The Kentucky senate race serves as a prime example. The Democratic candidate, Jack Conway, is currently Kentucky's attorney general. Conway is also currently prosecuting a nursing home for allegedly covering up the sexual abuse of one of its residents.
But that nursing home is owned by Terry Forcht, a millionaire who gives prodigiously to right-wing causes. He poured money into Karl Rove's organization, American Crossroads GPS, which ran ads backing Conway's Republican opponent, Rand Paul. Guess who came away with the victory last night?
As Holland emphasizes, the mid-term elections are just how the first phase of the justice system's corruption plays out. Eventually the mere threat of attack ads could be enough to prevent needed prosecutions. Corporate bigwigs could literally get away with murder, and pay for it only through attack ads.
Think this is bad? Just wait for 2012
As David Corn details for Mother Jones, the Supreme Court's ruling has put American democracy in grave danger. This year's big spending is just a warm-up for the 2012 presidential election. Karl Rove has already pledged to keep running attack ads after the mid-terms, and there's no doubt that he'll make good on that. As Corn emphasizes, this issue doesn't just affect how campaigns are financed-it will permanently reshape the very nature of American elections.
The permanent, neverending campaign will become even more permanent and neverending. These big-and-secret-money groups will be working 24/7, opposing and discrediting President Barack Obama and the Democrats in the so-called off-year and then revving up for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. The negative ads never have to stop.
That, ultimately, is the major take-away from last night's elections. Not the number of seats Republicans picked up in the House, or the Tea Party's ability to infiltrate the Senate, but the formal incorporation of American politics. With literally no limits on the amount of money they can spend to influence elections, corporations and secret billionaires are going to be tipping the democratic scales wherever they smell profit.
The Republicans gained ground in last night's midterm elections, recapturing the House and gaining seats in the Senate. The future House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) wasted no time in affirming that the GOP will try to repeal health care reform.
A full-scale repeal is unlikely in the next two years because the Democrats have retained control of the White House and the Senate. However, Republicans are already making noises about shutting down the government to force the issue. The House controls the nation's purse strings, which confers significant leverage if the majority is willing to bring the government to a screeching halt to make a point.
Don't assume they'll blink. The GOP shut down government in 1995, albeit to its own political detriment. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and his allies have sworn a "blood oath" to shut down the government, regardless of the consequences. The Republicans may actually succeed in modifying minor aspects of the Affordable Care Act, such as the controversial 1099 reporting requirement for small business.
The most significant threat to the implementation of health care reform may be at the state level. Republicans picked up several governorships, and the Affordable Care Act requires the cooperation of states to set up their own insurance exchanges. Hostile governors could seriously impede things.
Mixed results for radical, anti-choice senate candidates
As a group, the eight ultra-radical, anti-choice Republican Senate candidates had mixed results last night. Three wins, two sure losses, and three likely losses that haven't been definitively called. Voters didn't seem thrilled about electing senators who oppose a woman's right to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
Two cruised to victory: Rand Paul easily defeated Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky. Paul is one of the most extreme the of a radical cohort. As Amie Newman reported in RH Reality Check, Paul doesn't even believe in a woman's right to abort to save her own life. In Florida, anti-choice standard bearer Marco Rubio defeated Independent Charlie Christ.
Another radical anti-choicer, Pat Toomey, who favors jailing abortion providers, narrowly edged out Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.
Two were soundly defeated. Evangelical code-talker Sharron Angle lost to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), and anti-masturbation crusader Christine O'Donnell lost to Chris Coons in Delaware.
The last three radical anti-choice senate candidates were down, but not, out as of this morning. Democrat Sen. Michael Bennett leads Republican Ken Buck by just 15,000 votes out of over 1.5 million ballots cast, according to TPMDC. Planned Parenthood launched an 11th hour offensive against Buck because of his retrograde stances on abortion, sexual assault, and other women's issues, as Joseph Boven reports for the Colorado Independent.
This morning, Tea Party Republican Joe Miller was trailing behind incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who challenged him as an Independent, but no winner had been declared. In Washington State, Democrat Sen. Patti Murray maintains a 1% lead over radical anti-choicer Republican Dino Rossi.
Are fertilized eggs people in Colorado?
Coloradans won a decisive victory for reproductive rights last night. Fertilized eggs are still not people in Colorado, as Jodi Jacobson reports for RH Reality Check.
Amendment 62, which would have conferred full person status from the moment of conception, thereby outlawing abortion and in vitro fertilization. It also called into question the legality of many forms of birth control, including an array of medical procedures for pregnant women that might harm their fetuses. The proposed amendment was resoundingly defeated: 72% against to 28% in favor. This is the second time Colorado voters have rejected an egg-as-person amendment.
Blue Dogs and anti-choice Dems feel the pain
Last night was brutal for corporatist Democrats who fought the more progressive options for health care reform and Democrats who put their anti-choice ideology ahead passing health care. In AlterNet, Sarah Seltzer reports only 12 of the 34 Democrats who voted against health care reform hung on to their seats. The Blue Dog caucus was halved overnight from 56 to 24. Nick Baumann of Mother Jones speculated that the midterms would mark the end of the Stupak bloc, the coalition of anti-choice Democrats whose last-minute brinksmanship could have derailed health care reform.
Did foot-dragging on health care hurt Democrats?
Jamelle Bouie suggests at TAPPED that Democrats shot themselves in the foot by passing a health care reform bill that won't provide tangible benefits to most people for years. The exchanges that are supposed to provide affordable insurance for millions of Americans won't be up and running until 2014.
In Summer 2009, Former DNC chair Howard Dean predicted that the Democrats would be penalized at the polls if they failed to deliver tangible benefits from health care reform before the midterm elections. That's why Dean suggested expanding the public health insurance programs we already have, rather than creating insurance exchanges from scratch.
Sink, sunk by Scott
Andy Kroll of Mother Jones profiles Rick Scott, the billionaire health clinic mogul, corporate fraudster, and enemy of health care reform who spent over $50 million of his own money to eke out a very narrow victory over Democrat Alex Sink in the Florida governor's race.
Apparently, many Floridians were willing to overlook the fact that Scott had to pay a $1.7 billion fine for defrauding Medicare, the largest fine of its kind in history. Scott also spent $5 million of his own money to found Conservatives for Patients' Rights, one of the leading independent groups opposing health care reform.
Pot isn't legalized in California
California defeated Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana for personal use. David Borden of DRCnet, a pro-legalization group, writes in AlterNet that the fight over Prop 19 brought legalization into the political mainstream, even if the measure didn't prevail at the polls. The initiative won the backing of the California NAACP, SEIU California, the National Black Police Association, and the National Latino Officers Association and other established groups.
So, what's next for health care reform? The question everyone is asking is whether John Boehner will cave to the extremists in his own party and attempt a full-scale government shutdown, or whether the Republicans will content themselves with extracting piecemeal modifications of the health care law.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Yesterday I wrote a post on the steadily increasing physical and rhetorical violence happening on the right wing of the political spectrum. It is a sad and scary story, one that conservatives try to brush away by saying both sides are responsible when almost none of it is coming from the progressive side of the aisle. The ironic thing is that I underestimated the depth of violence and threats, as I have had many examples sent to me since I wrote the piece that I had forgotten or didn't know about it, plus it has since come out that the person who stomped on the MoveOn activist's head in Kentucky turns out to be closely affiliated with the Rand Paul campaign.
Today, though, I want to write about another form of thuggery, because I think this story is the biggest reason people should vote and vote Democratic. More about that in a moment. First, I think it's appropriate to quote Woody Guthrie's classic line:
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
I think the lawlessness reflected in the physical violence on the campaign trail coming from so many on the right, and the blatant disregard for the rule of law by the big banks trying to railroad so many people out of their homes without the proper paper work, are more related than conventional wisdom would suggest. The fact that banks and their "servicers" have apparently committed massive document fraud and have in some cases actually hired thugs to break into people's homes and change their locks during foreclosure proceedings, and the fact that they lied to and bet against their own clients in investment deals is all part of a pattern: people with too much power and an Ayn Randian view of the world. Ayn Rand, the Social Darwinists of the 1880s, the big Wall Street banks, libertarian candidates like Rand Paul and these thugs who work on their campaigns all make the same arguments: power is morality, greed is good, compassion is weakness, buyer beware. While they call for civility, and argue against class warfare and populism, they believe in turning the Golden Rule of the bible on its head and replacing it with another one: he who has the gold, rules. And if the rule of law gets in their way, they just ignore it or use their political power to change the law. If politicians or public opinion create a problem for them, they use their money to dump millions into lobbying to change the law, or dump millions into secretive groups to buy elections.
Violence is just another means to a political end, and so is the lawlessness of falsified affidavits and paperwork to push massive numbers of people from their homes. Here's where my argument about politics comes in, and I know there are some of you who may find it ironic given that the administration (especially some of the folks at Treasury) has been closer to the big banks at times than it should have been. Here's the deal, though: the financial reform bill in the end got stronger as it went through the process rather than weaker only because the Democrats controlled Congress. Alan Grayson and Maria Cantwell and Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman were able to get concessions they would have never gotten had they been in the minority. Elizabeth Warren was able to out-negotiate Chris Dodd on the consumer protection agency only because the Democrats were in control- Richard Shelby only would have shut her down.
And speaking of Elizabeth Warren, who according to sources at the White House has done a superb job of quietly putting together the building blocks of that new agency, the Republicans will do everything in their power to make her job tougher if they take control of Congress. They will try to harass her and intimidate her every way they can. Fortunately, no one can intimidate Elizabeth Warren, and she will destroy them in the media when they try to take her on, but her work standing up for homeowners and consumers will be far easier if Wall Street's best friends don't run Congress. The hit jobs on her will keep coming (did you see this ridiculous piece on her aide Raj Date, who folks on Capitol Hill told me was one of the strongest advocates during the financial reform fight for a progressive financial reform bill), but her job is made easier if the Democrats stay in control.
The best argument for the Democrats in these elections is that the sharks are in the water, and the thugs are in the street. Democrats can and do drive us crazy sometimes, but when the Ayn Rand Social Darwinists on Wall Street and the streets of Kentucky argue that the strong should rule over the weak, it is better to strengthen the hand of our advocates like Warren and Grayson and Sherrod (rather than Scott) Brown. There are some who rob you with a gun, and some with a fountain pen- some who kick you in the head and some who throw you out of your home- and it is better to have a sheriff who will be on your side at least some of the time.
As November 2nd draws nearer, it seems that the stumbles and fumbles of key Tea Party candidates just keep on coming. This has given rise to ever more questions about the fitness and viability of some of the leading candidates for public office running beneath the Tea Party banner.
Not to lean too heavily on the much maligned Christine O'Donnell, but when a candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate can't name one recent Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with, one can only roll one's eyes so many times before one has to dismiss this woman's candidacy altogether for the farce that it obviously is. Covering O'Donnell's debate with Chris Coons for Politico, David Catanese made the following observation:"She also failed to name a recent Supreme Court decision she agreed with -- a moment reminiscent of the infamous question that tripped up Sarah Palin during her interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric. O'Donnell paused for a few seconds before telling the questioners she would get back to them and "put it up on my website." Catanese went on to observe that: "Wednesday night's nationally televised Delaware Senate debate showcased Christine O'Donnell's great strength - as a feisty tea party upstart exuding personal charisma, as well as her primary weakness - as a flawed candidate carrying a heap of baggage who at times appeared out of her depths on substantive policy questions." So let me get this straight, Ms. O'Donnell wants to take a moment or two to "research" her favorite Supreme Court decisions and then she will "get back to us". Are we really supposed to take this candidate seriously or is this someone's idea of a spoof? Beyond that Ms. O'Donnell seems to be confused as to who is actually charged with judicial review under our system of checks and balances, saying: "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." Funny, but isn't that the job of the Supreme Court?
Next is the apparent waffling or misinterpretation of Rand Paul's position on taxes. Three days ago, Paul stated to The American's for Fair Taxation: "The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us." Yet today, Paul's Campaign Manager, Jesse Benton, hit the airwaves saying said that this representation of the candidates tax views was:" the result of an "overzealous" anti-tax advocate who misstated Paul's position when he quoted the candidate." But according to the Louisville Courier-Journal: "Over the past few days, Paul has distanced himself from the Fair Tax despite mounting evidence that he has, indeed, voiced support for the plan." Okay so what are the voters supposed to believe? Rand Paul was for the Fair Tax before he was against it? If so why the flip-flop? Where does the candidate actually stand on this issue and what are the voters supposed to base their decision on, that he favors a national sales tax of 23%, the so called fair tax, or he does not?
Finally there is New York's Tea Party candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, who veteran conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer called the "most suicidal candidate" in the 2010 election cycle. In an article that appeared in today's Washington Post, "Your pre-election post-mortem" Krauthammer opined: "Carl Paladino is running in a deep-blue state with sky-high taxes, yawning deficits and rampant corruption. The last elected Democratic governor resigned in disgrace, and his successor is so tainted that he dare not run for another term. So, what does Kamikaze Carl proceed to do? Get in an angry shouting match with a reporter. Level some odd insinuation about his opponent's "prowess." Figuring he hasn't veered off-message enough, he then expounds on homosexuality -- and spends three days having to explain and reaffirm, before the inevitable apology. He's down by 19 points." Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Paladino seems to have done just that with both barrels blazing.
So what is the rank and file Tea Partier to do? If you live in Delaware, Kentucky or New York how can you bring yourself to vote for candidates who either don't understand the process of judicial review, whether or not they actually support a national sales tax or what their actual message is? Isn't the Tea Party supposed to represent an alternative to business as usual? If this is what three of the major contenders under the Tea Party banner represent, in terms of policy and perspective, are we any better off with candidates of this caliber or will they likely guarantee more ineffective government due to their inexperience, lack of depth and inability to articulate what actually is their position on a given issue? These are serious questions that every voter must ask before they can vote for any of the above candidates with any degree of comfort or confidence.
A funny thing seems to be happening, as we get closer to November 2nd, the level of controversy surrounding the candidacy of several prominent Tea Party candidates seems to be either emerging or increasing. The list spans a who's who of some of the most prominent Tea Party candidates now running on the platform of bringing meaningful change to American politics.
First there's Rick Scott running for Governor in Florida. Scott has been a vociferous opponent of health care reform, having spent millions to oppose reform. However, his former company was the beneficiary of Medicare and Medicaid monies totally in the millions if not billions. In fact even the conservative magazine "The American Spectator" called Scott's company's actions into question: " His business record is also likely to draw fire. Scott was pushed out from Columbia/HCA in 1997 in the midst of a fraud investigation that led to a $1.7 billion settlement on charges that the company overbilled state and federal health care programs. While he was never charged with any wrongdoing himself, Scott was the head of the company - and thus the situation will garner more scrutiny now that he's a political candidate." Then there is an amplifying article that appeared a month later in the Florida paper; The Sun Sentinel, by Sally Kestin: "Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor...Rick Scott was co-founder and CEO of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, when the FBI launched a massive, multi-state investigation that led to the company pleading guilty to criminal charges of overbilling the government....Scott considers himself a health care pioneer who significantly cut costs and improved patient care. But his decision to enter the race and his explanation of what occurred at Columbia/HCA is rankling some of those familiar with the fraud scandal."
Next there is Rand Paul, who has called for restraint in health care spending so long as it does not go so far as to impact his own income. Paul's hypocrisy is so obvious that even the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal could not bear to ignore this fact and reported on it in a mid-May article appearing in it's Washington Wire: "Tea Party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government. But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments In fact, Paul - who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare - wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living," he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course." So there you have it, doctors are free to run on reforming federal spending so long as their income stream is held harmless. Well if that does not sound a bit hypocritical then what does?
Next on the hit parade of hypocrisy is New York's Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino whom Greg Smith of the New York Daily News says has grown rich thanks to government handouts and favors. According to Smith's research: "In a last-minute bid to keep that lucrative government subsidy, records show he overstated the worth of the company that got the break by including properties he'd already sold off. The millionaire Buffalo businessman, who last week became his party's candidate for governor, has shaped much of his Tea Party message by railing against government spending and vowing Draconian bureaucratic bloodletting. At the same time, he's received millions of dollars in tax breaks over the years, mostly as payback for investing in distressed properties in and around his native Buffalo, where manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the economy has long been in a free fall." Thus what we have in New York State is a Tea Party candidate who seems to have filled his pockets at the public trough but who has now "seen the light" on the excesses of government spending and wants to end it, that is, after he more than got his fill from that very trough.
In addition to these issues, the trials and tribulations of Senate candidate Sharron Angle just seem to keep on coming. Today it was reported that Republican Nevada State Senator Bill Raggio has done something he has never done before, endorsed a Democrat. Raggio is throwing his support behind the embattled incumbent, Harry Reid (D-NV) due to what he considers Angle's glaring shortcomings as a state level politico. In Raggio's own words: "What is difficult to overlook is her record of being totally ineffective as a four-term assemblywomen, her inability or unwillingness to work with others, even within her own party, and her extreme positions on issues such as Medicare, social security, education, veterans affairs and many others," Raggio said of Angle...He also challenged his Republican colleagues who have lined up behind Angle's campaign."Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she 'can't do much harm as a junior back bencher,'" said Raggio. "Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?"
So what are the voters to believe and how are they to vote for the likes of Paladino, Paul, Scott and Angle among others come election day. Isn't the Tea Party Movement supposed to represent some sort of catharsis in American politics, a movement to cleanse the system of rot and decay? Is it not supposed to be a citizens revolt against business and politcs as usual, both in Washington and at the state and local level? If so, how is it that individuals of such questionable qualities and backgrounds became some of it's leading candidates? Has the movement been hijacked by the very political slicksters that it's supposed to oppose? Are these accomplished political operatives and savy businessmen in the process of taking the rank and file Tea Partiers for the political ride of their lives? Have professional politicians on the right jumped on the bandwagon of reform and revolt all the while hoping to just harness this energy for their own political ends? Or is it the case that the aforementioned candidates, like Paul of Tarsus, have "seen the light" on their own personal road to Damascus. Are they like Constantine at the Battle of Milivan Bridge who looked into the sky, saw a cross, and then went on to win the battle and spread Christianity, the new and revolutionary religon,across the Roman Empire? My educated guess is that it's the former not the latter.
"Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor"; http://articles.sun-sentinel.c...
"WSJ: Washington Wire; May 14, 2010, 9:22 AM ET Rand Paul: Cut Spending But Not Medicare Doctor Payments"; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
Tea Party-backed GOP governor hopeful Carl Paladino fighting for $1.4 million tax break
:http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/20/2010-09-20_huge_tax_break_fits_carl_to_a_tea_big_govt_foe_fights_for_14m_windfall.html#ixzz11ouPpyw6:
Say what you will about the tea party but it has been remarkably effective at pushing select fringe candidates to electoral victories.
In late 2009, you would have been hard pressed to find anyone in Washington who would have believed that a Republican would soon fill the Senate seat held for decades by the late Ted Kennedy.
Brown -- a state senator at the time of his election -- was the first in what would become a long line of tea party endorsed candidates with rather colorful pasts.
I ranked Jack Conway #3 on my recent Senate race rankings post, and while I'm helping behind the scenes, I feel it's important to come out and ask if you'll all pitch in.
The Conway campaign is joining with Blue America, DailyKos, DFA and ActBlue on a moneybomb today. They've raised $137,143 as of this post, but there are dual reasons for chipping in to get them over the top. Some races I help in because I just want to put a good candidate in the Senate- and Jack's race is one of these, I think he is a solid progressive guy. But in this race, I also want so badly to keep Rand Paul out. His comments opposing the Civil Rights Act are appalling, but they are just one example of how extreme he truly is- his dad may or may not have named him for Ayn Rand, but either way he follows her brand of selfishness-is-good libertarianism to a tee. His style of teabaggery is not just extreme for Kentucky, it's extreme for the whole country. We have to keep him out.
As I wrote in my post:
This is a hugely important race. Paul is the top priority for tea partiers around the country, and if he gets a seat in the Senate, their extremist movement will have will have a standard bearer for years to come. I have been very impressed by Conway and the kind of campaign he is running, and he is very much in this race in spite of the toughness of the Kentucky political terrain.
The list of bedrock American laws that Rand Paul is opposed to keeps growing longer. In addition to the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Paul has made it clear that he doesn't like the Clean Air Act either. Last weekend, Paul said that President Obama should leave Kentucky alone, especially when it comes to pollution. "You need to keep the EPA out of our affairs," he called on the president.
Paul prefers to have things "handled on a local level." But unlike Paul, I grew up in Kentucky, and I question this logic.
My elementary school sat on a cliff above an Ashland Oil refinery, and our playground was about eye level with the top of their smokestacks. When the paint on teachers' car started to peel and children started getting sick, the PTA tried to make Ashland Oil do something about it. After some fighting, the company finally installed air monitors on the kickball field - and a few months later the school closed its doors.
What sticks with me still is the way the problem was solved: As far as I can see, Ashland Oil didn't clean up its act at all. Our school shut down instead.
Federal efforts to cut pollution aren't perfect, but they are the last line of defense for places like my hometown. They literally save our lives: the Clean Air Act, for instance, has been documented to prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
Kentucky has a long dark history of environmental injustice. Amazing groups like Appalachian Voices have been fighting for cleaner water, cleaner air, and better safety rules for miners. They often find local solutions, but they also turn to federal agencies like the EPA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration when they need to.
Paul may call it "federal overreach," but I call it protecting the health of Kentuckians.
Of course, Paul trots out the old saw that cutting pollution kills jobs. But I think Paul is more concerned about ideology than jobs, because if he really wanted to create jobs for Kentucky, he wouldn't turn his back on clean energy and climate legislation. Clean energy jobs are growing 2.5 times as fast as traditional jobs. Paul would rather shoot down federal climate solutions than bring the jobs of the 21st century to his state.
Instead, he is banking on the same old dirty industries, and he seems to think that if children get asthma because they played on a field next to a refinery, that's alright because someone had a job. I am sorry, but I can't accept the misconception that my classmates and I were the collateral damage of some polluter's payroll. Good companies that are following the law and being good neighbors provide jobs every single day.
Companies have found time and again that a clean business model is part of the recipe for a successful company. That is why 5,171 small businesses from across the country are supporting the climate bill. That is why some of the largest companies in the nation are calling on Congress to take action immediately.
The parents I know in Kentucky have no interest in working jobs that sacrifice their children's health. They want to provide for their families AND keep them safe at the same time. This isn't an either or situation. Paul seems to forget this in the midst of his fixation with "federal overreach." I too respect states rights, but states still have to be good neighbors. Local empowerment doesn't give you the right to endanger your residents' health, export pollution into nearby states, or block national solutions to fight global climate change.
If leaders like Paul forget these lessons in responsibility, then I am glad federal agencies like the EPA can step in and remind them.
The Rand Paul campaign was really proud of the $2500 their campaign received from the National Right to Work for Less Committee. Of course there is a very good reason for that. The National Right to Work Committee is an extremist group and as we all have seen Rand Paul is an especially extremist candidate. He opposes the right of Americans to have and maintain a middle-class and falls into the most helpless realm of corporate apology and welfare condoned by his new mentor, Mitch McConnell. The difference is, Rand Paul was undisciplined enough to tell you how Republicans really feel about you.
As expected the Republicans in the Senate said no to those whose livelihoods they gutted when they controlled Washington. Forget the fact that men like Mitch McConnell and yes, Ben Nelson who is a Republican and should get out of our party soaked up huge salaries while soaking the middle-class with policies that decimated them while enriching Corporate fatcats and the Chinese Communists. Of course the whole Republican Party, Mitch McConnell and Ben Nelson want you to forget. What they do not want is to bear any of the responsibility of their actions both in the past and now as working Americans who paid the price from Republicans and Corporate Democrats and the robber-barons in Corporate America getting fat, crashing the economy, and getting bailed out.
Rand Paul, the Republican senate candidate in Kentucky, is a freewheeling libertarian. Instead of getting some fancy board-certification as an ophthalmologist, Paul decided to "go Galt" and make up his own credentials. Paul founded the National Board of Ophthalmology, ostensibly to certify doctors as qualified eye specialists.
The NBO is run out of Paul's home in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Paul is the president, is wife is the vice president, and her father Hilton Ashby is the organization's secretary. Normally medical boards sponsor rigorous exams to ensure the highest professional standards in their respective specialties. "I can't tell you what the organization does," Ashby told TPM.
It takes a rugged individualist eye doctor to found an entire medical board just for himself and a few friends. When you think about it, it's kind of hypocritical of Paul to hold a standard medical license. If he were a true libertarian he'd found his own medical board and let the free market decide who's a "real doctor."
FDA cracks down on DNA tests
The mean old FDA has ordered that companies offering so-called over-the-counter DNA testing prove that their products actually work. Libertarian Alex Tabarrok is outraged. He argues that if the tests don't actually harm anyone, the government shouldn't restrict them.
At the American Prospect, Tim Fernholtz replies that the FDA's decision is just common sense. If a company is claiming to provide medical information, the onus is on them to prove that they are informing the public accurately. Besides, even if the test itself is harmless the results of the test could have life-altering consequences.
Michael Mechanic reports in Mother Jones that one woman became convinced that she'd been the victim of a hospital baby mixup when a over-the-counter DNA test showed that her son wasn't hers. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones applauds the FDA for getting involved but wonders aloud whether over the counter DNA testing is really that much different from astrology or other dubious prediction methods that are perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment. Should Magic 8-Balls be allowed to market themselves as pregnancy tests? Signs point to no.
HIV in the Motor City
Former White House staffer Van Jones is raising the alarm about HIV in Detroit, as Todd Heywood reports in the Michigan Messenger. HIV rates in Brooklyn and Washington, D.C. have garnered national headlines, but the crisis in Detroit has gone largely unnoticed. Over half of the zip codes in Detroit report HIV prevalence rates of at least 3%. In the most severely affected zip codes, 6% of the population is HIV positive, an infection level on par with Uganda.
Modeling Christian behavior
A self-proclaimed Christian school in Florida fired a pregnant teacher because she admitted to conceiving her child three weeks before her wedding. Jaretta Hamilton was fired from Southland Christian School for telling the truth about premarital sex, Joseph DiNorcia reports in RH Reality Check. By all accounts Mrs. Hamilton's job performance was fine. Instead of bearing false witness, she answered an intrusive question truthfully. Apparently the school felt it was more "Christian" for Hamilton's baby to be born to an unemployed mother. Hamilton is suing for discrimination.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Those who are regular visitors to this space know that I post stories across the country, and to do that I have to follow stories from a number of states.
Because I post at Kentucky's Hillbilly Report, I've been paying particular attention to the Rand Paul campaign, and the news from the Bluegrass State (via "The Rush Limbaugh Show") is that Paul's planning to write his own balanced budget proposal for the Federal Government.
But there's a catch.
He doesn't plan on doing it until after the election.
Well, now, why in the world would a guy who's running for office based on his really good ideas want to hold back the best one?
That's not a bad question, and if we make the effort we can probably figure out the most likely answers.
Rand Paul made such a fool of himself the week before last, that it was understandable folks might miss perhaps the most foolish--and most telling--thing of all that he said. When asked point-blank on NPR if he would say that the Civil Rights Act was "an overreach by the federal government", he didn't just duck the question, he claimed he would have marched with Matrin Luther King " to overturn institutional racism". As became quite clear later in the day on the Rachel Maddow Show, he was really opposed to letting the government do anything about private discrimination, because it violated his libertarian model of freedom for business-owners. And freedom for libertarians is all about property. In this diary, I want to make five basic points:
(1) The Civil Rights Movement was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have marched with Martin Luther King.
(2) The Civil Rights Act was much more involved in fighting private discrimination that Rand Paul acknowledges, which means there is no way that Paul would have supported it.
(3) Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was largely based on the same broad reasons that Rand Paul has a problem with it.
(4) Private discrimination has played a significant role in conservative politics in the years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, which means it is anything but an historical irrelevancy.
(5) Libertarians have a very different vision of "freedom" from the Civil Rights vision, although they take great pains to obscure the fact. In fact, the libertarian vision of freedom was part of what helped keep slavery in place, as well as what helped justify opposition to the Civil Rights Movement.
Let's turn to the record. Here's the passage in the NPR interview:
SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. [Goes on to talk about wheelchair access, etc.]
Wow, it wasn't but a few short hours when I wrote this diary about how Mitch McConnell had told Rand Paul that he really just needs to shut the hell up. Well, the Senator from Communist China might have known what he was talking about in reigning in the mad doctor with the twisty curls. You see, every time Rand Paul opens his mouth a cherished Republican belief that they have worked so long and hard to disguise spews forth. Now, Rand Paul thinks we fat and sassy working folks just make to much money!!
STATE BLOGS
