Apparently, we're supposed to panic & do as the wingnuts & grownups command (aren't we always?), but digby pushes back:
Disavowal Movement Resurgent
by digby
So, I'm hearing on the internets that liberals had better disavow Grayson's Taliban ad or risk being seen as hypocrites when we complain about the other side doing it. All I can say is, "Oh dear, not that." (And I have never been much for the bi-annual "disavowal ritual" in general. You can look it up.)
Ever since Jesse Helms ran this ad and Daddy Bush ran this one I've haven't given the moral dimension of attack ads much thought at all. They are part of American politics and you can rail against them all you want, but they aren't going anywhere. Fretting about such things is the province of very upright, highly moral liberals who believe that it is better to lose than to run ads which sink to the other side's level. I guess I just don't think ads are more important than keeping corporate sponsored theocrats from being in positions of power, so we will have to agree to disagree.
At this point in the United States it is permissible for Republicans to attack Democrats as treasonous, Godless/Muslim socialists and compare them to Hitler and Stalin but Democrats are only allowed to attack Republicans for their differences in policy. Can we see the asymmetry here? Is it any surprise that they have dominated politics for the past 30 years? Sure, every once in a while there are moments when their act gets old and the nation will look for hope and change rather than fear and loathing, but let's just say that their willingness (and institutional support) will give them the advantage most of the time.
As for Webster, whether you call him the "T" word or not he's a theocrat --- the real thing:...
Liberals, Democrats, progressives, whatever, are supposed to drop everything and condemn any liberal, Democrat or progressive who says anything the least bit disrespectful of people who supposedly don't fart, especially if it's true. That's part of the rules, the Ten Commandments of Versailles. So this attempt to ostracize Grayson is about as newsworthy as any other dog-bites-man story you'll read this year, or next, or the year after that.
But what is worth noting is the content of what Grayson was saying, to wit, that rightwing theocrats are the enemies of America, on the same side of the global culture war as the Taliban and al Qaeda.
This is not just a minor, idle or theoretical point. Theocratic religious fundamentalists are really dangerous people, in part because they are totally immune to reason, and in part because they feel commanded by God to kill everyone who gets in their way, if it comes to that.
They do not believe in checks and balances, much less in separation of church and state. They believe in holy war. Period. And the very best thing they get to help them out in that regard is other theocratic religious fundamentalists, who just happen to call God by a slightly different name. That gives them a official designated enemy that they can hate absolutely, and more importantly it gives them an excuse for attacking everyone else who uses the same name of God that they do, but who isn't stark raving mad.
All this is very simple, very elemental. So much so that I almost feel like an idiot repeating it. Except for the fact that it's completely taboo to say of any of this.
Which is why Alan Grayson is being attacked in the first place. Because he told the truth about who's on which side in this War To End All Peace.
And we can't have that. Because, you see, if we had that, then the War To End All Peace would last about ten minutes. Fifteen tops.
And so we absolutely must, must, must! continue believing something somewhat like this:
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
....
From Publishers Weekly
Conservative pundit D'Souza (Illiberal Education) roots the blame for the 9/11 attacks in the left wing's "aggressive global campaign to undermine the traditional patriarchal family" in this mostly lucid but unconvincing argument. Pointing to Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears and Noam Chomsky, he decries those who have teamed up with Hollywood and the U.N. to foist an irreligious, sexually licentious, antifamily liberal culture-epitomized by Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues and gay marriage initiatives-on a Muslim world that rightly reviles it. By deliberately attacking Islamic values, the left tacitly allies itself with al- Qaeda in its effort to defeat Bush's war on terror and thus discredit conservatism at home, he asserts....
Of course, if you believe in "Liberal Fascism" and believe that Martin Luther King was a white conservative, then why the hell not?
We have had a quite a reaction to our email this week, "Democrats: Epic Fail." Here are some of the emails from our members. About 25 to 1 positive responses, like this:
"I hope EVERY right-wing, corporatist Democrat in Congress loses. Since they're really Republicans, at least then we'll know where we stand and what we need to do to get REAL Democrats elected."
"Our so called 60 seat majority in the Senate was an ILLUSION. At least 4 and up to 15 Senators are FAKE democrats."
"I agree with you completely but if we lose the House I will slit my darn wrists if gd Boehner is Speaker, I'll definitely leave thus country and that I'm 100% serious about. ... What you're planning is something I totally agree with and will help any way I can. ...I'm active in working toward an end that will keep Progressives, strong and hardcore Progressives that will not step away from bills we need and helping those that require it."
But some critiques, as well, like this:
"If Blanche Lincoln loses to a Republican, we've shot ourselves in the foot. We can congratulate ourselves on overthrowing a Wall Street Democrat, but what we're stuck with is a Wall Street Family values Republican. Yippee. Instead of someone who might be moved by our voices, we get someone who turns a deaf ear. Again I say, Yippee."
"Bless you for all your hard work, but this country is broken. The money continues to win big time, bigger every day. The middle class should pack up and leave, but there's not place to go."
"I can't agree with you, I'm afraid. I, too, MUCH prefer progressive Democrats. But, even if we can't always count on the vote of the Blanche Lincolns of the world, we need every Democrat we can possibly elect -- and she's the only one running in that election."
"Well, I love progressives too. I am one. But you're messing around with peoples' lives . . . If republicans win they will absolutely repeal health care reform. They don't plan to pay one more tax dollar for 'the likes of you and me.'"
There have also been a few blog posts that run the gamut:
"I'm seriously doing the research into contributing to some of these folks backed by the website, because I completely agree. Maybe we need to shake some shit up... Whatever the case, it's clear that the agenda in Washington right now is simple. It's "M.O.B.= Money Over Bitches."
"From a purely political standpoint, one does not send a fundraising notice out to members based upon a REPUBLICAN failure and call it a failure on the part of Democrats. At least, not if one expects to maintain a coalition that will win and move toward progress."
We listen to our members and we pay close attention the the netroots. But here, I respectfully disagree with Karoli and our other critics, for this reason: (after the break)
The video embeded at the bottom of this article and posted on the frontpage of http://congressmanwithguts.com may be the best corporate television interview ever. Not the funniest or most entertaining, but the most willing to directly and clearly expose the most forbidden topics and insist on the most needed changes in perspective.
There are now 64 sponosor's to Alan Grayson's Medicare buy-in bill. That's 14 more since yesterday. Here is the complete list:
64 CURRENT COSPONSORS: Representatives Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, Rush Holt, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Tammy Baldwin, Mike Doyle, Diana DeGette, Steve Cohen, Bennie Thompson, Andre Carson, Yvette Clarke, Steve Israel, James Moran, Emanuel Clever, Judy Chu, Donald Payne, and John Garamendi.
Since this is a stand alone bill, it is worth asking: are there 216 votes for a Medicare buy-in? Are there 51? Even if there are, will those votes still be around next year?
When the buy-in is limited to 55-64, or even 50-64, I believe that there are, and that there will be enough votes. When everyone is allow to buy-in, I don't know. However, it's best to start seeing how many votes there are for the big enchilada, and then decide where to go from there.
Here is a cool pic of the ongoing process:
Have a good weekend. I am going to try and chill out before the six days of insanity start on Monday.
In just two days, Alan Grayson has piled up 50 co-sponsors to his Medicare buy-in bill, which is designed as a stand-alone bill rather than as an amendment to the health reform bill. Here is the complete list of 50 co-sponsors:
50 CURRENT COSPONSORS : Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards, Jared Polis, Chellie Pingree, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Shea-Porter, Diane Watson, John Lewis, Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nydia Velazquez, Keith Ellison, Loretta Sanchez, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, Luis Gutierrez, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Charles Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Raul Grijalva, Donna Christian-Christensen, John Olver, Corrine Brown, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcia L. Fudge, Danny K. Davis, Pedro Pierluisi, Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, John Hall, Shelley Berkley, John Conyers, Jim McGovern, Phil Hare, Betty Sutton, Jim McDermott, Gregorio Sablan, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn Maloney, Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, Gregory Meeks, Edolphus Towns, Al Green, David Wu, and Rush Holt.
Every indication has always been that there is overwhelming support for a Medicare buy-in among Congressional Democrats. This could very well pass as a stand alone bill, especially in 2011 once filibuster reform has taken place. This is definitely one of the ways that progressives can viably continue the fight for real health reform no matter what happens to the current bill.
Representative Alan Grayson has introduced a four-page bill that would allow all Americans under the age of 65 purchase Medicare for a fee. It is a great solution for health insurance in this country that would give everyone a choice of a robust public option.
The bill currently has ten co-sponsors. Notably, I have learned that these co-sponsors were gathered in only 15 minutes, making one co-sponsor for every 90 seconds of effort. That is a pretty good pace.
Grayson is resuming his efforts, so expect quite a few more members of Congress to sign on today.
Two key lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Ron Paul (R-TX), are pushing to authorize a full, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. The plan has sparked fury from both the Fed and the corporate banking industry, but the proposal is so appealing that the controversy is almost laughable.
The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful economic institutions in the world, but most of its operations are conducted in total secrecy. The Fed's rescue activities have dwarfed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, but without any public accounting. Some of these efforts may have been entirely appropriate, but we don't even know who the Fed is helping. That fact is a major barrier to establishing effective and fair economic policy.
"The Fed is a typical Washington institution that operates un-democratically and in virtually total secrecy, and a Congressionally-mandated audit that they (and much of the DC establishment) desperately oppose would be a serious step towards changing the dynamic of how things function. At the very least, it would provide an important template for defeating the interests which, in Washington, almost never lose."
Under the Grayson-Paul plan, which is offered as an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, the Government Accountability Office would be given the authority to audit all of the Federal Reserve's activities, just as it can audit other public programs and institutions.
Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved the audit-the-fed bill, despite opposition from panel Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), who tried to gut the plan. Even on the Financial Services Committee, where the banks concentrate their campaign contributions, Grayson was able to convince 14 other Democrats to stand up to the financial establishment.
The vote of approval scarcely registered on mainstream media's radar, and even then, the Grayson-Paul legislation was portrayed as an assault on the Fed's "political independence." As Dean Baker notes for Talking Points Memo, it's hard to see how a simple, public accounting can be construed as a political hit on the Fed's policy-making.
By setting interest rates, the Fed has enormous power to do almost anything under the economic sun, from fueling quick growth to destroying jobs. All of these powers have useful functions under the right circumstances, and we really don't want Congress to make decisions about the economy based on the interests of powerful lobby groups. The Grayson-Paul bill wouldn't do anything of the sort. As John Nichols explains for The Nation, audits of sensitive economic policy decisions would be subject to a six-month lag before they could be publicly released. If the Fed needs to act fast, Congress won't be able to get in its way. The public will eventually know how its own money is being spent, however, and learn how a public institution is conducting itself.
"In other words, this is about simple transparency, which everyone should favor," Nichols writes.
The White House and the Congressional Democratic leadership need to support a full and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. It's an issue of basic democratic accountability. There is no good reason why economic policy should be conducted in secret.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Unemployment figures in the U.S. are staggering: The official rate stands at 10.2%, the highest in 26 years. A broader measure that includes people who are involuntarily working part-time or who have given up looking for work is at 17.5%. That's a full-blown economic emergency.
But, as Joshua Holland explains for AlterNet, President Barack Obama's response to the unemployment crisis has not matched the urgency of his response to the crisis on Wall Street. This isn't just unfair, it's bad economics.
"It's important to understand that the economic crisis in which we find ourselves is not just a function of a shaky financial system but of a crash in consumption that's come along with the evaporation of $14 trillion worth of the wealth of American families," Holland writes.
Widespread joblessness can be every bit as damaging to the economic structure as a financial crisis. When people are out of work, they buckle down on household expenses. When several million people cut back at the same time, the economic machine grinds to a halt. If people are not buying and selling stuff, the economy isn't working.
As Mary Kane explains for The Washington Independent, about 40% of families don't have enough money to cover expenses through a three-month stretch of unemployment-even if one member of the household is receiving unemployment benefits. Kane highlights a Brandeis University study that reveals the haggard state of the American household and the unfair distribution of wealth along racial lines. A full 66% of African-American and Latino families can't afford three months without work. At a time when 5.6 million workers have been jobless for at least six months, the study highlights just how dire finances have become for many households.
GRITtv's Laura Flanders discusses potential labor market remedies with economist Dean Baker and The Nation's John Nichols. Baker suggests a work-share arrangement, in which employers cut back on their workers' hours to allow more people to work. To prevent losses for households, the government would step in and pay for the shortfall in hours. Employers would have more part-time jobs available, but the government would make sure everyone was paid as if they were working full-time. Baker also endorses a public jobs program, which he says could be especially useful in cities like Detroit and Cleveland that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.
Nichols highlights the political consequences of failing to fix the unemployment mess. Unemployment directly affects the lives of voters. If widespread joblessness persists through November 2010, Democrats will net huge Congressional losses. If Obama thinks it's hard to garner bipartisan support for his legislative priorities now, imagine a few dozen more Republican obstructionists.
It's not that Obama failed to respond to the unemployment crisis. He did. That's what the stimulus package was all about. Today's 10.2% unemployment is a catastrophe, but it would be more like 12% without the stimulus package. But, given the seriousness of the issue, Obama is not giving unemployment enough attention.
In fact, Obama's economic priorities are a mirror-image of his campaign promises, as Robert Scheer argues in both a column for TruthDig and an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! After talking tough about reining in recklessness on Wall Street and making the financial system more accountable, Obama has hired many of the very policy makers who pushed through the deregulatory agenda back in the 1990s. Top Obama administration officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Gary Gensler and Neal Wolin helped make this mess in the first place.
"This is not a minor criticism," Scheer says. "I think the guy is betraying his own presidency."
Obama's timid efforts to rein in Wall Street and heal the ailing job market are setting the stage for a political disaster. If Obama and Congressional Democrats can't take strong action to fix the economy, they will find themselves with much narrower majorities next November. The economy, and the public institutions that support it, are supposed to work for everyone, not just the financial elite.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The jobs bill is going to happen. The House will likely pass a bill in December, and the Senate will match in January or February after the health care bill is done. Rather than "if" it will happen, the major questions for the jobs bill are how large it will be, what will be in the bill, and how the bill will be funded.
Relating to the latter, I recently had a chance to ask Representative Alan Grayson if there was any legal barrier to using the remaining Wall Street bailout money to fund the bill. He did not believe there was any such legal barrier, and indicated that political barriers would be more significant.
The lack of legal barriers is virtually self-evident. TARP funds have already been used for a variety of non-Wall Street related projects, including the auto bailout and assistance for struggling homeowners. Further, the Obama administration has said it is interested in using some of the funds to pay down the debt, and using others to increase lending to small businesses. Clearly, there is a lot of flexibility in how the money can be used.
"If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America." -- Congressmember Alan Grayson
At a time when progressives have grown increasingly frustrated with timidity and lack of vision coming from elected Democrats in Washington, Congressmember Alan Grayson has emerged as a rare example of someone who actually represents us--not just with his vote, not just with his voice, but with his actions. It's one thing to tell the truth about the Republican health care plan--"Don't get sick.... If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: 'die quickly.'" That's rare enough by itself--virtually unheard of. But Grayson not only refused to back down when Republicans threw their predictable hissy fit in response, he barreled ahead and went right into a discussion of the recent Harvard study finding that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance. In short, he showed himself to be the real deal. TODAY he's asking us to back him by contributing to his moneybomb. At Open Left we're re-running the interview with him from Saturday so you can hear him tell you why in his own words.
Congressmember Alan Grayson:I have to start by thanking you for giving me the person [Matt Stoller] who is the best Congressional aid of all.
OL: [Laughs.] So I can't rail at you for stealing from us.
AG: You can if you want, but it's not going to do any good.
OL:I know.
AG: And I'm going to keep him.
OL: I know. There are some battles you just don't want to fight. Let's start right off. You're having a moneybomb on November 2. Most basic questions: Why are you doing it? And why now?
Doing it to show that it's possible for progressive to raise money without having to cater to lobbyists and people who want favors.
We're trying to invent an entirely new model to finance a campaign.
My campaign next year is going to cost $2 million. There's no getting around it. I don't set the media rates around Orlando, somebody else does that. And the result of that is that we have to show that money can be raised for progressive causes in the old fashioned way, which is $20 here, $50 there, $100 here, rather than asking big shots for favors.
I want a campaign that's a campaign by the people and for the people. And this money bomb will show whether or not it's possible.
I think we've already shown a lot of success, I mean we've already raised a quarter million dollars, and the money bomb is still three days away. But what we need to do is to show that we can do it the same way the right does it. The right has had multi-million dollar money bombs for Ron Paul, and we need to show that we can do it that way ourselves. Otherwise people on the left in Congress will feel that they have to keep making deals with lobbyists just for the sake of financing their own campaigns.
"If we can demonstrate a new model, a model where you get your campaign support on the basis of people power, then we'll be much more likely to be able to implement the progressive agenda, and show America what a party with a conscience actually can do for America." -- Congressmember Alan Grayson
At a time when progressives have grown increasingly frustrated with timidity and lack of vision coming from elected Democrats in Washington, Congressmember Alan Grayson has emerged as a rare example of someone who actually represents us--not just with his vote, not just with his voice, but with his actions. It's one thing to tell the truth about the Republican health care plan--"Don't get sick.... If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: 'die quickly.'" That's rare enough by itself--virtually unheard of. But Grayson not only refused to back down when Republicans threw their predictable hissy fit in response, he barreled ahead and went right into a discussion of the recent Harvard study finding that 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of insurance. In short, he showed himself to be the real deal. This Monday he's asking us to back him by contributing to his moneybomb. And Open Left wanted to have him tell you why in his own words.
Congressmember Alan Grayson:I have to start by thanking you for giving me the person [Matt Stoller] who is the best Congressional aid of all.
OL: [Laughs.] So I can't rail at you for stealing from us.
AG: You can if you want, but it's not going to do any good.
OL:I know.
AG: And I'm going to keep him.
OL: I know. There are some battles you just don't want to fight. Let's start right off. You're having a moneybomb on November 2. Most basic questions: Why are you doing it? And why now?
Doing it to show that it's possible for progressive to raise money without having to cater to lobbyists and people who want favors.
We're trying to invent an entirely new model to finance a campaign.
My campaign next year is going to cost $2 million. There's no getting around it. I don't set the media rates around Orlando, somebody else does that. And the result of that is that we have to show that money can be raised for progressive causes in the old fashioned way, which is $20 here, $50 there, $100 here, rather than asking big shots for favors.
I want a campaign that's a campaign by the people and for the people. And this money bomb will show whether or not it's possible.
I think we've already shown a lot of success, I mean we've already raised a quarter million dollars, and the money bomb is still three days away. But what we need to do is to show that we can do it the same way the right does it. The right has had multi-million dollar money bombs for Ron Paul, and we need to show that we can do it that way ourselves. Otherwise people on the left in Congress will feel that they have to keep making deals with lobbyists just for the sake of financing their own campaigns.
Last week, Mike Stark asked Joe Lieberman if he'd side with Republicans to block a vote on health care reform.
Lieberman's response: "I haven't decided that yet."
Yesterday, Politico had yet another Lieberman response to the same question:
“Not vote for cloture? I wouldn’t rule that possibility out — not at all,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats.
With the health care issue now moving into Harry Reid's court, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will deliver this petition signed by over 85,000 people to Reid today:
"Any Democratic senators who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care."
This is what it sounds like when someone talks to you about a foreign country, not just with some experience of the outside world, but--even more importantly--also without having feed on brainwashing terms for 20 or 30 years.
Non-interventionism is not isolationism. Quite the opposite: those who think that invasion is the answer to everything are utterly isolated in their abstract fantasy land, totally removed from the human and historical reality they talk about with such hollow, pompous authority.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, a self-proclaimed "Democrat with guts," appears unlikely to be subject to a resolution of disapproval for suggesting that part of the Republican health care plan is for Americans to "die quickly if you get sick."
The Associated Press is reporting that a spokesman for Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, who drafted a resolution of disapproval against Grayson and threatened to introduce it on the House floor, is suggesting that Price does not plan to do so.
It is almost unprecedented for Republicans to back down from their demands for an apology from a Democrat. And yet, that is exactly what happened here.
As I wrote last week, other Democrats need to take notice of this. You don't have to back down when the Republican smear machine comes after you. In fact, you can pick--and win--a fight with that smear machine, if you are smart about it and know who your allies are.
"Honestly, the people I deal with, the people I actually am across the aisle with every day, I don't think they care about ordinary people. I don't think that the Republicans in Congress actually have a heart. I'll be honest with you."
"But that's not the same as saying that they want you -- I mean, let's get straight what I said," he explained. "I said their health care plan is 'don't get sick,' and if you do get sick, then die quickly. And what did I mean by that? Because if you get sick and those bills are mounting, and you're in the hospital and you're feeling weaker and weaker, and you've got no way to pay for this, then what are they gonna do for you? Nothing. They're gonna do nothing."
STATE BLOGS
