Tea? Or Something More Nutritious?

Yesterday I was reading an interesting interview with self-described "recovering Republican" Bob Ney, the Ohio freak show and designated patsy, who went to prison in the Abramoff scandal, which, in reality, should have send at least two dozen Republican congressmen to prison, if not Bush himself. What originally caught my attention was his analysis of the upcoming presidential election. He thinks Romney, the anointed Establishment pick, will be the nominee and he thinks the party's doctrinaire conservatives don't care that much if they beat Obama or not-- Miss McConnell's stated top priority for 2010-12. Ney worries that's an ass-backwards approach.

[F]rom the conservative end, under their breath, well, they think it doesn't matter if we don't beat him. They think if we don't beat him he's going to do such a bad job over the next four years there will be no Democrats standing in the House, no Democrats standing in the Senate, we'll take the whole ball of wax (in 2016). That theory's out there ... to keep the "bad guy" in for four more years and you'll really see what happens. That's not necessarily what reality becomes.

Interesting tangent to follow up on... sometime. But not where I want to go today. Today we're here to examine how the teabagger thing is working out for the Members of the House who joined the Michele Bachmann-led official teabagger caucus of 60. Ney was always a kind of cloddish and superficial establishment Republican but he indicates he has a lot of admiration for the teabaggers, even if he doesn't understand how completely controlled they are by the fascist-oriented Koch family and a tiny handful of predatory billionaires. Ney:

I think the Tea Party has been very good for this country. I really do. ... They raised an issue out there. And they were smart, they didn't get into abortion, gun control, gay marriage. They got into one element of the financial side of it, so I have to give them a lot of credit.

A congresswoman I don't even know was on the floor yelling, They're holding the Congress hostage. First of all, 62 members of the House are "Tea Party" candidates. Only 30 are active in the Tea Party caucus. So this Democrat is standing there saying they're holding us hostage, wow, she's really giving them credit for completely running the congress. The Tea Party wouldn't run my office, but I am very respectful of what they've done. ... The Tea Party has helped the Republican Party morph back into what it was supposed to be.

... I'm currently unhappy with the Republican leadership. They took a debt ceiling issue, a very serious issue, there's 535 members of the House and Senate ... and they said OK, we'll pass the debt ceiling bill with cuts ... but we'll create a committee of 12 people who will speak for all 535 people, so to heck with 97 percent of the Americans who send their members to Congress.

Here's what John Boehner said, and Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. They all three said this: You all aren't smart enough, you can't make those tough decisions, we'll take 12 people as a representative body of the House and Senate and the president and we'll tell them to make a decision by Dec. 23. If I was Standard & Poors or Moodys, I would be like "OK, that gives me a lot of confidence." They should of had a vote, ugly as it could have been, let the process work. ... They punted this down the road to 12 people. They're going to make Jack Abramoff and me look like pikers with the defense lobbyists and the campaign dollars. ...

On the biggest issue to me of importance to my grandchildren and future generations, and currently to all these unemployed people ... you had Harry Reid, John Boehner and Barack Obama and you ended up with something like the 72nd anniversary of the Wizard of Oz: no brains, no heart, no guts. It was Oz. These three tried to do this private secret deal without having votes.
They should have been voting all along. The Republican Party had the biggest opportunity ever to really nail this one.

Ney didn't quite have his numbers right. There are 60 members of the House teabagger caucus, the one led by Bachmann. More than half are from the Old Confederacy. And, of course, all of them are Republicans. This seems to be the definitive list, although there have been a couple of members who have joined and left and rejoined and left again. Freshmen are in bold type:

Sandy Adams (R-FL)
Robert Aderholt (R-AL)
Todd Akin (R-MO)
Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Joe Barton (R-TX)
Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
Rob Bishop (R-UT)
Diane Black (R-TN)
Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)
Paul Broun (John Birch Society-GA)
Dan Burton (R-IN)
John Carter (R-TX)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Mike Coffman (R-CO)
Chip Cravaack (R-MN)
Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
Stephen Fincher (R-TN)
John Fleming (R-LA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Tom Graves (R-GA)
Ralph Hall (R-TX)
Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Wally Herger (R-CA)
Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Steve King (R-IA)
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Jeff Landry (R-LA)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Tom McClintock (R-CA)
David McKinley (R-WV)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)
Sue Myrick (R-NC)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Rich Nugent (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Mike Pence (R-IN)
Ted Poe (R-TX)
Tom Price (R-GA)
Denny Rehberg (R-MT)
Phil Roe (R-TN)
Dennis Ross (R-FL)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Joe Walsh (R-IL)
Allen West (R-FL)
Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
Joe Wilson (R-SC)

Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a Jew who converted to Mormonism, a Democrat who converted to Republcianism, who was campaign manager and then chief of staff for Governor John Huntsman, defeated a very conservative incumbent Republican, Chris Cannon by running as a hard-core teabagger. His #1 issue was being virulently anti-immigrant. Since being elected he's also been virulently anti-gay. He joined the Congressional Arts Caucus instead of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus, kvetching that "[s]tructure and formality are the exact opposite of what the Tea Party is, and if there is an attempt to put structure and formality around it, or to co-opt it by Washington, D.C., it’s going to take away from the free-flowing nature of the true tea party movement."

Yesterday on This Week Jim DeMint told Christiane Amanpour that "the Tea Party's being thrown around a lot today, but for everyone who calls him a Tea Party-- themselves a Tea Party member, there are hundreds of people who have the same concerns about our spending and our debt. We know over 70 percent of Americans want to balance the budget... I think it's one of the best things that's happened to our country and to politics, because there's a broad cross-section of Americans involved in citizen activism today. And some are called Tea Party; some are not. But all the candidates are going to have to appeal to this new grassroots movement. And that's really what I'm looking for... Any of these [presidential] candidates are going to have to appeal to those Americans who are unified, particularly around fiscal issues." 

DeMint, of course, didn't get into a discussion with Amanpour about the true nature-- the ugly racist nature-- of what's behind the grassroots of the Tea Party or about the billionaires financing it to achieve their own plutocratic goals and agenda. National surveys have all shown that self-described Tea Party supporters are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Republican, overwhelmingly old and overwhelmingly extreme right-wing. They also tend to be wealthier than the average American. Most Tea Party supporters are male (61%) and almost half are evangelicals or "born again." Surveys that have dared delve into it have all found that the teabaggers are deranged racists, which was completely apparent to me when I spent a day with them at their first big Los Angeles event two years ago. A University of Washington study found that teabaggers are "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, although, in fairness, most extreme conservatives are racists.

So far this election cycle, only one Blue America-endorsed candidate, Nick Ruiz down in central Florida, is squaring off against an admitted teabagger and actual member of the congressional caucus. Nick's opponent, freshman Sandy Adams, is one of the less bright of an already far from glowing caucus. Yesterday Nick's battle against this lunacy went beyond the lunatic and racist fringes of Teabaggia.

There is a fragile tension that’s growing, but it’s not the tension you think it is.
 
Not the Tea Party lunacy. Not the corporate Republican debauchery. Not even the thirty years gone of abdication on the part of the Democratic Party, that ironic party of the people, to do the right things for the majority of Americans-- by fighting for the America we laud in textbooks.
 
It’s us. Progressives. For too long, we have supported people we know will do us political harm and disservice, by evidence and history and by all reasonable projections of their future actions. Why?
 
We send them our money, our political contributions-- and they squander them on politicians that vote against almost everything we believe in-- and call it ‘pragmatic progressivism,’ the ‘third way,’ the ‘center,’ and of course, ‘compromise.’ But there is little compromise in a room full of sharks.
 
We wear their pins and buttons, we fill out their incessant requests for petitions and email addresses, as they fill their databases and their coffers with our information and our passion and currency-- only to have them commit small token efforts of advertisement and ‘advocacy’ at best, and at worst, the full-fledged endorsement and financing of candidates who will never do one socially just or legally fair thing for us and America.
 
All while the entourage ‘keeps the change’ and pockets the difference.
 
Progressives thus far have failed to produce a New Deal America. In fact, they have been failing for decades. Not even to fail better, but to fail worse-- because indeed, political circumstances are not improving-- they are disintegrating.
 
I say we can turn this around-- but not by proceeding as the status quo.
 
Progressives, there is a New Deal America waiting for you this 21st century. But you will have to do more than you have done to see it through. Don’t be suckerpunched by a silk tie and a white pearl necklace. It takes a progressive to get things done. Ask FDR. Ask MLK. Ask the scientists that proclaim the Gulf is still leaking oil, with no end in sight. Ask the real Harriet Tubman, not the self-proclaimed Harriet Tubman fake, Tea Party Caucus member Allen West (FL-22).
 
How will you support a New Deal America? By breaking the cycle of complicity-- and backing New Deal Democrats that will do what is necessary to bring about a New Deal America for the 21st century. By endorsing candidates that reject complicity and excessively narrow corporate overtures. People like Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). There are others. Find them.

Americans want economic security-- it starts with a federally mandated, livable minimum wage: $15 per hour, not a paltry $7 and change.
 
Americans want to protect vulnerable families-- it starts with a robust, rather than underdeveloped U.S. Social Safety Net. We need better food assistance, housing assistance, unemployment insurance, and ultimately, retirement assistance-- Social Security. For people who need it, when they need it, until they no longer need it.
 
Americans want America to promote equality of opportunity-- not cronyism, legacy and special favors. That’s for royalty-- and no American fits that description. Promoting equality of opportunity starts with freedom-- freedom of good health, with universal health insurance; freedom of religion, speech, suffrage, sexual preference, expression and equal opportunity of education-- essentially, the freedom to be who you are and accepted, rather than tolerated.
 
A New Deal America is going to take more than boldness, pink t-shirts, courage or guts. There is plenty of that to go around, in fact, perhaps too much, because those emotions often become something else entirely. And if that was working-- we’d have seen some results by now, no?
 
A New Deal America needs national coherence. And that means that there must be alliance and allegiance and that means people working together in order to elect dozens of progressives nationwide. Folks, one or two, are not going to be able to accomplish anything on the federal level. We need more than the cult of celebrity and a rock anthem.
 
We need a progressive orchestra and a New Deal symphony.
 
It’s never going to get any clearer.

In 2008 Blue America didn't waste its time-- or its contributors' money-- on supporting middle of the road corporate Democrats like Barack Obama. Nor will we waste our efforts on him this year. I hope we can find the "dozens" of progressive New Deal Democrats Nick says we need. We haven't so far. So far this is what we've got (on the House side): our candidates. After Labor Day (today) we're going to start stepping it up a bit with other progressive fighters from across the country, like Connie Pillich (D-OR) and John Waltz (D-MI). If you want real change-- not small change or backwards reactionary change-- in America, please consider helping us find good candidates and supporting good candidates. And, while you're at it... watch this:

Happy Labor Day!

by Ken



Howie already offered a Labor Day message, and I have nothing to add that isn't likely to be bleedingly obvious to DWT readers: that there hasn't been any time since the American labor movement took hold when workers -- and I mean all kinds of workers, union and non-union -- were less respected by their bosses.



As with so much of the apparently succeeding assault on the social fabric built up since the New Deal, I think what makes it possible for demagogues and power-grabbing morons to hornswoggle eager-to-be-deceived Americans is that the benefits are so entrenched that people with microscopic attention spans have no idea how much of the good in their lives is built on organized labor, government regulation, all kinds of government spending, and on and on. It's a willed stupidity that works wonders for the oligarchs and their faithful stooges, whose reward is to suck up most of what little trickle-down trickles down from the greed-besotted elites. It's not such a good deal for the rest of the populace.



People so stupid as to be fooled into believing that labor unions are their enemy and management is their friend will learn how wrong they are. Meanwhile, once again Andy Borowitz is wait out ahead of the official nooze media.

Labor Day Officially Moved to China

First U.S. Holiday to Be Outsourced





BEIJING (The Borowitz Report) -- Labor Day, one of America’s most beloved and longest-celebrated holidays, has been officially moved to China, U.S. officials confirmed today.



The Labor Day celebrations are expected to kick off Monday afternoon in Beijing with a barbeque attended by over seven million people and presided over by former NBA star Yao Ming.



The transfer of Labor Day to China represents the first time in American history that an entire holiday has been outsourced, experts said.





“It may be just as well,” said the University of Minnesota’s Davis Logsdon, who has lectured extensively on Labor Day traditions. “It’s been getting harder and harder for Americans to remember what labor is.”





Tracy Klugian, 37 said he was sorry to see his annual Labor Day barbeque relocated from his home in Medina, Ohio to Beijing, but is taking the loss in stride.

“I used to really look forward to Labor Day,” he said. “But to be honest, getting a day off isn’t as special as it used to be.”





While Mr. Klugian said it was “a little strange” for Labor Day barbecues to occur in China with no participation by Americans, he added, “Maybe someday we’ll be able to make illegal fireworks for them.”





Meanwhile, U.S. officials said it was looking "more and more likely" that Thanksgiving would be relocated this year to India.





“At the very least, Americans will still be able to celebrate Thanksgiving by phone,” one official said. “But they should listen closely because some menu options have changed."

#

Line In The Sand Time? To Save What's Left Of The New Deal From The Bandits And Predators?

Wednesday one of Raúl Grijalva's most important points in his press conference about the Republican threats to force the treasury into default was that "The people we represent cannot simply be collateral in this discussion... We owe our allegiance at this point to that group of people that is not here to speak for themselves." Of course, who hasn't known that's exactly what conservatives-- on both sides of the aisle-- intend and have always intended? What else are average American families, the kind who don't hire lobbyists and don't write big campaign checks, but collateral?

What Grijalva's speech above closely. Will he be able to withstand the pressure to vote for "the deal" if it comes down to forcing the country into default? Will he be able to withstand it if his is the deciding vote? Would any progressive? Would YOU? I don't know the answer to that-- not for Grijalva, not for you... and not even for me.

Yesterday I read a memo from the Blue Dog polling firm, Anzalone Liszt Research in which they summarized how the public is reacting to the debate over the debt ceiling. Since this is being widely read Inside-the-Beltway, I thought it might be worth sharing so readers of this blog can see what goes into the thought-process of the Serious People who make the decisions for us. Obviously-- apart from the drama among the political elites-- "Wall Street, Main Street, and real voters seem to be increasingly aware-- and concerned-- of the consequences of forcing the government into default.

It shouldn't be a surprise that "raising the debt ceiling" is not verbiage that tests well in opinion polls. Recent AP/GFK numbers show roughly twice as many voters want their member of Congress to oppose raising the debt ceiling as prefer their member support it (22% Support / 42% Oppose). Though it does bear noting that a majority either support the extension (22%) or aren't sure (35%).
 
However, a basic favor / oppose measure only tells part of the story. Even as pluralities generally oppose extension in a vacuum, there has been a consistent trend toward greater support for lifting the ceiling. Polling from Pew/Washington Post has found an uptick in voter concern toward NOT raising the debt ceiling, while concern over raising the ceiling has remained static. 

A thirteen point plurality in mid-May was more concerned about raising the ceiling (35% NOT raising the ceiling / 48% raising the ceiling) than letting it lapse, but the same question has since tightened to just a 5-point plurality (42% NOT raising the ceiling / 47% raising the ceiling). Similar polling from Gallup and the Wall Street Journal/NBC confirms the trend of more voters favoring lifting the debt limit as the national debate progresses.
 
Also, when voters are provided with more context, the issue becomes more competitive. Gallup finds support for raising the limit running at roughly 1:1 with opposition when pro and con arguments are provided (46% Should Raise the Ceiling / 49% Should Not). When AP/GFK asked voters if they support or oppose raising the debt limit to "avoid defaulting on U.S. Government debts", voters were again split virtually down the middle with 38% supporting raising the limit to 41% in opposition. Similarly, recent Quinnipiac numbers show a fuller picture of the situation leading to an evenly divided public. Roughly as many voters are concerned that "not raising the debt limit would force the government into default and hurt the economy" (43%) as are concerned that "raising the debt would lead to higher government spending and make the debt bigger" (45%).
 
AP/GFK also finds only minimal support for the extreme Bachmann-esque position that the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised under any circumstance. Their mid-June results found 34% of voters believe Congress should raise the debt limit then deal with spending cuts separately, 43% believe Congress should raise the limit only with significant spending cuts, and only 18% believe Congress should not raise the debt limit under any circumstance. Gallup also shows that Americans prefer a deficit reduction approach that includes both spending cuts and tax increases. More than seven in ten voters prefer a plan that either includes "equal spending cuts and tax increase" (32%), "mostly spending cuts" (30%), or "mostly / all tax increases" (11%). Only 20% of Americans insist on deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. Even 68% of Republicans prefer some element of tax increases to cut the deficit, compared to just 26% of Republicans who want tax increases completely off the table.
 
Fundamentally, the Republican position in the debt ceiling debate (spending cuts only) is not only out of step with the broader electorate, but also even among self-identified Republicans. 

Fresh CBS News polling reveals that Americans are eager for their leaders to compromise and focus on the real issues facing families. By more than 5:1, voters nationwide would prefer a compromise that they don't fully support (76%) to not reaching an agreement and having the U.S. default on its debts (14%). Support for a compromise spans party affiliation, as overwhelming majorities of Democrats (80%), Republicans (78%), and Independents (72%) prefer even an unsatisfying compromise to government default. Even 64% of self-identified Tea Party supporters would rather see a compromise they don't fully support, compared to only 28% who prefer no compromise and a government default.
 
Gallup polling out this week shows a similar phenomenon. A better than 2:1 margin would prefer their representatives "agree to a compromise plan, even if it's one they disagree with" (66%) than "hold out for the basic plan they want, even if the debt ceiling is not raised by the deadline" (27%). Clear majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (57%), and Independents (72%) are ready for a compromise, even if it is not their preferred plan.
 
As the details of a debt ceiling-compromise evolve, so do the politics behind it. Spin is rampant on both sides, but over the past couple of weeks the dynamic seems to have shifted against Republicans. John McCain's public critique of the GOP's House leadership that Republicans are "not winning the battle" is symptomatic of a growing sentiment that Republicans are poised to receive the brunt of voter anger if a deal is not reached. The most recent polling on the issue seems to confirm that public opinion is indeed gelling against Republicans. 

As the President has repeatedly said, the debt ceiling debate represents what many Americans believe is wrong with Washington: profligate spending, political gamesmanship, and a failure of political leaders to come together in good faith to solve real problems. Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise that voters don't give any of the actors high marks for their role in the debt ceiling debate. However, a CBS News poll out this week shows President Obama's rating for his handling of the debt ceiling negotiations (43% Approve / 48% Disapprove)-- while not stellar-- is dramatically higher than those of Congressional Republicans (21% Approve / 71% Disapprove). Congressional Democrats are also in the red (31% Approve / 58% Disapprove), but receive a net-disapproval rating roughly half the 50-point disapproval rating of Congressional Republicans.
 
No matter what Americans may think of the details of the different plans, President Obama is seen as operating in good faith while Republicans are not. Gallup shows that 60% of Americans feel the President is trying to find a solution, while a similar 62% believe Congressional Republicans are NOT. The perception that President Obama is working to find common ground, while Republicans play politics certainly contributes to the critical 19-point edge the President receives on who respondents believe is more concerned about doing what is best for their families in the debt ceiling debate (51% Obama / 32% Congressional GOP).
 
Gallup finds a 20-point margin of Americans blame Republicans for the current crisis (29% Obama / 49% Congressional Republicans), and July Quinnipiac numbers show voters more likely to blame Congressional Republicans (48%) than President Obama (34%) if the government defaults on its debt obligations. In June, Pew found similar results, with 42% blaming Republicans and 33% blaming the President. 

The politics of the debt ceiling are certainly volatile, and while it may be difficult for any side of the debate to come out better than they entered, the Republicans' current trajectory could inflict real political damage on a party struggling to prove it can govern and to find its political identity heading into a crucial election year.

One Democratic congressman who is unlikely to buckle under pressure from the Establishment is Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). And he made that pretty clear in a letter he sent out to his constituents yesterday denigrating Obama's "Big Deal" framing. Like most progressives, he's fuming over Obama's seeming willingness to compromise away Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid guarantees.

President Obama applauded the gang of six "compromise" based on, as he explains, "shared sacrifice and everybody... giving up something."

The only thing being compromised is the Administration's values. This deal cuts Social Security and threatens Medicare and Medicaid, selling out those who need help the most, America's children, poor and elderly-- all while taxes are being cut.

Our message is simple: cutting Social Security which has nothing to do with the debt ceiling is not a "big deal" we can accept, it is a bad deal we must reject.

Do not let them disingenuously fold the issue of Social Security-- which is solvent through 2036-- into raising the debt limit. Do not let them move the ball so far down the field that a "compromise" has become a politically friendly term for caving in on the very cornerstone of our Party and-- more importantly-- on well established principles of economic and social justice in America.

The more details that emerge, the worse the picture gets. While our unemployment remains perilously high and families are suffering, instead of a roadmap for recovery we are receiving directions towards another depression. Any "deal" that ignores the massive economic challenges of this country and balances the budget on the backs of children, seniors and the poor is not moral. In a lifetime, will our party have journeyed from the New Deal to the Raw Deal?

With the signatures of Dale Kildee (D-MI) and Cedric Richmond (D-LA) last night, there are now 80 Members of Congress who have signed the Grijalva-Ellison letter to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. People are wondering how many will buckle and vote for the execrable deal when Obama's Wall Street economic team begins threatening doom the way Bush's did to get the TARP bankster bailout passed. Remember what happened with all the pledges to not vote for the corporate-oriented health care reform bill if Obama killed the public option?