win a GOP primary? . . .

The irony is that Christie's major strength as a Republican who has won in a blue state is also his biggest weakness among the base. If one's political movement is predicated on hatred of the president and his policies, anyone who gets liberal or moderate votes is automatically an ideological traitor. And this will hold for any plausible Republican candidate by definition.

Not quite the way I would couch it, but we wind up in pretty much the same place.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

Boehner Cracks The Whip On The Nuts And Kooks

16 Republican incumbents lost their seats to Democrats Tuesday-- Dan Lungren (CA), Brian Bilbray (CA), Mary Bono Mack (CA), Allen West (FL), David Rivera (R), Joe Walsh (IL), Robert Dold (IL), Judy Biggert (IL), Bobby Schilling (IL), Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Chip Cravaack (MN), Frank Guinta (NH), Charlie Bass (NH), Nan Hayworth (NY), Ann Marie Buerkle (NY), and Quico Canseco (TX) and Jeff Flake (AZ) was the only one of the 4 current Republican House members who gave up their seats to run for the Senate wasn't defeated. The losers: Denny Rehberg (MT), Rick Berg (ND), Todd Akin (MO) and Connie Mack IV (FL). According to NY Times reporters Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, Boehner presided over a conference call Wednesday and told his dispirited caucus that "they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years." The forced retirements of especially nasty and gratuitously truculent teabaggers like Allen West, Joe Walsh, Sandy Adams (a loony Florida teabagger who lost her primary), Todd Akin and Ann Marie Buerkle-- coupled with too-close-for-comfort wins by Michele Bachmann (MN- 50.6%), Mike Coffman (CO- 48.7%), Steve Southerland (FL- 52.7%), Daniel Webster (FL- 51.8%) and Dan Benishek (MI- 48.2%), Justin Amash (MI- 52.7%), Vern Buchanan (FL- 53.6%), Joe Heck (NV- 50.4%) and Michael Grimm (NY- 52.8%)-- will probably take some of the bombast and pigheadedness out of their demeanor. But Boehner's still got a hot, dysfunctional mess on his hands-- and an unchastened grassroots brainwashed by Hate Talk Radio and Fox that won't accept anything but a scorched earth policy from "their" congressmen.

Members on the call, subdued and dark, murmured words of support-- even a few who had been a thorn in the speaker’s side for much of this Congress.

It was a striking contrast to a similar call last year, when Mr. Boehner tried to persuade members to compromise with Democrats on a deal to extend a temporary cut in payroll taxes, only to have them loudly revolt.

With President Obama re-elected and Democrats cementing control of the Senate, Mr. Boehner will need to capitalize on the chastened faction of the House G.O.P. that wants to cut a deal to avert sudden tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts in January that could send the economy back into recession. After spending two years marooned between the will of his loud and fractious members and the Democratic Senate majority, the speaker is trying to assert control, and many members seem to be offering support.

“To have a voice at the bargaining table, John Boehner has to be strong,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, one of the speaker’s lieutenants. “Most members were just taught a lesson that you’re not going to get everything that you want. It was that kind of election.”

Aides say this is an altered political landscape that Mr. Boehner did not expect. As a result, whether the nation can avoid the so-called fiscal cliff will depend not only on whether Mr. Boehner can find common cause with a newly re-elected, invigorated president, but also whether he can deliver his own caucus.

“I just believe John will have more leeway than in the past Congress,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. “The election will matter.”

...Even so, some Republicans have issued a stern warning to Mr. Boehner that he cannot expect their votes if he makes a deal with Democrats before seeking their consent.

“What we’ve seen in the past is the speaker goes, negotiates with the president, and just before we vote, he tells us what the deal is and attempts to persuade us to vote for it,” said Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana. “We’re just not very happy with deals being baked, then we’re asked to stay with the team and support the speaker.”

Given those conflicting demands, Mr. Boehner must decide whether he wants to seal his role as an essential player in a grand plan to restructure the nation’s fiscal condition, or continue the status quo of the very gridlock voters appear to detest... Any deal with the president would probably lose 60 to 80 Republican votes, but the president would bring along enough Democrats to get it passed.

“When the president and I have been able to come to an agreement, there has been no problem getting it passed here in the House,” Mr. Boehner assured reporters, alluding to the deal struck with Mr. Obama to extend payroll tax cuts, which took Democratic support.

On Wednesday’s conference call, their ranks slightly reduced by the election, House Republican leaders presented a united front, a departure from the backbiting of earlier showdowns, the leaders’ aides admit. After acknowledging that the election had not gone the way any of them had hoped, Mr. Boehner made an ardent plea for unity, saying they could expect a good deal out of the coming negotiations only if they stuck together.

The handful of Republican backbenchers who spoke up agreed, and those included often-rebellious conservatives like Representatives Phil Gingrey of Georgia and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina.

Before Mr. Boehner went in front of the cameras that afternoon with a carefully worded statement on the fiscal talks, aides say he checked in with another figure he will need on his side, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the defeated vice-presidential nominee and the House Budget Committee chairman. He told Mr. Ryan what he was about to say and assured him he would be welcomed back as chairman, even though he needs a waiver to escape rules limiting chairmen’s terms.

Mr. Ryan then went hunting and left Mr. Boehner to deliver his message.

But even his vague comments last week about his openness to new revenues to resolve the fiscal impasse-- and about a desire to work on some sort of immigration reform legislation, in a blunt acknowledgment of his party’s weakness among Hispanic voters-- got immediate pushback from some members, including Mr. Fleming and Representative Steve King of Iowa.

Some House Republicans have latched on to their own re-elections to claim a dual mandate.

“The message from this election for me seems to be, ‘You guys keep going,’ ” said Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma. “The Senate was rewarded for inactivity, the House was rewarded for standing up for its principles and the president was rewarded for his. I was elected by my district to represent their values. I really don’t approach this and say, Now I’ve got to cave to what the Senate or president want.”

Mr. Obama has continued to press his point that he campaigned clearly on a call to allow taxes to rise on the rich. Otherwise, he has said, the poor and middle class would bear all the burden of deficit reduction.

Some Republican members appear ready to accede.

“The election was a wake-up call,” said one veteran Republican in the House. For many members, “everyone they knew hated Obama. Everyone they knew agreed exactly with them. And then we lost.”

But other Republicans see a different message.

“If you look at my own election as an example, what voters were saying is they like Obama but they don’t trust him on taxes, so they want a check and balance on things,” said Representative Tom Latham, Republican of Iowa, who convincingly beat a Democratic incumbent, Leonard L. Boswell. Mr. Obama carried Iowa.

Others representing staunchly conservative districts see no reason to give in, even if the nation as a whole sided with the president on taxes.

What Can The Right-Wing Party In The U.S. Learn From The Tribulations And The Disastrous Defeat Yesterday Of The Right-Wing Party In Iceland?

My first trip to Europe started in Iceland. Air Iceland would fly you from JFK to Luxembourg, a banking center nestled between Germany, Belgium and France, for $100. The catch is that you had to stop in Keflavik. I was delighted; it was summer and I was out to discover the world. My girlfriend and I met another couple of adventurous Americans on the plane and the 4 of us decided to rent a car and drive around the island for a week. If I can remember that far back (1969) let me ask you to remember a party you probably didn't go to but surely heard about. It was November, 2005 and the host was notorious war profiteer David H. Brooks who was celebrating his daughter's bat mitzvah at the Rainbow Room. The event cost upwards of $10 million and featured Aerosmith, Nelly, Tom Petty, the Eagles, Kenny G. and 50 Cent. Aerosmith was paid $1 million and there's no way on earth Tom Petty or the Eagles would have played for less; they share the same manager. Brooks was a big macher; he had just donated $25,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee a couple of month earlier. So what's all this got to do with Iceland?

In this morning's NY Times it was reported that Iceland had just elected it's first left-of-center government... ever. The bankster crisis hit that country early and hit it hard, very hard. I was drawn to a quote by Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson (a former truck driver and geologist who heads the Green Party, a partner in the new ruling coalition):

“What are the people of the United States mad about now?” he said in a recent interview. “It is the same poisonous philosophy that we had here, based on a lack of moral awareness and greed, and people who thought nothing of flying Elton John into Iceland for their 50th birthdays and paying him 70 million Icelandic kronur.” [$600,000]

The unrestrained "free market" greed and avarice that swamped Iceland resulted in the toppling of the Republican-like right-wing government and it's replacement with a caretaker government led by Johanna Sigurdardottir, the first openly gay woman to head a national government. Yesterday's election gave her party 22 seats, the Greens 13 seats and the right-wing Independent Party 14 seats (23% of the vote).

23%? For the political party that has dominated Icelandic politics since independence from Denmark? The number sounded familiar and I racked my brain trying to remember... and then I did. Going into the 1934 congressional elections we've written about so many times here at DWT, Republicans found themselves in the minority for the first time in decades. Two years earlier Franklin Roosevelt had swept to power promising massive change from the reactionary, corporate policies the Republicans had used to bankrupt the country and cause the Great Depression. About half the Republicans in the House had been defeated, leaving them with just 117 members from mostly hard-core GOP districts. They had learned nothing from their 1932 drubbing and greeted FDR's first two years with an unrelenting obstructionism and invective, doing their best to persuade the American people that Roosevelt and his congressional allies were a bunch of socialists. The result came in the 1934 midterms-- 23%. That's the portion of seats the GOP held onto after they were smashed down by the voters again. The Republicans lost another 14 seats, for a grand total of 103-- 23.6%.

This morning Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin at Politico have the worst possible news for the Republican Party. It's own base, driven mad by years of hate-filled propaganda, is rebelling against any Republican politicians who move towards the mainstream. The base wants the pre-adolescent, obstructionist behavior radicals and extremists like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and Hannity extol to gain cable ratings points. It works in the ratings game but most Americans hate the extremism and see through the obstructionism.

The far right now utterly dominates the GOP base. That's OK in most of the Deep South-- although even there the GOP is on the defensive, losing red congressional seats in Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Virginia last year-- but it is pure poison north of the Mason-Dixon line and in the West, where states that had supported Bush in 2004, like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, went for Obama in 2008.

Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies-- as always-- through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

"There is a sense of rebellion brewing," said Katon Dawson, the outgoing South Carolina Republican Party chairman, who cited unexpectedly high attendance at anti-tax “tea parties” last week.

We watched that rebellion on tape 2 weeks ago as Gresham Barrett, a right-wing congressman who had hoped to become South Carolina's next governor, was mercilessly booed at the Greenville teabagger party. And Barrett has dedicated his entire political career to far right extremism-- except when it got in the way of his ability to raise "donations" from the now unpopular banksters. The Republican Party, devoid of respected leadership, and stuck with the flotsam and jetsam of opportunistic hacks like Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Hensarling, McConnell, Kyl, and Cornyn, has no choice but to embrace the paranoid hate, ignorance and bigotry of its base-- and race towards... well losing another dozen or two congressional seats in 2010.