"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Today Has Been A Bad Day For Trump-- And It Looks Like He's Trying To Worm Out Of Thursday's Debate
>
The Environmentalist by Nancy Ohanian
The NY Times reported late yesterday that Señor T's "withdrawal from the second presidential debate led to the event’s cancellation. Now, three days ahead of the final debate, Mr. Trump’s campaign is demanding changes to the format and accusing the organizers of bias toward Joe Biden." Always so much drama with these people! Trump's campaign manager Bill Stepien posted the letter he sent to the debate commission on Twitter to refocus Thursday’s debate on the subject of foreign policy, rather than the six subjects announced last week by the moderator, Kristen Welker of NBC. They are "fighting Covid-19," "American families," "race in America," climate change, national security and leadership. He's accusing the debate commission that it had "promised" the debate would be about foreign policy and accused the members of "pro-Biden antics" that "have turned the entire debate season into a fiasco."
On top of that, the debate commission adopted new rules to mute "anyone" who speaks during the other candidate's turn, something that Trump has said he will not accept.
AP reported that "The commission has faced pressure from the Trump campaign to avoid changing the rules, while Biden’s team was hoping for a more ordered debate. In a statement, the commission said it 'had determined that it is appropriate to adopt measures intended to promote adherence to agreed upon rules and inappropriate to make changes to those rules."
The Commission, under attack from Trump, who depends on making a circus out of everything as part of his brand, announced that "Both campaigns this week again reaffirmed their agreement to the two-minute, uninterrupted rule. The Commission is announcing today that in order to enforce this agreed upon rule, the only candidate whose microphone will be open during these two-minute periods is the candidate who has the floor under the rules."
Rather than binding up the nation’s wounds, Trump exacerbates division. Rather than standing up to the world’s dictators, Trump cravenly seeks the favor of thugs. Rather than fostering free enterprise, Trump embraces economic principles not only outdated in Lincoln’s time, but made even worse today by a leader who lost close to a billion dollars in a single year running a casino. Rather than seeking to build on the legacy of the Republican Party’s founders, of which Trump is surely ignorant, Trump has posited a single purpose for the GOP-- the celebration of him.
As I’ve reflected on matters of leadership, decency, and constitutional norms I am reminded of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who said “a man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” Character matters. Our vote matters. The leader we choose matters. I cannot be silent, and I hope neither can you because we know a vote for Joe Biden is what is best for our country-- because America matters.
Also this morning, USA Today made it's first-ever presidential endorsement. The editors wrote that "Biden is a worthy antidote to Trump’s unbounded narcissism and chronic chaos. Having surmounted heartbreaking personal loss-- his first wife and year-old daughter died in a car crash, and his son Beau died of brain cancer-- Biden exudes decency and empathy. Ask yourself: Can you imagine Joe Biden denigrating servicemembers as losers? Cozying up to autocrats abroad? Shaking down a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent?... Biden is well positioned to repair the wreckage Trump has made of the federal government, from the foreign service to the science agencies Trump has tried to politicize. As vice president in the Obama administration, Biden played a central role in the last economic recovery and is equipped to handle another one.
If this were a choice between two capable major party nominees who happened to have opposing ideas, we wouldn’t choose sides. Different voters have different concerns. But this is not a normal election, and these are not normal times. This year, character, competence and credibility are on the ballot. Given Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, so, too, is the future of America's democracy.
For nearly four decades, the Editorial Board has stood for certain core values: truth, accountability, civility in public discourse, opposition to racism, common-ground solutions to the nation’s problems, and steadfast support for First Amendment rights. These aren’t partisan issues, or at least they shouldn’t be.
Donald Trump has trampled each of these principles, making more than 20,000 false or misleading statements, ducking responsibility for his actions, spewing streams of invective at his critics, trafficking in racial fearmongering, governing more as the leader of the red states than of the United States, and relentlessly attacking the free press.
Everything about Biden’s nearly half-century political career suggests he would do a far better job of respecting these values. “We need to revive the spirit of bipartisanship in this country, the spirit of being able to work with one another,” the Democratic nominee said in a recent speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez- 3.85 million • Nancy Pelosi- 2.42 million • Steny Hoyer- 113K • Adam Schiff- 1.29 million • Kevin McCarthy- 261K • Steve Scalise- 299K • Devin Nunes- 424K • Devin Nunes Cow- 635K
Yep... bigger than Devin Nunes Cow! How'd she get that big? Her tweets are way cool, but maybe the fact that Fox News and other neo-fascist propaganda outlets give her 24/7 coverage has something to do with it too? Former RNC chair Michael Steele, in an OpEd for The Hill tried explaining it to his colleagues: The GOP is making Ocasio-Cortez more popular. He described her as "an unnerving political juggernaut for Democrats and an unhealthy obsession for Republicans" and wrote that she's become just as effective as Señor Trumpanzee "at developing and using social media to create energy around ideas and issues that otherwise wouldn’t be given credence by either political party." He insists that Republicans "seem to believe they have found in Ocasio-Cortez the perfect kind of progressive neophyte they can feast on at their leisure," poking fun at her intelligence when she's obviously far more intelligent than they are.
Republicans have a tendency to fixate their ire (remember Hillary and Obama) in a way that’s more personal than policy focused. Consequently, if any or all of the Green New Deal is packaged as a serious piece of legislation voters could be less interested in arguments that its passage would harm a prosperous economy, stall a rising middle class and weaken a stronger defense/homeland security posture because we will have sold them more on the personality of Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a cash cow for GOP fundraising and attention-grabbing posts on social media (“socialism sucks”). So she likes to dance; I know a few Republicans who also dance, but I digress. And that’s the point: Do not digress. Instead, Republicans should lay out the case that her legislative solution (if she proposes the Green New Deal as actual legislation) is no solution, and pivot to an argument less focused on her personally and more about the flaws of her policy proposals. That will be the quickest and less costly way to remind voters of a basic fact: She’s just a freshman member of Congress. Right?
Madeline Fry noted in an OpEd for the Washington Examiner on Friday that the members of Congress met the members of the Queer Eye vast last week. She suggested 5 members of Congress who can use the Queer Eye touch.
Ted Cruz From his too-on-the-nose April Fools’ joke to his unfortunate association with the "Zodiac killer," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has a little charisma to develop. The fifth member of the squad, Karamo Brown, is in charge of culture and could help Cruz work on his likability. France, the fashion expert, could upgrade Cruz's bland Hill style. Cruz's new facial hair would probably have to go, too. Even grooming pro Van Ness, with his glorious mustache, would agree the beard just isn't working for him. Cory Booker The man doesn’t know how to make a margarita. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) just needs someone to tell him about tequila. Or, as Porowski, the food expert, would say, how not to “get stuck in a rut” with the versatile beverage. Elizabeth Warren As her presidential campaign kicks into gear, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) could use a bump in authenticity. Warren received some lampooning after she posted an awkward Instagram live video from her kitchen in December. Chatting with your husband in your home is a good way to appear down-to-earth until you say, “Hold on a sec, I’m gonna get me a beer.” She’s looking good for being almost 70 years old, but Warren needs a reminder that it’s OK not to be a millennial as long as you don’t try to act like one. As Brown would say, being vulnerable “shows that you are in tune with yourself.”
Mitch McConnell In season three, the Queer Eye cast spends an entire episode convincing a young man to find a better spirit animal. He starts out identifying as a sloth and ends up calling himself a lion. If they gave Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a makeover, the Fab Five could help him seem less like a turtle. It’s an unfortunate association, thanks to the downturn of his mouth and his perpetual look of consternation, so anything else would do. Maybe he could try a French bulldog. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez From her earrings to pantsuits, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has great style. But there’s one way the Fab Five could still help her out. If Porowski could give her cooking lessons that involved non-vegan dishes, he’d be doing us all a favor. And even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would like it, the lawmakers should leave future makeovers to the professionals.
Will The GOP Wander Back Onto A Mainstream Path? Not Likely
>
RNC... yesterday, today and tomorrow
Now that the Autopsy report ordered by Reince Priebus for the Republican Party has been studied by the media, Priebus is probably wishing he had never broken the first rule of rebranding-- never tell the public you're "re-branding." Even the Beltway's ultimate symbol of contentless, mealy-mouthed pabulum, Charlie Cook, is telling the GOP they now have 2 choices: change or extinction.
It may not be too melodramatic to say that over the next couple of years, the Republican Party faces a fork in the road. Following one path, the GOP can seek to address what has gone wrong, the narrowness of the party’s appeal, and the intolerance that has alienated so many minority, female, young, and moderate voters that Republicans have a hard time prevailing in federal races outside of carefully drawn conservative enclaves. Taking the other road could lead the party over a cliff in 2016, in much the same way Barry Goldwater led Republicans to disaster in 1964.
Meanwhile, the last RNC chairman to preside over a set of successful elections, Michael Steele, has been belittling Priebus' approach-- especially the superficial approach to minority outreach-- as a very pale imitation of what he did when he was chairman. He also referred to Priebus as numb nuts. The public feud between former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and current RNC Chairman Reince Priebus took on a new dimension on Tuesday when Steele suggested he could win in a physical fight with Priebus. Appearing on Andrea Tantaros’ radio program, Steele said that he “would clean his clock” if forced to fight Priebus with “just one knock to the head... I was laughing at some of these numb nuts after the election talking about, ‘oh, we need a 50 state strategy.’ Dude, where were you for 2009 and 2010? That’s exactly what we did.” They did? I thought that was Howard Dean who did that (before Rahm Emanuel and Debbie Wasserman Schultz came along and killed the idea and gave us a Republican state legislatures, gerrymandering galore and a GOP Congress. Anyway, "The bottom line," asserted Steele, who has publicly blamed Priebus for the GOP defeats in November, "is you've got to be focused on what the purpose and the role of the party is. The national party is too big for its own britches right now. It's centered around itself."
Priebus and his party might want to look closely at the new Gallup poll released yesterday. It doesn't just show that Democrats and independents support the progressive approach to job creation through government spending-- it shows that most Republicans do as well! "Job creation proposals enjoy widespread public support, including majority backing among all party groups, even when the issue of government spending is raised in an era when deficit reduction is one of the major priorities for the federal government. Despite the high levels of support for the job creation proposals, the political realities in Washington are such that Congress has not passed any of the proposals since President Obama first advocated many of these more than a year ago." The public waking up to the treacherous nature of concerted GOP congressional obstructionism is what Priebus and his cronies should be looking at seriously. If that happens, not even gerrymandering is going to save the Republican Party.
Sleazy lobbyists like Lanny Davis, Michael Steele & Mike Ross are needed to make sure entitled mulimillionaires like Ann Romney can get reimbursed by the taxpayers for their expensive hobbies
You probably read about how two of Washington's biggest laughing stocks, ex-NRC Chairman and media clown Michael Steele and fake Democrat Lanny Davis have started a lobbying firm, Purple Nation Solutions. DC needs another one of those, right? They'll be advocating for... well, let's face it, for whatever they're paid to advocate for. They'd be perfect, for example, for self-entitled "aristocrats" like spoiled multimillionaire Ann Romney demanding that the taxpayers pick up the costs of her dressage horse. But there's another lobbying story bubbling up that's far more interesting than Lanny Davis, Michael Steele or Ann Romney's stinky relationship with Rafalca. Republic Reports has been pressuring Members of Congress who are retiring to make their plans to go into lobbying public while they're still in Congress.
With so many corrupt members retiring, particularly Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler (who has been tending to vote even more than previously for the interests of lobbying clients much more frequently than for the interests of the poor schnooks who voted for him back in NC-11), isn't it reasonable to demand that congressman be a little transparent about their unethical behavior? This week, investigate journalist Lee Fang revealed the relationship between one of the most odious and corrupt of the retiring Blue Dogs, Mike Ross (AR) and his new world as a lobbyist (instead of a recipient of lobbyist bribes).
Last year, Arkansas Representative Mike Ross was the Democratic co-sponsor of an amendment to delay the US Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, which would curb the amount of soot and other dangerous chemicals released by industry. Regulators estimate that the rule could prevent 520 premature deaths in Arkansas every year, particularly because the state borders regions in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere that are home to industries producing high levels of air pollutants.
And just a month ago, Ross, who is retiring from Congress after this term, announced that he will be joining one of the groups leading the charge to lobby against the EPA rule. Starting next year, Ross will be the “Senior Vice President for Government Affairs” at Southwestern Power Pool, a nonprofit that represents several coal-powered utility companies.
Southwestern Power Pool has filed multiple comments and letters demanding that the EPA delay and relax its Cross-State Air Pollution rule.
In one sense, Ross should be applauded for his transparency in revealing his future job to the public. Ordinarily, such job agreements must only be disclosed to the House Ethics Committee. But the arrangement with Southwestern Power Pool raises the possibility that Ross’ legislative activity could have been unduly influenced by the prospect of a high-paying job.
...Although Ethics rules attempt to prevent any quid-pro-quo bribery, there have been virtually no enforcement actions on congressmen moving through the revolving door. And there are literally dozens of examples of lawmakers working to benefit individual companies or industries, before retiring and becoming high paid employees of or lobbyists for those same industries. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) blocked crucial aspects of financial reform legislation before becoming an employee of Goldman Sachs. Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) earmarked tens of thousands of dollars to groups that now retain him as a lobbyist.
For sheer entertainment value, the folks picking the new RNC chair have some formidable history to live up to
>
Remember the last time the RNC tried to pick a chairman?
by Ken
I know, I know, I've got the late-night slot where I might once have slipped a "Comedy Tonight" item clogged up with all this Thurber stuff. Still, we have to take note of the exciting news that Michael Steele has decided to run for reelection as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Woo-hoo!
Probably you're thinking, "But he'll be a shoo-in, won't he? Isn't he, after all, the architect of the Republican Resurgence? Just the way Master Rahm Emanuel masterminded the Dems' House emergence from walking-wounded minority status to that rollicking majority? (And then to, uh . . .)"
Aaron Blake reports for washingtonpost.com's "The Fix" that RNC members who participated in a conference call in which our Mikey announced his long-awaited decision confirmed it to The Fix.
The embattled chairman had been weighing whether to seek another term after an election cycle in which Republicans made substantial gains but major financial problems beset the committee, leaving it unable to fully fund its usually formidable get-out-the-vote operation. The committee also enters the 2012 campaign -- where it will play a prominent role in backing a presidential nominee -- in significant debt.
Five candidates had already announced their intention to run, regardless of Steele's decision. All of them have emphasized their ability to put the committee's finances into order, and many have indirectly alluded to the problems facing the RNC.
Steele recently saw several of his his top supporters jump on board with one of his potential opponents and a former ally, Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.
The other declared candidates are former RNC official Gentry Collins, who officially got in the race Monday, former RNC co-chairwoman Ann Wagner, former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis and former RNC official Maria Cino.
The 168-member RNC will choose its next chairman in January at its winter meeting.
Steele appears to face an uphill battle, even as a sitting chairman. A multi-ballot process means he will need to obtain at least half the vote eventually.
Anyone who recalls the titanic battle out of which our Mikey emerged as RNC chair (here's one of Howie's posts from that time) knows the potential for rip-roaring hilarity here, what we might call country-club-racist street theater. Get out your seltzer bottles, Bozos!
There are assholes & there are assholes, but The Cooch is in a category of his own
You know people aren't just disappointed and disillusioned with Obama because he keeps caving in to the Republicans and letting them have their way-- possibly also his way-- on furthering the concentration of the nation's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer wealthy families. His "compromise" with McConnell wouldn't have come as a surprise to any thoughtful DWT readers, since we pointed out all through 2007 that his short Senate voting record was something like Max Baucus', Joe Lieberman's and Blanche Lincoln's, slightly to the left of Ben Nelson-- but to the right of the heart and soul of the Senate Democats, a group not known for an abundance of either heart or soul. Obama's voting record was always dead center in the Senate, not dead center of the Democrats, dead center of a body that included extremists like Jim DeMint, Jim Bunning, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Jim Inhofe, Richard Burr, Jim Bunning, Sam Brownback, David Vitter... Hillary was a middle-of-the-road Democrat; Obama was a middle-of-the-road senator-- big difference. Yes, he always had a conservative bent, not something he pushed too hard during the Hope and Change campaign, which allowed us all to read whatever we wanted into it. Perhaps if more Democrats like Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (and Bernie Sanders, of course) had the guts to stand up to Obama and his Conservative Consensus, the nation might be headed in a different direction. This is what Merkley had to say about the Obama-McConnell take giveaway to the rich today:
“I have very strong concerns about the tax proposal before us and cannot support moving forward on the package as it now stands.
“This plan will add nearly a trillion dollars to the debt. Additional borrowing on that scale should only be undertaken if it is critical to getting Americans back to work in the short term or rebuilding our economic foundations for the longer term. However, major components of the package-- particularly bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires-- have been consistently found to be among the least effective in terms of job creation.
“There are some good parts of this bill-- I strongly support and have voted for tax cuts for working families and continuation of unemployment benefits. That is why it is so disappointing that these proven and popular measures are paired with ineffective tax cuts for the very wealthiest in America. And it is even more disappointing to know that our children and grandchildren will be paying off those debts for years to come.
“I had hoped there would be a chance to improve this package to strengthen Social Security and ensure that we include initiatives that are proven to create jobs-- such as investments in energy efficiency. But it is now appears that we will not be able to do that. Instead, what we have here is the easiest compromise, but it is far from the best. And it will continue too many of the policies that drove our nation into record debt even while middle class families lost homes, jobs and savings.
“I cannot support legislation that will do so little to create jobs and help working families, yet cost our nation so much.”
[UPDATE: Only 15 senators stand up against the Conservative Consensus. They are Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, Sherrod Brown, D-OH, Tom Coburn, R-OK, Jim DeMint, R-SC, John Ensign, R-NV, Russ Feingold, D-WI, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, Kay Hagan, D-NC, Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Carl Levin, D-MI, Bernie Sanders, I-VT, Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Mark Udall, D-CO, and George Voinovich, R-OH. Neither Merkley nor Wyden voted, canceling out each other's votes.] And here's someone with his head screwed on right who Obama ought to pay more attention to... but won't:
After the vote, Senator Sanders made this statement:
“It makes no sense to me to provide huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires while we drive up the national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. I further object strenuously to the lowering of rates on the estate tax, which only benefits the top 0.3 percent, the very, very wealthiest people in this country. I also am concerned about a significant precedent which diverts $112 billion in payroll taxes away from the Social Security trust fund. Our goal now must be to strengthen Social Security, not weaken it. Of course we must extend unemployment benefits and the tax breaks that the middle class desperately needs, but in my view we could have and should have negotiated a much stronger agreement.”
The right wing hack Bush appointed to the federal judiciary, Henry Hudson, found a way to moot Obama's one significant accomplishment, signing a half-baked excuse for healthcare reform. Had Obama gone the progressive route-- single payer-- instead of the conservative route he took, there might have been a compromise in the middle-- a public option-- which this judge couldn't have so easily struck down. Now the whole system Obama tried to build won't work. I mean requiring the public to buy private plans doesn't even sound constitutional to me. On the the other hand, were it a public plan... well, that's what Social Security and Medicare are.
House Ways and Means Chair Sander Levin tried explaining the mandate this morning, perhaps in the hope Obama decides to not just fold his cards immediately (the way his senatorial brother, Carl thinks Obama is doing in regard to repealing DADT) and ask Wall Street to write a healthcare bill.
“A quality health care system for all Americans is built on the premise that responsibility is shared between employers, the government, and the individual. Fourteen similar cases have been dismissed or decided in favor of the Affordable Care Act, recognizing the importance of a functioning, affordable health care market, and I am confident that after review at the appellate level this case will also be decided in favor of the Affordable Care Act.”
And Then There's That Whole Conservative Consensus Around Trade And Destroying U.S. Jobs
So... aside from caving on taxes and the national security state, Obama has also been a catastrophic disappointment to actual progressives-- again, something that isn't necessarily identical to being a Democratic Party supporter, the way Bobby Bright, Travis Childers and Ben Nelson, to pick 3 random homophobic, anti-Choice, anti-union, anti-healthcare fanatics, are-- in his views on trade. Like Clinton he's a supporter of so-called "free" trade rather than Fair Trade. His South Korean free trade agreement, like his and McConnell's tax "compromise" is music to the ears of Big Business and the wealthiest families who have been busy consolidating more and more of the nation's wealth.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing has been very supportive of Democratic policies this year-- and very pro-Obama. I was intrigued to find a blog post from them today showing some push back against Obama's conservative consensus free trade policies, although they focused on India rather than Korea.
In April 2009, we reported on the controversy surrounding subsidized Indian steel pipe being imported for the TransCanada Keystone pipeline. Not only was the unfairly subsidized pipe being used at a time when U.S. manufacturers of steel pipe stood ready to produce the same pipe, but there were concerns about the structural safety of the imported pipe.
Not surprisingly, TransCanada is now digging up 10 sections of the $5.2 billion crude oil pipeline, including one in Missouri, after "government-ordered tests identified possibly defective steel may have been used in the construction." All 10 sections of pipe currently being tested were manufactured in India.
In an editorial at the time, Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) Executive Director Scott Paul explained why it makes sense to use safe, high-quality American steel pipe:
The pipe for TransCanada's oil pipeline project should have been made in America. But TransCanada chose the low road and selected the subsidized Indian pipe for the vast majority of the project...it's not too late for TransCanada to make the right call on its new Keystone XL pipeline. And it's not too late for federal, state, and local officials to tell TransCanada that if the company wants to secure permits and right-of-way, they need to make the pipe in America...India subsidizes its steel and should be held to account. Other countries that cheat should understand the consequences.
I don't think that teachable moment is part of the Obama agenda. Is Obama better than any of the Republicans eyeing White House runs? Yes, any of them; all of them. No doubt about it. Does that make him an acceptable president? Is a D better than an F? Sure. Isn't it time we aspire to getting an A for a president?
A Glimmer Of Hope For Democrats Today-- The Return Of Michael Steele
Yes, after everyone just writing him off as fading away into a lobbying firm, the RNC's ill starred cahirman, Michael Steele, is back! Or, at least, he plans to run for a second term. It's hard to imagine he'll actually win, but what fun it will be to watch the mayhem! Wily as ever, he says he was just playin' possum, trying to flush out his competitors. Norm Coleman didn't jump in yet but Saul Anuzis, Reince Priebus, Anne Wagner, Gentry Collins and Maria Cino all have, to one degree or another. Something tells me there are going to be a lot of hard feelings now.
Guns, Guns, Guns... Guns R Us
And let's close out today's Streams with a little something with an international flavor-- the problem in Mexico. At least in part, as the Mexicans have been telling us patiently for years, the problem is the U.S., or at least American gun nut power. Remember, there was a time-- and not so very long ago-- when virtually all non-right-wing Democrats and many mainstream conservative Republicans took responsible gun control seriously. That's gone now as gun control policy has been ceded to the NRA. It's destroying Mexican civil society.
As an unprecedented number of American guns flows to the murderous drug cartels across the border, the identities of U.S. dealers that sell guns seized at Mexican crime scenes remain confidential under a law passed by Congress in 2003.
...Drug cartels have aggressively turned to the United States because Mexico severely restricts gun ownership. Following gunrunning paths that have been in place for 50 years, firearms cross the border and end up in the hands of criminals as well as ordinary citizens seeking protection.
...What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south - AR-15s, AK-47s, armor-piercing .50-caliber weapons - and the savagery of the violence. Federal authorities say more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years, helping fuel the violence that has contributed to 30,000 deaths. Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to Washington in May and urged Congress and President Obama to stop the flow of guns south. U.S. law enforcement has ramped up its focus on gun trafficking along the southwestern border. Arrests of individual gunrunners have surged. But investigators rarely bring regulatory actions or criminal cases against U.S. gun dealers, in part because of laws backed by the gun lobby that make it difficult to prove cases.
Gun lobby propaganda insists that the Mexican gun problem all comes from Central America, a complete and shameless fabrication. Guns from the United States "have been feeding the violence and overwhelming firepower being unleashed by drug traffickers," said Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States. "We need to defang drug trafficking organizations of these high-caliber and semiautomatic and automatic weapons, and we need to do it now.
Does Rush Limbaugh Still Run The Republican Party?
>
Penny Nance is an unhinged fanatic from the dark fringes of the American Taliban. She heads the hate group Concerned Women for America, which is only concerned with a kind of cultish extremism that has no place in America. She would however have felt right at home as a leader of the Bund Deutscher Mädel (the League of German Maidens), the Werk Glaube und Schönheit (the Belief and Beauty Society), the Frauenwerk or any of the organizations that made up the Nazi Women's League headed by the Penny Nance of her day, Gertrud Scholtz-Klink. When Hitler insisted that for the German woman her "world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home" he was perfectly in tune with the Taliban-- the one in Afghanistan, the one in Saudi Arabia and, of course, the one right here in America.
Wednesday Nance was savaging Michael Steele and demanding he resign as head of the RNC. She argues that "The new RNC chairman needs to be both a fiscal and social conservative, and must represent the party in a professional and engaging way... There is simply too much at stake for the Republicans to keep Michael Steele as the RNC chairman. If the party wants to maintain its gains among conservatives and independents, the GOP needs to start gearing for the 2012 election now. There is no time to waste on party politics and the crisis communications that have been commonplace at the RNC since Steele took over."
While the GOP picked up historic numbers of seats in this past election, it was in spite of, not because of, Michael Steele. In an unbelievable, and oftentimes comical, reign of just two years as RNC chairman, Steele managed to embarrass his party through his gaffe-prone media appearances. He was specifically tasked with helping to bring African-Americans into the party, but when asked if there were any good reasons why they should vote Republican, Steele said they don’t really have a good reason. He also flip-flopped on his opposition to abortion during an interview with GQ Magazine and slammed conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, resulting in an embarrassing showdown (which Steele lost).
It wasn't as stinging towards Steele as the resignation letter from his own former political director, Gentry Collins (real name) but then again, Nance isn't running for RNC head the way Collins is (not to mention ex-Michigan GOP leader Saul Anuzis, Maria Cino (one of Boehner's favorite lobbyists), Ann Wagner, Norm Coleman, Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan, Connecticut GOP Chairman Chris Healy, California GOP Chairman Ron Nehring, some KKK leader from South Carolina and half a dozen other kooks and nuts).
But it's funny that Nance brought up the Rush Limbaugh incident. Remember how the feisty Steel reacted when someone pointed out on CNN that Rush Limbaugh is the de facto head of the Republican Party? Steele went nuts, insisting: “I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party... Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.” You probably remember what happened next, since it has been repeated ad infinitum by Republican toadies who forgot someone might be listening. Dave Neiwert and John Amato captured it in their most recent book, Over The Cliff:
The next day, Limbaugh launched a brutal verbal assault on Michael Steele:
"I’m not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don’t want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I’m in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it’s in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it’s in, I would quit... Republicans and conservatives are sick and tired of being talked down to, they’re sick and tired of being lectured to. And until you show some understanding and respect for who they are, you’re gonna have a tough time rebuilding your party."
Steele, too, abjectly apologized, telling Politico in a telephone interview: “My intent was not to go after Rush-- I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh... I was maybe a little bit inarticulate...There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.” Meanwhile, there were whispers from anonymous “Republican advisers to Congress” that unless Steele shut his trap, there would be a special session of the RNC to remove him. Steele said no more about Limbaugh, other than to praise him.
And as Amato and Neiwert pointed out, Steele is far from the only Republican politician who grovels in front of Limbaugh. There was a really funny dust-up between Limbaugh, Boehner and one of Boehner's lackeys:
Representative John Boehner of Ohio, in an interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, denied that his ideas came from Limbaugh: “I like Rush, but, he’s a talk show host, and I’m in the policy-making business.”
Limbaugh responded by blasting him as weak: “He’s [Obama is] obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell.
He is more frightened of me than he is of, say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party.”
Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia came to Boehner’s defense in these remarks to Politico:
I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of thing.
The next morning, Gingrey issued a retraction, declaring that he saw “eye to eye with Rush,” and that afternoon was on Limbaugh’s show, abjectly apologizing:
"Rush, thank you so much. I thank you for the opportunity, of course this is not exactly the way I wanted to come on... Mainly, I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico... I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments... I regret those stupid comments."
I wonder if they'll run all the bills they try to pass by Limbaugh before they introduce them. I just ran across this wonderful old video from a couple years ago that seems to be as relevant as anything right now, especially on a nice quiet Black Friday like today:
Bush Ranked Worst President In Modern Times-- But Will Obama Catch Up Soon?
>
Don't look for Bush or Obama here anytime soon-- and I won't look for a unicorn
A poll of 238 presidential scholars is different from a poll of a bunch of brainwashed Fox viewers and Limbaugh fans. It's also different from a consensus of DWT readers-- though not that different. George W. Bush, of course, ranks as the worst president in contemporary times-- but that could change.
For the fifth time since its inception in 1982, the Siena College Research Institute’s (SRI) Survey of U.S. Presidents finds that experts rank Franklin D. Roosevelt as the top all time chief executive. The 238 participating presidential scholars round out the top five in order with Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Teddy Roosevelt had, more than any other president the “right stuff,” and tops the collective ranking of a cluster of personal qualities including imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck, background, and being willing to take risks. Lincoln, according to the experts, demonstrated the greatest presidential abilities while FDR ranks first in overall accomplishments.
...The current president, Barack Obama, while highly rated on imagination (6th), communication ability (7th) and intelligence (8th) scores poorly on background (family, education and experience) and enters the survey in the 15th position. George W. Bush, had entered the survey at 23rd when the study was last conducted one year into his first term. Today, just one year after leaving office, the former president has found himself in the bottom five at 39th rated especially poorly in handling the economy, communication, ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence. Rounding out the bottom five are four presidents that have held that dubious distinction each time the survey has been conducted: Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce. Andrew Johnson leads the ‘worst ever’ in both abilities and accomplishments finishing below both Buchanan and Harding, but Harding tops the worst in personal attributes including integrity where he finishes just slightly ahead of Richard M. Nixon.
So what about Obama-- worse than Bush? That'll be up to history, not us, and it's still too early to say. He could turn out to be as good as FDR. I'm betting, though, that it's just as likely that my friend Cynthia will bring me a unicorn today as that happening. More likely, Obama's austerity commission, stacked (by him) with men and women fully committed to keeping taxes on the rich unfairly low, will give a lame duck Congress the opportunity to do what the ruling elite never accomplished with Bush-- the destruction of the program that has made FDR #1 forever: Social Security.
Yes, Obama inherited a horrible economic mess-- among other things-- from Bush and from almost 3 decades of conservative rule. It looks like people who voted for that Hope and Change thing are seeing little or either in his first year and a half in office-- nor many impulses in those directions. He seems as reliable a handmaiden of the ruling elite or Military Industrial Complex as the Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, etc. He didn't seem to have the instinct to really go in for the kinds of systemic changes needed to save the economy or even prevent a double-dip recession (or worse). And just like it took a Cold Warrior of Nixon's stature to "get away with" opening up to Communist China, after Bush's failure to gut Social Security and stamp in cement the right of the wealthiest to pay virtually no taxes, the ruling elite figures they need a "socialist" like Obama to do the job for them.
Like we mentioned the other day-- and despite desperate (or self-assured) pleas from plutocrats like Michael Bloomberg to not tax the rich-- the obvious first step towards solving the country's fiscal problems is not to tank the economy with more of the failed conservative nostrums that have brought it so far down and not to enforce some kind of godawful myths of austerity on the backs of productive working people, but to go back to the days when wealthy social parasites paid their fair share.
I have a modest proposal. How about if we hold off on all this stuff for a minute? Just stop everything for one minute here, and let's try something that makes sense. Everybody pays-- through withholding-- a small payroll tax (FICA) to fund Social Security, providing benefits for retirees, the disabled, and minor children of deceased workers. This is the major portion of income tax for most Americans-- like over 75% of us. But this tax is not paid on any income over $106,800 (gross) and not paid on any income from stocks or bonds. If someone makes $20,000,000 a year they pay the same percentage as someone who makes $20,000 a year: 6.2% on $106,800-- $6,621.60. If a more typical American family with two incomes-- a husband making $53,000 and a wife making $53,000, say-- they pay the same thing as the guy making $20,000,000 a year. If Rchie Rich were paying his fair share ($1,240,000) there would be no crisis, That's why rich people hire lobbyists and buy corrupt politicians-- whether we're talking about virtually the entire GOP, but especially the wheeler-dealers like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Raul Ryan, and Joe Barton, or Democrats like Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Blue Dogs and Steny Hoyer who operate just like them-- and whose careers they finance. Let's end the $106,800 cut off on taxes and let the wealthy pay their fair share, see if that works out and then talk about austerity and budget deficits after that.
I'm not buying into Bloomberg's-- or any other billionaire's-- line that the "first rule is don't tax the rich. And while Obama seems to be in sync with the worst of our political elite in their devotion to the real rulers of America-- the ones who finance the careers of politicians of both parties-- he is presiding over the disappearance of the safety net for regular Americans, you know, the one that has gotten FDR rated #1 forever.
In just one week and in just one state-- last week in Missouri-- more than 8,300 people fell through the unemployment insurance safety net.
Actually, their nets were removed.
The result: Those who have lost jobless benefits already are turning in greater numbers to food pantries and other emergency aid programs, both government and nonprofit.
"We're hearing from more people needing assistance," said Ron Howard, spokesman for the United Way of Greater Kansas City. "Our 2-1-1 call center is seeing an increase in calls, especially from first-time callers.
"Without a doubt, the loss of that unemployment check is a contributing factor."
Loss of jobs and jobless benefits also is contributing to a rise in applications for Social Security disability payments from unsuccessful job hunters.
That search for subsistence funds revved up last month after the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have included more than $35 billion to fund another extension of emergency unemployment assistance.
And then there's that Afghanistan thing, a war that Michael Steele stumbled into saying is a failed war of Obama's choosing. Watch the video; it's quite amazing. Does this sound like a Republican? "Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan." It doesn't. In fact, it sounds like Jerry Nadler (D-NY):
“I don’t think that too many historians would disagree today that the war in Vietnam was a tragic mistake. It did not enhance the security of this country by one bit because it was based on a false premise.
“Afghanistan is the same. Every dollar we spend, every life we sacrifice there, is a tragic waste. It does not enhance the security of the United States, which should be our goal. We were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had bases in Afghanistan; it made sense to go in and destroy those bases, and we did. We have every right, we have every duty to destroy bases that are being used to plot attacks on the United States. But the CIA tells us that there are fewer than one hundred Al Qaeda personnel now in all of Afghanistan-- their bases are in Pakistan, but we are not invading Pakistan. They have bases in Somalia and Yemen, but we are not invading Somalia and Yemen.
“An intelligent policy might be to attack the bases from which mayhem is being plotted against the United States, wherever they are. An intelligent policy is not to try to remake a country that nobody since Genghis Khan has managed to conquer. What makes us think, what arrogance gives us the right to assume, that we can succeed where the Moguls, the British, the Soviets, failed? No government in Afghanistan, no government in Kabul, has ever been able to make its writ run and rule the country.
“Why have we undertaken to invent a government that is not supported by the majority of the people, that is corrupt, and to impose it on the country? Afghanistan is in the middle of what is, at this point, a 35 year civil war. We have no business intervening in that civil war, we have no ability to win it for one side or the other, and we have no necessity to win it for one side or the other. This whole idea of counter-insurgency, that we are going to persuade the people left alive after our firepower is applied, to love the government that we like is absurd.
“It will take tens of years, hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives if it can be done at all, and we don’t need to do it. It’s their country. If they want to have a civil war, we can’t stop them. We can’t choose the rulers that they have, we don’t have to like the rulers that they have, we don’t have to like their choices. It’s not up to us.
“Aside from making sure that specific bases are not being used against us, we should not be spending a nickel, we should not be wasting a life. And the lives that are being sacrificed in Afghanistan by our brave men and women are being wasted, because they are being spent in pursuit of an unintelligent, unthought-through, unachievable, and unnecessary goal.
“At this point, we must recognize that rebuilding Afghanistan is both beyond our ability, and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorists from attacking the United States.
“To continue so bad a policy at so high a cost is quite simply unconscionable. It is unjustifiable to sacrifice more money and more lives this way, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let’s bring our troops home.”
And, by the way, Cynthia came over and left-- no unicorn today. Now I'm leaving for the funeral of an old friend. I'm betting he's as likely to rise from his grave as Obama is to turn out to be anything more than as mediocre a president as the whole pathetic lot since Eisenhower and JFK.
Palin Lends Her Credibility To Steele As The First State Party Chair Demands He Resign
>
Yesterday Sarah Palin voiced support for one of the Democrats' bets hopes for winning in November-- she wants Michael Steele to keep his job as RNC Chair. So do most Democrats. Palin, well-known as someone who quits her own jobs when the going gets tough-- or when there's more money to be made off in another direction-- says Steele's her guy. "I support Michael Steele," she said."I think he's doing a great job. Michael Steele is an outsider. The machine, I think, is tough to penetrate... I think it's been good to have an independent outsider trying to create some change in the Republican Party." Most Republican Party officials disagree and want him out... asap.
ormer Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a possible 2012 presidential candidate, said Wednesday that Steele needs to address the "disarray" at the RNC.
Republican leaders in Congress have also chastised Steele. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Hill in an interview last month that he only talks to Steele "every month or two," adding that Steele has no role in the House GOP's 2010 version of the 1994 "Contract with America." House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in January publicly chided Steele for holding an RNC retreat in Hawaii.
Palin has an increasingly low favorability rating, even among Republicans, although far right extremists, non-thinkers who fall for the Limbaugh and Glenn Beck trained seal acts, actually still think she's swell. Only 43% of admitted Republicans view her favorably and among all Americans that drops precipitously to 24%. (Yes, she could win a GOP primary and go on to an historic general election wipeout. I wonder if Steele will support her.)
No Republican Senate incumbent is more endangered than Richard "Bank Run" Burr in North Carolina, where voters are looking for a change from the floundering obstructionist Neanderthal most of them are embarrassed about. Yesterday he had his pet state party chair, Tom Fetzer, call on Steele to step down as national chairman. "I believe," wrote the pompous Fetzer, "that the best service you can render to your party at this critical juncture is to graciously step aside and allow the party to move on from this current quagmire." Fetzer's the first state chairman to publicly call for Steele's resignation. Most of them feel the same way but fear that Steele will label them racists if they do who claims he's being crucified for doing the same kinds of things white Republicans always get away with. After all, serial hooker higher David Vitter (R-LA) and scandal-clouded C-Street cultist John Ensign (R-NV) have both refused to resign and their behavior is way over the line into the criminal side of the street. And then there's Pete Sessions (R-TX), head of the NRCC. Watch for yourself (although make sure there are no minors in the room):
UPDATE: Steele Won't Resign
Steele has no intention of going quietly and he has allies. Although 20 State Party leaders refused to sign it, CA GOP chair Ron Nehring circulated a pro-Steele letter at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference yesterday and today. I guess the signers are all part of the lesbian bondage GOP caucus... or maybe they just support corruption in any form.
Playing The Racist Long Enough Will Actually Make You A Racist
>
Mona Charen, a third-rate right-wing hack from the '80s, reared her head last night to implore Michael Steele to go-- and go quietly. "Go quietly" means stop telling everyone that the GOP is a racist party and that no one likes you because you're black. "Now," now pontificates wealthy, Jewish Mona, "with Voyeur making all the comedians’ monologues, Michael Steele is suggesting that he, like President Obama, is held to higher standards because he is black. It’s possible that some people are more judgmental about him because he’s black, but it’s undeniable that many people are inhibited from voicing their dissatisfaction with him for the same reason... At this moment, the Republican party needs more than ever to present a sober, serious, and ethical face to the public. Voyeur was the last straw. It would be an unselfish gesture for Steele to step aside." OK, everyone has known that the Party of Lincoln was captured by Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm-- all former segregationist Democrats-- in the 1970s. And everyone knows that upwards of 90% of African-Americans vote for Democrats. The problem is, at least in the mind of elderly Republicans, that suburban moderates don't like racism. I'm guessing most of them are also already voting for Democrats. In fact, the new post-Mona Charen era Republicans barely even make much of an effort to hide what they are. In fact it was with a degree of sadness yesterday that I read how the new Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell is reviving Confederate History Month. Supposedly the move will "strengthen his position with his conservative base."
The two previous Democratic governors had refused to issue the mostly symbolic proclamation honoring the soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. McDonnell (R) revived a practice started by Republican governor George Allen in 1997. McDonnell left out anti-slavery language that Allen's successor, James S. Gilmore III (R), had included in his proclamation. McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia." The proclamation was condemned by the state's Legislative Black Caucus and the NAACP. Former governor L. Douglas Wilder called it "mind-boggling to say the least" that McDonnell did not reference slavery or Virginia's struggle with civil rights in his proclamation. Though a Democrat, Wilder has been supportive of McDonnell and boosted his election efforts when he declined to endorse the Republican's opponent, R. Creigh Deeds.
This made me remember something from four decades ago, something I was reminded of when reading Rick Perlstein's historical look back on that era, Nixonland. Rick starts the twenty-second chapter of his opus with a discussion of Nixon's ill-fated nomination to the Supreme Court of G. Harrold Carswell. Carswell was Nixon's second choice after his first nominee Clement Haynsworth was rejected and, ultimately he was rejected as well-- later to be arrested and convicted of groping an undercover policeman in a Florida public toilet.
On January 19, 1970, President Nixon announced his next Supreme Court nominee, G. Harrold Carswell, a good ol' boy from South Georgia. An ad that Carswell had taken out advertising his run for state legislature in 1948 was discovered: "I Am A Southerner By Ancestry, Birth, Training, Inclination, Belief, And Practices. I Believe That Segregation Of The Races Is The Proper And The ONLY Practical And Correct Way Of Life In Our States." Staffers in the civil rights division in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare took in the situation with disgust and watched their boss for a response. Nixon made it at a press conference on January 30 when asked if he would still have nominated Carswell if he'd known. "Yes, I would," the president responded. "I am not concerned about what Judge Carswell said twenty-two years ago when he was a candidate for state legislature. I am very much concerned about his record... as a federal district judge." The Post reported on that record the next day: an embarrassing two-thirds of his decisions had been overturned by higher courts. Then it came out that in 1956 Carswell had schemed to make a public golf course private to keep blacks out.
People like Carswell and McDonnell are entitled to their opinions and they are also entitled to associate with whomever they please. People like Carswell and McDonnell, however, have no business getting anywhere near elective office where their narrow prejudices will work towards turning their fellow citizens' lives more untenable. There was a time when the major parties were embarrassed when it was discovered they had members like Carswell and McDonnell. Often they were relegated to fringe groups like the KKK and the Know Nothings-- in today's terms, the Tea Party. I found it interesting yesterday when one of the most obstructionist and narrow-minded reactionaries in the Senate, Tom Coburn, stumping for re-election in Oklahoma-- does he even have an opponent?-- came face to face with the ugliness he has been so instrumental in not just permitting, but in creating. His must have been shocked when he realized the joke had gotten out of hand and that it wasn't just gameplaying by McConnell, McCain and Burr but the real full-blown fascist threat. Coburn stared the teabaggers in the face and was mortified to see the gross ignorance and overblown bigotry.
After a woman in the audience railed against the possibility of being put in prison for not obtaining health insurance under the Democrat’s new law, Coburn dismissed her remark and questioned the accuracy of Fox News reports on health care reform. “The intention is not to put any one in jail. That makes for good TV news on FOX but that isn’t the intention,” Coburn responded. Then, the Republican Senator, who was an arch-foe of the Obama Health Care bill, defended the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi against character attacks. While discussing his policy disagreements with Pelosi Coburn said “she’s a nice lady,” which brought hisses and hoots from the crowd. But Coburn flatly rejected the crowd's animosity towards the liberal Speaker. “Come on now. She is nice-- how many of you all have met her? She’s a nice person,” Coburn said as he went on to lecture the crowd about civility. “Just because somebody disagrees with you dodn’t (sic) mean they’re not a good person,” Coburn said. “I’ve been in the senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that, because I’ve been on the small side-- both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.” “What we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make a determination yourself,” Coburn added and then again warned the crowd against the myths perpetrated on FOX News. “So don’t catch yourself being biased by FOX News that somebody is no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don’t know what they don’t know,” Coburn said... Coburn closed the town hall by telling the crowd to read broadly and warned the mostly conservative audience about the danger of getting all their information from the same source.
If You're Stupid Enough To Be Donating Money Towards Your Own Enslavement, You Deserve To Be Ripped Off By The GOP
>
Republican Party recruitment poster?
The political party that would like the nation to be run like a corporation has the ethics of one. No, I'm not about to launch into another sordid story of the C Street corruption scandal. This is another sordid story of Michael Steele and the RNC. If I wasn't so painfully aware of how incapable of anything like this Rahm Emanuel actually is, I'd be easily persuaded Steele is a Democratic mole, a plant inside the GOP hierarchy whose only motivation is to wreck the party from within. Yesterday's most amusing news came from Lindsay Beyerstein at Alternet, Trendy Fashion Buys Reimbursed as "Office Supplies" to RNC Finance Officials. It struck uncomfortably close to home. I'll explain after a sample of Beyerstein, who has been dissecting the RNC's public FEC filing.
Listed on the report in the category of "office supplies" are purchases from a New England winery and a Capitol Hill liquor store, as well as more than $3,800 from a Florida clothing store. The category of "meals" also seems to extend to the sartorial, with a $450 purchase from a high-end Manhattan boutique-- one that has no restaurant or take-out shop on the premises-- falling into that category, as listed on the RNC's reports to the FEC. That purchase, as well as one for more than $500 from the Florida clothing store, are attributed to RNC Deputy Finance Director Debbie LeHardy, who, according to the report, was reimbursed for them.
LeHardy also received reimbursement for more than $2,800 in "tips" between December 2009 and February 2010, according to the reports... [T]he RNC made purchases totaling $3817 at Fugate's. On its report, the RNC labels the purchase as "office supplies," but Fugate's general manager Nancy Blank says her store doesn't sell office supplies. Fugate's sells men's and women's clothing and accessories, Blank told AlterNet. "We're a specialty department store," she said... In December, RNC reimbursed LeHardy for $453 worth of "meals" from Henri Bendel, a posh boutique on New York's Fifth Avenue. Bendel's is an upscale source for costume jewelry, handbags and make-up. The store bills itself as a "Girls' Playground for trendsetting young women from around the world." "[W]e do not have a restaurant in the store so I don't know how she would have spent $450 on meals," spokesperson Jodi Mellman wrote in an e-mail.
...Even before news broke this week that the Republican National Committee spent nearly $2,000 at a bondage-themed Hollywood strip bar, RNC Chairman Michael Steele had been sharply criticized for extravagant spending. AlterNet's review of RNC campaign finance records suggests a pattern of reporting irregularities within an institutional culture of over-the-top extravagance.
And that's the point: "an institutional culture of over-the-top extravagance." That's corporate America to a tee. How do I know? I was at the top of one corner of it, president of a division of AOLTimeWarner, running Reprise Records.
But I didn't start in the record business as the president of Reprise-- or even at AOLTimeWarner. I started a small indie punk label, 415 Records, with my friend and fellow music enthusiast Chris Knab. Neither of us expected to make a dime when we released our first record, "Decadent Jew" b/w "Suicide Child" by The Nuns. And we didn't. We really never made anything for years and eventually managed to scrape out a meager living. I think my top salary as president of the company was $10,000 a year. No expense account. I didn't even have a credit card at the time.
When I was hired at Warner Bros. it was as a vice president (after CBS, now SONY, bought our label), I was shocked by my salary, more than my father had ever made, and I was shocked by my expense account allotment, more than I had ever spent in a single year in my entire life. I was also shocked, and horrified, by a feeling of greed and entitlement inside the corporate culture, more at the corporate headquarters in New York than at Warner Bros. Records in Los Angeles, where I worked most of the time. But I'll never forget a friend of mine in the company, making nearly double the extravagant salary I was at the time, suggesting insisting that we would one day break our chains of poverty. It's the first time I realized he's mentally ill-- or the system he was part of is pathological.
I'll always remember one of my artists, a household name worth easily tens of millions of dollars, fretting about having to end his life residing in a cardboard box. He never tipped anyone. Another friend just last week was worried that he would never have the resources he needs to retire, although he was just in the process of cashing in nearly $10 million in stock options, a significant part of his financial net worth (though certainly nowhere near all of it). As out-of-touch as this must sound, I wrote an answer to a comment on my Facebook page yesterday that illustrates exactly what I'm trying to get at-- basically how fucked up the corporate environment is that the GOP emulates. Rather than quote it word for word, let me make it a bit more precise.
When I first got that corporate job at Warner Bros., my first boss, whose salary and perks were way over a million dollars annually, showed me-- proudly-- how he would go to tailors in Italy and charge hundreds of dollars in suits as meals. It's actually a significant part of the reason he used to trek religiously to Midem (a music convention in Cannes) every year. When I told him that the practice was disgusting and that I would never do it and that he had to stop immediately, we had a huge fight, which resulted in me getting to go over all his expenses before they could be turned in to corporate headquarters. He had so many tricks to steal money from the company that was already lavishing immense wealth on him-- and I do not mean to imply that he didn't represent real value for Warner Bros.; he did-- that it was breathtaking. When I would scold him, he claimed "everyone" did it.
But that was never true. For one thing, people who made less than $100,000 a year didn't have that kind of leeway. So we're only talking about people who are by any reasonable standard already gigantically wealthy. For another thing, I feel confident in saying that most of the senior executives there felt enough gratitude and responsibility that they had no desire to cheat the company whatsoever. This guy, my old first boss, is worth at least $50 million... but still cheating on his expenses.
I always said that he was only a Democrat-- and a very conservative one, by the way-- because his father was a corrupt machine pol in the Bronx who got a judicial appointment, and he felt that being a Democrat was something you inherited from your family, like being Jewish or being, well, self-serving-- as well as, odd as it seems, genuinely charitable.
In California we have fatally flawed candidates for governor and senator, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who are spending immense sums from the corporate loot they pocketed to persuade voters that their experience running eBay and Hewlett Packard qualify them to run California. I think there's a better case to be made that their experiences disqualify them. Fiorina failed so dismally that she was fired after destroying nearly half the company's value. Whitman took a much-loved and admired company and made it into an object of widespread public hatred.
A CEO is, in effect, a dictator; a successful politician had better be a consensus builder. The Republican model has always failed in politics. It causes depressions and recessions and a redistribution of wealth away from 90% of the population into the hands of the wealthiest and most connected (and avaricious) families. There is nothing worse in politics than people with a sense of entitlement. And there are plenty of Democrats with that sense-- as well as plenty with a sense of service. But all Republicans share that sense of entitlement. They really do believe that God shows His love for the rich by making them rich, and that therefore they should also rule. It's the way the wealthy and powerful responded to Jesus' remark comparing the chance of a rich person not spending eternity roasting in Hell to the ability of a camel getting through the eye of a needle.
