Mitch McConnell's musket

By Richard K. Barry

Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

I would say that politics is becoming increasingly strange, but it doesn't do much to state the obvious. Latest proof is that Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is being criticized for not looking particularly comfortable on stage at CPAC as he carried a flint-lock musket to the podium before making his speech. 

The gun was an award for retiring Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but McConnell must have though it would be a great idea to use it as a prop as he addressed the conservative faithful. 

But, As Courier-Journalist writer Joseph Gerth put it:

Instead or recalling images of Charlton Heston at NRA conventions, where the late actor incited the crowd by raising a similar gun, McConnell looked a bit more like Michael Dukakis riding in a tank or President Barack Obama shooting skeet at Camp David, or Jimmy Carter doing much of anything.

A little digging by the Courier-Journal could find no other picture of McConnell with a gun, and his campaign has refused to say whether he "hunts, shoots targets or even owns a gun."

On the one hand, the thought that one's familiarity with firearms should be considered an important qualification for high office is pretty scary. On the other, it's sad that McConnell tried to fake it in the way he did.

The other part of it is that McConnell is not the sort of politician CPAC types much cotton to. As Gerth writes:

McConnell is what he is. He’s a denizen of the beltway who revels in the type of insider politics that folks who attend CPAC hate. He is someone who has historically — at least until recently — believed in the largess of the federal government to help his state.

One thing for sure is the emergence of the far right has made establishment Republicans bigger frauds and liars than they had previously been, if that's possible. 

In the sewer that is Washington, D.C.

By Richard K. Barry

Stay classy, Tom.

At the risk of sounding prudish, it amazes me that things in Washington have become so bad that respected publications and websites have been forced to use two full dashes to make printable nasty things our politicians are calling each other. In this case it was Republican Sen. Tom Coburn who called Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid an "absolute a--hole." Apparently there are gradations in being an a--hole and Harry Reid is very good at it. 

In truth, though I identify with Reid's party, I get the sense he is very good at it. 

As for Reid's side, there is this. 

“Nothing says ‘comity’ like childish playground name-calling, especially from a senator who has not sponsored a single piece of successful bipartisan legislation during his entire Senate career,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesperson for Reid.

Yeah, that'll lower the temperature. 

I have no doubt that Republicans bear all the blame for an obstructionist agenda intended to make it impossible for President Obama to accomplish anything. Put another way, Republican know Washington doesn't work because they broke it.

Still, when it comes to the necessary work and relationships required to govern our Republic, we are good and truly f----ed.

In wake of tornado tragedy, both of Oklahoma's senators prove once again to be self-serving assholes

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Inhofe and Coburn, Oklahoma's finest.

First it was Tom Coburn, the junior senator, who said that he would "only support relief aid if it's offset by cuts elsewhere." As I wrote, "disaster relief is apparently one of those things you have to negotiate with Republicans. (Okay, we'll help you out a bit, but only if we fuck some other people elsewhere.) Chris Christie understandably went ballistic when Republicans did this in response to Hurricane Sandy. But who will speak for the people of Oklahoma?"

Well, Jim Infofe, but with shameless hypocrisy. The senior senator said that Hurricane Sandy aid, which he opposed, was "totally different" from Oklahoma tornade relief, because the Sandy bill had "things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C." "Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place," he added. "That won't happen in Oklahoma." No? Your buddy Coburn's already gone there.

In any event, Inhofe is full of shit. As the Post's Rachel Weiner and Matt DeLong explain:

The senator appeared to be referring to the fact that some funds from the Sandy package for the Federal Highway Administration could go to the Virgin Islands, as well as $2 million allocated to the Smithsonian for roofs damaged by the storm. We don't yet know what a congressional relief package for Oklahoma would look like, if one is even necessary. As of Tuesday morning, FEMA has $11.6 billion in its Disaster Relief Fund.

So some money could have gone to an American territory through the FHA and there was a need to repair some damage at the Smithsonian, an essential American institution.

Look, Inhofe and other Republicans were just looking for anything to block Sandy relief. This extra spending was what they used to justify their opposition.

Read more »

Tornado tragedy in Moore, Oklahoma

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Surely you've all heard by now, all seen the images coming from the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore:

A giant tornado, a mile wide or more, killed at least 51 people, 20 of them children, as it tore across parts of Oklahoma City and its suburbs Monday afternoon, flattening homes, flinging cars through the air and crushing at least two schools. 

The injured flooded into hospitals, and the authorities said many people remained trapped, even as rescue workers struggled to make their way through debris-clogged streets to the devastated suburb of Moore, where much of the damage occurred.

Amy Elliott, the spokeswoman for the Oklahoma City medical examiner, said at least 51 people had died, including the children, and officials said that toll was likely to climb. Hospitals reported at least 145 people injured, 70 of them children.

Plaza Towers Elementary School in Moore was reduced to a pile of twisted metal and toppled walls. Rescue workers were able to pull several children from the rubble, but on Monday evening crews were still struggling to cut through fallen beams and clear debris amid reports that dozens of students were trapped. At Briarwood Elementary School in Oklahoma City, on the border with Moore, cars were thrown through the facade and the roof was torn off. 

It's hard to know what to say at a time like this. It reached a point earlier tonight when I just had to turn away from the news coverage, watching a couple of Seinfeld episodes, then Veep, just to clear my head.

Children... schools... lives lost... so many injured... a community devastated.

One of Oklahoma's senators, Republican Tom Coburn, is already playing politics, appallingly (but not surprisingly) saying he'll only support relief aid if it's offset by cuts elsewhere. Yes, disaster relief is apparently one of those things you have to negotiate with Republicans. (Okay, we'll help you out a bit, but only if we fuck some other people elsewhere.) Chris Christie understandably went ballistic when Republicans did this in response to Hurricane Sandy. But who will speak for the people of Oklahoma?

I hope we all do. I really do.

Fuck your right-wing fiscal agenda, Republicans. People have died, people are hurt, people need food and shelter. They need help, for fuck's sake.

They don't need Republicans -- and a senator from the very state that is suffering! -- using this tragedy to score political points.

Period.

**********

Here are a few images of the devastation from the Times:

In praise of Tom Coburn, our Smartest Republican of the Day

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can't quite believe it, given what a crazy right-wing nutcase he is, but, well, credit where credit is due and all that.

Here, via Think Progress, is what the extremely conservative Oklahoma senator said yesterday about liberals and the budget deficit:

All of us are going to give a little something if we're going to get out of the hole we're in. Everybody's going to see something different... I think it's better for us to take the pain that we're going to have to take and make sure it's meted out in the proper order than take much more severe pain. When I talk to my colleagues on the other side, and some of my closest colleagues are the most liberal, I find them more intellectually honest oftentimes, the very people they want to help, unless we change these [government programs] now are the very people who are going to get hurt if we don't fix it.

I still don't agree with the vast majority of the positions he takes, but here he acknowledges that there is a need for compromise (and that Republicans must compromise), praises his liberal colleagues (i.e., Democrats) for being more honest than his own kind, and actually makes a case for reforming entitlement programs so as to help those who need those programs the most. How very refreshing.

And this wasn't a first. As Think Progress notes:

Coburn is absolutely a staunch conservative with whom we disagree on most budgetary issues, but to his credit, he has consistently said that new revenue needs to be a part of any realistic deficit reduction package, acknowledging what the vast majority of his Republican colleagues won't. He has said it's "pretty stupid and naive" for Republicans and anti-tax zealots like Grover Norquist to think that a budget deal won't include new revenue, accurately pointing out the depths to which government revenue has plunged in recent years.

How very... not Republican of him. 

The plight of Olympia Snowe, revisited

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill has a piece up today noting that Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, long thought to be one of those most endangered of species, a moderate Republican, has actually "taken surprisingly conservative positions in the Senate this year."

Surprising? Not so much. While Snowe claims consistency, the truth is that she's not just endangered but in danger, facing the possibility of a serious Tea Party primary challenge from the right. And as she moves more and more to the right, she's even voting against her own ideas:

Snowe stunned longtime Democratic colleagues Wednesday by blocking action on a small-business bill she co-wrote because Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on an amendment they saw as a political hit job.

"Sen. Snowe actually wrote this bill," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chairwoman of the Senate Small Business Committee. "She killed her own bill under the guise that she feels so strongly about reg reform."

She claims that she voted against the bill because the amendment was necessary (and because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denied her the opportunity to vote on it), but the amendment, co-sponsored with right-wing Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, was decidedly anti-regulatory and contrary to the spirit of the legislation. Far from being consistent, Snowe clearly sought to embrace a right-wing effort to undermine the bill in order to display her newfound conservative bona fides, all part of her disingenuous move to the right in order to ward off, or at least to try to be in better position to defeat, a Tea Party challenge.

Snowe has been a "moderate" for so long that I highly doubt that her efforts will work. Maine voters, and especially Maine Republican primary voters, are not about to take her as a Coburn-like conservative. It's just not what she's ever been, and her efforts now, like Mitt Romney's seem desperate and pathetic.

Nonetheless, I suspect that Snowe is fairly safe if only because of her long-standing incumbency in a state that is hardly as conservative as, say, Oklahoma. Still, there's an opening for the Tea Party to bring her down, and she's obviously concerned enough to forsake her past and embrace her party's mainstream extremism.

And she's hardly alone. Any Republican who in any way departs from Tea Party orthodoxy is a target. This is one of the key developments to watch as we look ahead to November 2012.

For more on this, see Richard Barry's post from Tuesday.

(photo)

Is Jon Stewart the new Edward R. Murrow?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much ado recently, and justifiably so, about Jon Stewart's admirable advocacy in support of 9/11 First Responders, demanding passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act and shaming both Congress (Democrats for not being aggressive enough and Republicans for obstructing the bill) and the news media (which, with the exception of Aljazeera, was neglecting the story entirely) into action.

Stewart has repeated denied that he is a political player, let alone a partisan, preferring to present himself as a comedian first and foremost, but there is no denying that he has become a major political figure. His rally with Colbert back at the end of October was a sign of his significant reach, but those of us who adore him, if I may put it so lovingly, have known about his influence for a long time. So, for that matter, have his critics.

While a huge fan, I have been deeply critical of Stewart's anti-partisan claims, and so, while supporting 9/11 First Reponders is hardly a partisan thing to do (even if Republicans like Tom Coburn made it partisan), I do welcome Stewart's aggressive foray into legislative politics. Without necessarily turning into an overt partisan, and without endangering his comedy (and his broad appeal across the left into the center, and especially with liberal-minded but independent young people), he should do more of it.

But the question is, is he, as no less an authority than the Times has suggested, the new Edward R. Murrow, the legendary journalist and CBS commentator who famously stood up to McCarthyism and, in the process, became the icon of journalism itself?

It's a silly question, in a way, even as it asks us to put Stewart into perspective, to figure out just what he's all about. No longer just a self-deprecating comedian with an obscure late-night cable faux news show appealing to collegiate stoners, Stewart has become a sort of icon himself, the essential progressive voice of the engaged but generally powerless, a voice speaking truth to political and media power, but doing so not as a member of the insider ranks, like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, but as a justifiably cynical outsider pointing out the very absurdity of it all while holding those on the inside to account, catching them in their various foibles, sometimes criminal, often unethical, usually counter to the public good.

If he isn't quite Murrow, it's because he refuses to be that serious, because he remains a comedian above all, and because, honestly, Murrow was a man of his time and place. In today's media landscape, a Murrow just isn't possible, just as, say, a Cronkite isn't possible. The world is too fractured for such a singular giant. Now it's all about granular niches and multiple platforms, not overarching media figures wielding immense influence on a limited number of channels, the entire nation tuned in.

But that doesn't mean the comparison is without merit. Murrow was a man of exceptional determination and courage. Stewart is much less sure of himself, and much more of a funny man who thrives on being out there on the fringe, poking fun at the establishment, but his willingness to take on the establishment even as he and his fans are laughing at it suggests a courage that is sorely lacking in American society today, both in politics and in the media. He may not have the revolutionary aims of a Julian Assange, but, then, neither did Murrow. And like Murrow, what Stewart is ultimately fighting for is for America to live up to its professed values and principles. He doesn't go about it quite the same way Murrow did, but the similarities are there.

For more on this, see this fine piece by Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, which has influenced much of what I've written here. Here's part of it:

Jon Stewart may or may not be the most important journalist of the 21th Century -- it's early still, plus he'd have to cop to the label and I'm not sure he would. But it should be clear from this episode, if it somehow weren't before, that Stewart (Murrow-like, you might say) wields enormous power and prestige through the medium of television (and the Internet). He showed it this fall with his well-attended Washington rally, he shows it each week with his ratings among younger viewers and the nation's political elite, and he clearly raised his game a notch with his searing light on how official Washington was screwing up the responders' health bill. I give credit to the Times and others for at least trying to cover that aspect of this story. The comparison to Murrow, which came off as facile in the Times piece, has some merit. It just wasn't explained well enough. Nor, alas, was the mainstream media's generally miserable failure -- also highlighted by Stewart -- in covering the 9/11 responders' legislation before Stewart's broadcasts. Stewart didn't just blast the Congress, remember, he blasted news organizations, too, for the latest example of their chronically short attention spans.

When Murrow took on Sen. Joseph McCarthy nearly half a century ago, he had far more to lose than Stewart did when he lobbied for the federal legislation. Murrow was standing up to bullies -- horrible, powerful bullies -- who might have ended his career and destroyed his network. By comparison, Stewart was merely speaking out against the way politics and journalism too often works in Washington. But both Murrow and Stewart dramatically changed public perceptions about a current event. Both men stuck their necks out. Both went first into a sort of no-man's-land. It is probably true that only Murrow in his time had the bona fides to stand up to McCarthy (and don't forget, Murrow waited years before doing so). But of all the media people who could have stood up in late 2010 for the brave, sick men and women who went into the rubble of September 11, 2001 only Stewart had both the will and the chops to do so in earnest. Does that make his courage any less impressive? Not in my book. Not when compared with so many other broadcasters and journalists who thought they had more important stories to file.

Courage in broadcasting, or in journalism in general, is not a zero sum game. Praising Stewart for his "mad as hell ain't gonna take it anymore" moment is no slight to Murrow or any other journalist who risks criticism and vitriol for speaking truth to power. Any comparison between the men diminishes neither. Let the historians and biographers correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Murrow would have applauded Stewart's role in redirecting public opinion back to some of the heroes who ran toward the rubble in Lower Manhattan in September 2001. And I believe Murrow would have endorsed Stewart's critical view of the media's role in the affair -- especially the navel-gazing that has occurred since the passage of the legislation. Murrow may have searched for light but he is known today for the passion, the heat, he brought to his best work. I believe history will judge Stewart similarly, in this instance and hopefully again in the future.

Hopefully indeed.

The apocalyptic pain of starving the beast

Guest post by Nicholas Wilbur 

Nicholas Wilbur is an award-winning reporter and opinion columnist turned political junkie and critic. He is the founder of the blog Muddy Politics and lives in New Mexico.

(Ed. note: This is Nicholas's fifth guest post for us. You can find his first two, both on the Obama-GOP tax deal, here and here. You can find his third, on the potential for revolution, here, and his fourth, on the state of American democracy, here. -- MJWS)

********** 

When you starve the beast, the last think you expect is "apocalyptic pain," especially when the former strategy and the latter warning come from the same political party.

After two years of vigorously opposing and consistently filibustering any Democratic-proposed initiatives that were not paid for – and even many that were – Republicans executed a flawless about-face this month by then lobbying the White House to add more than $675 billion to the national deficit with an extension of tax cuts for all Americans.

"The worst time in the world to raise taxes on anybody is during a recession," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said in the lead-up to the tax-cut debate.

After President Obama and the majority of Democrats in Congress capitulated to GOP demands and approved the tax cuts for another two years, Coburn came out spewing the usual Republican fire-and-brimstone venom about government spending.

According to The Hill, Coburn is now on a "crusade against spending." He's calling for "sacrifice," warning of "punishment" for runaway spending, and prophesying "destruction" of the middle class if Washington doesn't get its house in order.

If it seems like a gold metal winner in the Hypocrite Olympics, it is.

(Perhaps it's time for the GOP to update its traditional title to reflect its modern political stances – something like Grand Old Hypocritical Party would do just fine.)

But it's also good politics. And it doesn't take a modern political science expert to see how.

George Lakoff’s 2004 description of the Republican Party's tax-cut pitch to America still applies to the extension Obama just signed into law.

The Republican Party holds to the theory that "social programs are immoral because they make people dependent," Lakoff writes. After hearing Republicans argue throughout the year against providing unemployment benefits to the millions of American who still cannot find work, it has become acceptable to describe these people not only as dependent but also lazy, serially breeding animals, drug addicts, hobos and, in general, taxpayer leeches who ride on the backs of the ever-dwindling population of hard-working and patriotic Americans.

Lakoff continues: "[I]f you believe that social programs are immoral, how do you stop these immoral people? It is quite simple. What you have to do is reward the good people – the ones whose prosperity reveals their discipline and hence their capacity for morality – with a tax cut, and make it big enough so that there is not enough money left over for social programs. By this logic, the deficit is a good thing. As Grover Norquist says, it 'starves the beast.'"

And that is exactly what Republicans have accomplished with the latest, mostly bipartisan effort to extend tax cuts for all Americans. 

By "starving the beast" of $675 billion worth in tax cuts, and another $183 billion in additional spending measures, Republicans are now squawking that the sky is falling. And Coburn is not alone in his argument that if something isn't done – and soon – the country as a whole will feel the "apocalyptic pain" of this administration's spending spree, economic emergency or not. 

For an added bit of irony, it's worth noting that Republicans spent the majority of the 2010 campaign season railing against Obama and Democrats for adding to the deficit, stretching the government too thin, and jeopardizing the fiscal safety of the nation by shoving a $787 billion stimulus bill down the throats of the American people, and then, after the election, coming out in near unanimous support for a second, even more costly stimulus bill totaling $858 billion.

Because of these measures, "wasteful spending" is now on the chopping block – which sounds like a good thing, a necessary thing, a vital thing if America is going to avoid a financial apocalypse. But wasteful spending, according to the GOP, is spending on social programs. And that debate is fast approaching.

To avoid defaulting on the national debt, Congress will begin debating in early 2011 whether or not to increase the national debt ceiling above the current $14.2-trillion limit.

The new House majority leader, John Boehner, has signaled that increasing the debt ceiling is necessary, even if it is not desirable. Not all Republicans are on board, but with Republicans taking control of the lower branch of Congress come January, and with a good many of them representing the anti-government, "Don't Tread on Me" philosophy of the Tea Party movement, spending cuts are guaranteed no matter what decision is made with regard to the debt ceiling.

If the Republican Party's "Pledge to America" is any indication of where spending allegiances lie, seniors, veterans, and troops will not be on the chopping block.

That may come as a relief to some, but it signals its own Armageddon to others. By ignoring cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending, only one-third of the federal budget is then open to cuts. One could bet with almost certain odds that social programs will be first to slide under the guillotine.

That means early child education, crime and violence prevention and resources, substance abuse treatment, mental health therapy, youth development, housing subsidies, after-school programming, college tuition assistance and grants... the list goes on, and on, and on – and it affects millions of people.

It's unlikely that Sen. Coburn will revise his statement about tax cuts and add that, "The worst time in the world to cut social programs on anybody is during a recession."

That said, it's the argument Democrats are going to have to take. Spending cuts are necessary, but their effects are mostly directed toward those who are already on the brink of poverty. More importantly, at least as far as politics is concerned, spending cuts result in staff reductions, which result in further unemployment.

It's not a battle any individual should look forward to fighting, because no matter who wins the debate, Coburn's forecast of "apocalyptic pain" is inevitable.

Such is the nature of starving the beast. When all of the money runs out, it's those without who suffer the most. A politically and morally divided Congress must now decide where to direct the apocalyptic storm.

If it weren't for the sluggish economy, one might feel it appropriate to give these lawmakers a raise for the life-or-death consequences their decisions will reap on America.

Tom Coburn looks to block passage of health-care benefits for 9/11 First Responders

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Full credit, or almost full credit, to Jon Stewart for raising awareness of the urgent health-care needs of 9/11 First Responders at a time when most in the media, and so many in Washington, couldn't be bothered, and for advocating swift passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

As Slate's Chris Beam notes, examining Stewart's undesired role as partisan political activist, "[t]he bill wasn't as far from passage as it seemed -- Stewart just shined a light on the issue at the right moment." But even if it was close to passage, Republicans were still blocking it, at least until the tax deal was passed. And it was getting so bad for Republicans, PR-wise, that even some conservatives were slamming them for blocking what should be a slam dunk (or at least, like Giuliani, Huckabee, and Pataki, advising them to get on board). Who, after all, opposes health care benefits for courageous 9/11 First Responders?

Well, how about Oklahoma's Tom Coburn?

Amid mounting pressure from Democrats and a growing handful of Republicans to pass a bill that would provide health care benefits to first responders who were at the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn announced on Monday his intentions to block passage of the legislation.

He tells Politico that he "wouldn't allow the bill to move quickly" due to "problems with parts of the bill and the process Democrats are employing" to pass it.

Coburn  defended his position in a Tuesday morning interview on Fox News, arguing that "this is a bill that's been drawn up and forced through Congress at the end of the year on a basis to solve a problem that we didn't have time to solve and we didn't get done."

Coburn also argued that the bill, entitled the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, "hasn't even been through a committee." Coburn added: "We haven't had the testimony to know." (ThinkProgress notes that on June 29, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions -- on which Coburn sits -- held a hearing on the bill. But Coburn's office says that doesn't amount to having gone "through a committee.")

The testimony to know what? Whether 9/11 First Responders deserve health care? Why do you need a committee to tell you that? I appreciate the committee process, but isn't this a prime example of a bill that should be allowed to circumvent process?

It's bad enough that Senate Republicans -- all of them, let us remember -- were prepared to block this and all legislation until the tax deal was passed, as if tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than health care for 9/11 First Responders (to Republicans, they seem to be), worse that Democrats still had to get Republicans to haggle over the cost of the bill (and how it would be paid for -- now a fee on federal contracts instead of closing a corporate tax loophole), as if the health care benefits of these courageous men and women should have to be subjected to the right-wing Republican agenda, and worse still that this one Republican is threatening to kill it altogether. (And is he really against it for procedural reasons, or is he just against it period -- you know, because it's government health care?)

And is he alone? As Fox News's Shep Smith discovered, a lot of Republicans don't even want to talk about it. So are they with Coburn or not?

I suspect that the bill will be passed -- another major victory for Democrats during the lame-duck session. But it won't be easy, given Coburn's opposition, and it says a lot about Republicans (and not just Coburn), that it's come to this point.

Your moment of Rachel

By Creature

Once again, devastating. Coburn should take his ball and go home.

Smartest Republican of the Day: Tom Coburn

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait... what? Tom Coburn? Is this bizarro reality? I despise Tom Coburn. He's one of the worst Republicans in the Senate, a partisan and ideological extremist.

But, well, credit where credit is due, I suppose. At a recent town hall meeting, the Oklahoma Republican a) defended Nancy Pelosi:

She is a nice lady... [boos and jeers]... Come on now. She is a nice... How many of y'all have met her? She's a nice person. She's a nice person... Let me give you a little lesson here. I hope you will listen to me. Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean they're not a good person.

And b) criticized Fox News:

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. [applause] So don't catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody is no good.

Wow. I mean, he's hardly a grammarian, and he's still way over on the right, but this was pretty caution-to-the-wind, and pretty darn admirable, for a Republican -- and especially for a hardened conservative like him.

Not that he'll be mistaken for a liberal anytime soon, nor even for a sensible human being, but still.

Everybody take a breath

By Edward Copeland

What in the world is wrong with us? As the threatening instances linked to tea party activists and health care opponents seem to accumulate, I find myself scratching my head in disbelief. I guess I shouldn't. Back during the election, at Palin rallies where she egged on participants by suggesting that Barack Obama "palled around with domestic terrorists" she'd be greeted with shouts of "kill him." When John McCain actually stood up to the paranoids at one of his campaign events who expressed fright at the prospect of an Obama presidency or repeated the idea that he wasn't born in the United States, his own supporters actually booed him.

Since that time, there have been attacks on law enforcement officials, the murder of people by a man who said he killed them because he couldn't get to those named as threats to America in Bernard Goldberg's book, the assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller by someone who supposedly is "pro-life" and the murder of a guard at the Holocaust Museum by an old hatemonger who was found to have birther literature in his car. Does anyone really believe these people are overreacting because of a law that stops discrimination against people with preexisting conditions? Are people being pushed to extremes because they are so outraged of the idea that parents will be able to keep their children on their health insurance plans until they are 26? PolitiFact has begun debunking an insane chain e-mail making the rounds chock full of lies about what opponents want people to believe is in the health care bill.

House Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor did have a bit of a point when he mentioned that he'd had threats and incidents against him, but he didn't publicize them. It is always something to think about. The Secret Service doesn't issue a press release every time there is a threat made against a president. When a company receives a bomb threat, there always is a debate about whether or not to report it for fear it will only spawn more. The same goes with foiled terrorist plots. Still, he's being disingenuous if he doesn't think the Republicans haven't fanned the flames of lunacy by not speaking more forcefully against the threats and language of violence before.

It's not that those on the left have never gone overboard either. For too many years now, the losing side of a presidential election have been unable to treat the winner as legitimate and they must. That's the way our democracy works. Elections have consequences. Some members of the tea party are doing the right thing. Republicans they don't like they are challenging in primaries. That's what you are supposed to do. Some labor unions are upset about the way some members of Congress switched their votes around on the health care bill. Are they throwing bricks through windows or leaving threatening voicemails? No, they are trying to find challengers to the specific candidates in their primaries. This is what we are supposed to do.

Everyone needs to relax. If you disagree with what your elected representatives have done, vote against them when the time comes. If they still win, that's the breaks. I live in a state where my U.S. senators are Tom Coburn and James Inhofe. Want to talk about taxation without representation? Still, as much as I despise these men and as often as I've voted against them to no avail, I've never threatened them, cut gas lines to their homes or tosses bricks through their offices. Everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, need to act like that. If you cannot and you still feel the urge to react violently, you owe to yourself and everyone around you to turn yourself in to the nearest mental health facility and get the help you so desperately need.

While I have leaned toward the left for a long time, I vote Democratic because it's my only option and it saddens me. I wish that somehow the Republicans could right their ship so that in an ideal world I'd actually have a choice between two candidates when I vote (in a really ideal world, there would be more than two choices). It's disheartening that one party has thrown itself so completely in bed with extremists, excommunicating its own moderates, so that they aren't a choice for me and I'm left with a party I mostly agree with but which is very often less than perfect. If only we had a true democracy, with real choices and real candidates, lost the craziness and brought back civility to debates about issues.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Tom Coburn

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For saying this:

We need to start over. We need to fix what's really wrong in health care and we need to protect what's really great. What's really great is if you're really sick anywhere in the world, this is the best place to be sick, it just costs too much.

Tell that to the millions of Americans who have no insurance at all, or who are denied treatment by their HMOs, or who are drowning in debt because of those high costs of care, or who have to make choices between health care and, say, food.

If you're poor and sick, and even if you have somewhat decent coverage, it's not so "great" to be sick in America.

Or, Senator, are these people -- millions and millions of your fellow Americans, all so far beneath you on the socio-economic scale -- supposed to take comfort in the excellent care that you and the privileged oligarchy are able to access whenever you need? Is this supposed to make them proud of their country, a country that has largely abandoned them, with a political class, your class, that doesn't give a shit?

You know what? Fuck you, Tom Coburn. Fuck... you.

I lived in the U.S. for many years and I was one of the privileged. When I needed care, I got maybe the best care in the world. I saw it up close. When I was in high school, I had a fairly serious operation, and then also a follow-up one. My doctor was exceptional. There were no waiting times. And it was all quite amazing. But how did I come to receive such care? Because my family, though my father's work, had incredible coverage. And I don't for a second take that for granted.

I now live in Canada, where we have excellent care through a government-run single-payer system (but with private insurance as well, for many).

But should I oppose health-care reform in the U.S. just because my own experiences were so positive? That seems to be what Coburn is saying: The system is great, the care is great, we just need to bring costs down a bit.

And how do you propose to do that, Senator, if all you want is to reinforce the status quo by keeping health care in the hands of private insurers and profiteering drug companies?

It "just" costs too much? That's it? That's the only problem? Not the fact that millions and millions hardly have any access to decent care at all, and certainly not to the sort of quality care you and your fellow congressmen get?

Fuck you.

The strangest of bedfellows: Tom Coburn and... the gay community?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Suzy Khimm is reporting at The Plank, right-wing Republican Sen. Tom Coburn has actually co-writting an op-ed for The Advocate, a leading gay publication.

His message? Government is bad, specifically when it comes to health care. (Yes, this is part of the ongoing Republican propaganda campaign against reform.)

Indeed, he argues that, with respect to AIDS patients seeking the drugs they need, "bureaucratic inefficiencies and mismanagement have literally cost lives."

Khimm notes obvious problems here:

Coburn doesn't explain, of course, how the private market or his own reforms will succeed in making expensive AIDS drugs more affordable than the current Ryan White programs, other than repeating the line that insurers shouldn't be able to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. But what makes the argument even more difficult to take seriously is the fact that Coburn -- one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate -- has a long history of vicious attacks on gay rights, the gay community, and "the gay agenda."

*****

Coburn's history makes it a bit incredible to think he can now appeal to the LGBT community when it comes to the life or death decisions surrounding health care reform. If he's softened his anti-gay views, that'd certainly be a welcome development. But if Republicans seriously want to make inroads within the gay community, they should think twice about who might be their best envoy.

There is no perfect solution to America's health-care crisis, and the proponents of meaningful reform (which ought to include a robust public option) are not arguing that every problem will be solved by offering people an alternative to strictly private coverage. (And, of course, it's not like the reform packages being proposed by the Democrats involve full-scale nationalization or the introduction of a single-payer system, whatever the lies being tossed around by the right.)

But does the gay community agree with Coburn? Well, the gay community is hardly a monolith, but I doubt that his stridently anti-reform views meet with much support among gays and lesbians.

And do AIDS patients agree with him? Again, I doubt it. While there is likely a good deal of criticism of the current system, and of bureaucratic incompetence, is the right solution to take government out of the picture altogether and to turn the system wholly over to private insurers? Hardly. What there needs to be is choice, which means a public option, and the availability of the best possible care to all Americans. I realize that the situation is different for (some) AIDS patients than, say, for parents seeking general preventive care for their children, or for those who need expensive treatment for some illness but are being denied coverage by their private insurers, or for those who have no insurance at all, and so on, but surely they understand the appeal not just of reform generally but of the sort of meaningful reform that will give people choice, rather than just whatever private insurance structure they're forced into, and bring many more Americans into a system that currently excludes so many.

Simply, this outreach to the gay community by an anti-gay bigot is nothing but a cynical ploy to spread GOP lies. There is no reason to take Coburn seriously, and, one hopes, the readers of The Advocate won't.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Tom Coburn (with his hatred of political science)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For seeking to "cut off money for the National Science Foundation's political-science program," as The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting. Said his press secretary:

Political science would be better left to pundits and voters. Federal research dollars should go to scientists who work on finding solutions for people with severe disabilities, or the next generation of biofuels, or engineering breakthroughs.

Look, there's nothing wrong with "finding solutions for people with severe disabilities" (though I would argue that biofuels are not the answer to America's energy woes, nor to global warming). Obviously, research dollars need to go to programs that have at least some practical use, at least for the most part. I would define "practical" fairly broadly, though.

And yet, even in a stricter sense, how is political science not useful. Coburn's office claims that some programs funded by the NSF "in reality have little, if anything, to do with science," but science, of course, isn't so narrow. The medical, energy, and engineering fields are "science," but the social sciences are a legitimate field of study -- one worthy of federal dollars.

Coburn actually dismisses political science altogether: "Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the Internet." In other words, politics is not a science, is not worth studying, and is certainly not worth funding. This is anti-intellectual philistinism in typical Republican form. If you really think watching cable news is the same as studying political science, you've never studied political science, and you certainly have no appreciation for its many invaluable contributions to society. (I say this as someone who studied political science for a long time and who has an advanced degree in it, but I know what I'm talking about -- more than Tom Coburn, anyway.)

In the end, though, what seems to be driving Coburn is not just anti-intellectualism but right-wing ideology. What he objects to, it seems, is not so much political science itself but the findings of political science, which -- as you may well imagine -- are often (usually, if not always) at odds with his conservative views.

The truth shall set you free, you see, and political science, like any other legitimate science, can be liberating. The senator from Oklahoma, however, like so many of his right-wing ilk, would rather we live in darkness.

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Michael Schwartz

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And just who is Michael Schwartz, you ask? Why, he's none other than the chief of staff to Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, and like his boss, and perhaps even more so, he's a right-wing extremist, not least when it comes to that favourite topic of right-wing extremists, homosexuality.

Schwartz spoke at the Family Research Council's "Values Voters Summit" on Saturday, and it was, more or less, just what you might have expected -- but with a twist. Here's some of what he said:

-- It's "a good instinct" for adolescent boys to be anti-gay.

-- "Homosexuality is inflicted on people."

-- Homosexuality is a "lifestyle."

-- Homosexuality is a "malady."

Here's the twist, as Schwartz (amusingly, because so ridiculously) linked homosexuality to pornography:

-- A "very good friend" once told him that "all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards."

-- Men need to be "healed of" the addiction to pornography.

Now, look, I'm not here to defend pornography. It is what it is, and I've seen enough of it to know that there's a dark side to it. I'm not against it -- far from it -- but I do see that it can tear relationships apart and that it can, if not kept in perspective, pollute one's mind. (Much of it is rather disturbing, to say the least, and there is no doubt it can create expectations that are not only unattainable but unhealthy to pursue.)

But to suggest that all pornography is homosexual is just inane. And insane.

What the likes of Michael Schwartz fear is not just homosexuality, which they see as a plague, but genuine human sexuality generally. They want people to live according to their own fundamentalist dogma -- that is, according to their own lies. They want people to live not according to what is human but according to a construct that seeks to suppress the human.

Schwartz isn't just a theocrat, though, he's a hateful bigot. And he's our Craziest Conservative of the Day.

Ugly Coburn

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I guess right-wing Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma thinks that being denied treatment by your private health-care insurer is just the sort of choice that makes American great.

Watch. It's ugly. (And honest. For this is what the Republicans have become. For all their empty talk of "choice," it's actually them versus the American people.)

Nice parents you've got there, John Ensign

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. John Ensign's parents shelled out big bucks to pay off their son's mistress, the latest twist in an unfolding scandal that has upended the political career of the one-time rising GOP star.

*****

On Thursday, Ensign's attorney said that the senator's parents gave Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and "complied with tax rules governing gifts."

Meanwhile, Roll Call:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday said he would not testify in court or before the Ethics Committee about any advice he gave Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) on how to handle his affair with a former staffer, citing constitutional protections for communications during religious counseling, as well as the patient confidentiality privilege.

"I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon... That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody," Coburn said.

Coburn repeatedly denied allegations that he urged Ensign to pay Doug Hampton, the husband of his mistress Cynthia, millions in hush money following a confrontation with Hampton. "I categorically deny everything he said," Coburn said.

Good times in the densely populated world of Republican scandal, corruption, and hypocrisy. (And that includes Coburn's bullshit excuse. Yeah, sure he was providing Ensign with medical and religious counsel.)