Outlandish American Fascists Making The World Safe For Obama's Conservatism

I missed the Republican debate in Iowa. I hear I didn't miss much. Instead I was at a gathering of future progressive leaders (Young People For). It was very inspiring to meet some of these idealistic young men and women who were taking part in a week-long training conducted by People For the American Way but to hear the inspiration of the organization's founding generation-- talks by Norman Lear and Dolores Huerta-- being handed down to future leaders. Meanwhile all I needed to know about the Iowa debate was, oddly enough, on the Fox website in the form of a post by Juan Williams, Debate Shows GOP Is Out of Step With Realities of Today's America.

Last night's debate put on display a Republican Party that still looks like a 1950s Oldsmobile as they prepare to run against one of the hip, new hybrids coming out the multi-national car companies that now run Detroit.



Despite his troubles, President Obama looks sleek, fast and so very hip as compared the Republicans on view in Iowa. The President remains the mixed-race, son-of-an immigrant, in touch with the under 30 crowd that makes up about half of 2011 America.



It was not just the absence of dynamic people of color and women at the GOP debate that rankle young Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, working women, and immigrants. The answers coming from the candidates felt like the voice of your grandfather's GOP.



It is hearing the only woman on the stage talking about being "submissive," and "obedient."



One of the most astounding parts of the debate for me was when the moderators polled the candidates and asked if they would oppose a deficit reduction package that included government spending cuts to tax increases by a ratio of 10:1. Every single candidate on the stage raised their hand in opposition. No tax increases under any circumstances.



This puts the candidates out of step with the realities of America today, and American public opinion. As a CBS/New York Times poll from last week showed, a majority of Americans - in both political parties-- want to see tax increases on the wealthiest Americans in addition to spending cuts. By taking the no-new-taxes-pledge the candidates are even in disagreement majority of the Republicans-- the very people who will choose the nominee. 



A review of the GOP ideas debated last night for improving on President Obama's disappointing first term reveals a patchwork of proposals that led to economic problems, antagonism towards immigrants, especially Hispanics, and indifference to the poor and seniors.



On immigration reform the candidates offered only knee-jerk, talk radio sound bites about building even bigger walls, complete with electrified barb wire-- oh, that was supposed to be a joke. Do these candidates think only the most hateful, anti-immigrant bullies are listening?



Where are serious proposals about how to deal with 12 million illegal immigrants who add economic vitality, youthful energy, and transformative culture to America? What about the oppressive laws passed in Arizona to allow harassment of people who look Hispanic? How about the talented people who can’t get into this country because the immigration system is broken? Not one serious answer from the Republicans on stage last night.



These "Back to the Future" Republicans also called for supporting privatization of Medicare and Social Security. They support banning abortion and-- with the exception of Ron Paul-- doing nothing to reduce spending on the military-industrial complex.



One of the few substantive contributions of the evening came from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who declared, to wild applause: "Congress should come back Monday. They should repeal the Dodd-Frank bill. They should repeal Sarbanes Oxley."



Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley were arguably the two most important pieces of legislation in recent years to regulate Wall Street and punish the kind of mass fraud that tanked the world economy in 2008.



A Harris Interactive Poll from earlier this summer showed an overwhelming majority of Americans-- 83% to 14% - believe recent events have shown "Wall Street should be subject to tougher regulation." The same poll found 64% of adults do not believe that what is good for Wall Street is good for the country. 31% take the opposite view.



Hours before the debate, GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney was heckled by left-wing protesters at a rally in Iowa. He was tripped up over the question about taxing corporations and he shot back at the questioner: "Corporations are people, my friend."



I cannot believe the GOP wants to be seen as the reactionary party whose devotion to the failed economic theories of the past benefit the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else.



In 2012, 2016 and beyond, the electorate will be younger, more racially diverse and increasingly supportive of higher taxes on the wealthy-- and tougher regulation of Wall Street.



While it is still early and there are other potential entrants to the race, I do not see how any Republican candidate pushback against the Democrats and President Obama while solely dedicated to bringing back an America that is half a century in the past.

Ah, yes, "other potential entrants to the race." That would refer to Rove's pick to knock Bachmann out of the race so the superficially mainstreamish candidate, the weird Mitt Romney, has a clear shot at Obama without the GOP baggage of being a party essentially even right of the kind of fascism America mobilized to defeat 7 decades ago-- Rick Perry, the Texas governor who makes George W. Bush seem almost coherent and bright. In Perry-world everything post-Civil War is unconstitutional-- from clean air laws to public education and, now, Social Security and Medicare, which he calls a "Ponzi scheme," something the far right has been yelling since the 1930's when most Americans were fighting fascism but the GOP was actively helping Hitler as the standard-bearer for the kind of world they have always wanted.

I challenge anybody to stand up and defend the Social Security program that we have today-- and particularly defend it to a 27-year-old young man who’s just gotten married and is trying to get his life headed in the right direction economically. I happen to think that the Progressive movement was the beginning of the deterioration of our Constitution from the standpoint of it being abused and misused to do things that Congress wanted to do, and/or the Supreme Court wanted to implement. The New Deal was the launching pad for the Washington largesse as we know it today. And I think we should have a legitimate, honest, national discussion about Washington’s continuing to spend money we don’t have on programs that we don’t need. 



...I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

People are very disappointed with what Obama has been able to accomplish. Many of us have come to see that he's not a liberal or a progressive but a mainstream conservative in a world where the GOP has moved the conversation so far to the right, by transforming themselves into a reactionary or even fascist party, that Obama seems, as Williams put it for Fox above, "sleek, fast and so very hip as compared the Republicans." This morning he delivered his Saturday address to the nation about new ideas, creativity and innovation, while the Republicans argue among themselves about Bronze Age fairy tales and long bankrupt Gilded Age ideology. Obama:

On Thursday, I visited a new, high-tech factory in Michigan where workers are helping America lead the way in a growing clean energy industry. 

 

They were proud of their work, and they should be. They’re not just showing us a path out of the worst recession in generations-- they’re proving that this is still a country where we make things; where new ideas take root and grow; where the best universities, most creative entrepreneurs, and most dynamic businesses in the world call home. They’re proving that even in difficult times, there’s not a country on Earth that wouldn’t trade places with us. 

 

That doesn’t mean we don’t face some very tough economic challenges. Many Americans are hurting badly right now. Many have been unemployed for too long. Putting these men and women back to work, and growing wages for everyone, has got to be our top priority.

 

But lately, the response from Washington has been partisanship and gridlock that’s only undermined public confidence and hindered our efforts to grow the economy.

 

So while there’s nothing wrong with our country, there is something wrong with our politics, and that’s what we’ve got to fix. Because we know there are things Congress can do, right now, to get more money back in your pockets, get this economy growing faster, and get our friends and neighbors back to work. 

 

The payroll tax cut that put $1,000 back in the average family’s pocket this year? Let’s extend it.  Construction workers who’ve been jobless since the housing boom went bust? Let’s put them back to work rebuilding America. Let’s cut red tape in the patent process so entrepreneurs can get good ideas to market more quickly. Let’s finish trade deals so we can sell more American-made goods around the world. Let’s connect the hundreds of thousands of brave Americans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to businesses that need their incredible skills and talents.

 

These are all things we can do right now. So let’s do them. And over the coming weeks, I’ll put forward more proposals to help our businesses hire and create jobs, and won’t stop until every American who wants a job can find one.

 

But we can no longer let partisan brinksmanship get in our way-- the idea that making it through the next election is more important than making things right. That’s what’s holding us back-- the fact that some in Congress would rather see their opponents lose than see America win.

 

So you’ve got a right to be frustrated. I am. Because you deserve better. And I don’t think it’s too much for you to expect that the people you send to this town start delivering.

 

Members of Congress are at home in their districts right now.  And if you agree with me – whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or not much of a fan of either-- let them know.

 

If you’ve had it with gridlock, and you want them to pass stalled bills that will help our economy right now-- let them know. 

 

If you refuse to settle for a politics where scoring points is more important than solving problems; if you believe it’s time to put country before party and the interests of our children before our own – let them know. 

 

And maybe they’ll get back to Washington ready to compromise, ready to create jobs, ready to get our fiscal house in order-- ready to do what you sent them to do.

 

Yes, we’ve still got a long way to go to get to where we need to be. We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and it’s going to take time to get out of it. That’s a hard truth-- but it’s no excuse for inaction. After all, America voted for divided government, not dysfunctional government, and we’ve got work to do. And when we come together and find common ground, there’s no stopping this country. There’s no stopping our people. There’s no holding us back. And there is every reason to believe we’ll get through this storm to a brighter day.

See why Rove and Fox are worried?

The Senate's Theoretical Vote On Shared Sacrifice-- Teactionary Filibuster Broken... And The GOP's Efforts In The House To Shut Out The Lights

S.1323 is Harry Reid's bill that "expresses the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." Reid and his colleagues have, perhaps, been shamed by Bernie Sander's relentless work in the area. Bernie, in fact, cosponsored the resolution with Reid. Needless to say, the Republican extremists, lead by teabag phony Jim DeMint moved immediately to filibuster it and prevent a vote. Shockingly most Republicans joined the Democrats and passed a cloture motion to end the filibuster last week. The right-wing filibuster failed 22-74, only one putative Democrat, Nebraska reactionary Ben Nelson, joining the likes of Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson, Tom Coburn, Dean Heller, Chris Lee, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt and the rest of the far right garbage who feel millionaires and billionaires shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. These are the followers of the fascist ideology first propounded by American pro-Nazi plutocrat Lammont DuPont in a 1942 address to the National Manufacturers Association:

"We will win the war by reducing taxes on corporations, high income brackets, and increasing taxes on lower incomes, by removing unions from any power to tell industry how to produce, how to deal with their employees or anything else, by destroying any and all government agencies that stand in the way of free enterprise."

The far right believed it then and they believe it today. DuPont introduced the far right's freshly minted new religion: so-called "free enterprise." Among the conservative Republicans voting with the Democrats against this creed-- and against the sociopaths in their caucus-- included Miss McConnell, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, John McCain, Jon Kyl, John Thune, David "Diapers" Vitter, Pat Roberts and Dan Coats.

Meanwhile over in the House-- run by sociopaths and nihilists-- they have a vote scheduled today that would repeal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs set in 2007 with strong bipartisan support. Republicans no longer support anything that makes sense and will surely vote en masse to take a giant step backwards. The standards the Republicans plan to gut today will save consumers about $100 per family per year, or about $12 billion nationally, when fully implemented. They will also reduce energy demand, avoiding the need for 30 large power plants. The standards will prevent more than 100 million tons of carbon pollution per year-- the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road. And the new standards are sparking investment in American jobs-- prompting manufacturers to build new U.S. plants and create new U.S. jobs making more energy efficient lighting technologies. For example, TCP, a bulb maker that traditionally has done all of its manufacturing in China, plans to open its first U.S. plant, in Ohio, where it will make new CFL bulbs. When’s the last time you heard of something like that happening? Does that explain their opposition? Progress is a horrible thing for reactionaries; it always has been-- which is why they are always on the wrong side of history.

Right-Wing Democrat Marty Chavez Takes The Re-Invention Route... As Albuquerque Democrats Laugh

I was very excited to take a job as general manager of Sire Records, mostly because of my love for bands like the Ramones, Depeche Mode, Smiths, Ministry and Talking Heads. These were the bands that were reintroducing a new honesty and candor back into pop music after a cruel decade of pretentious, overblown corporate rock. But when I took over at Reprise, the label's biggest artist, by far, was Madonna, who I didn't understand at all. My boss, the label's founder, Seymour Stein, took her right off my hands. "I'll handle Madonna and the Cult. You handle everyone else. No, you handle everyone else and the Cult," he told me on my first day on the job. The was fine with me and I soon realized that "handling" Madonna didn't take up much time, basically because she handled herself-- including her much-hyped penchant for reinvention. I came to admire her and the way she reinvented herself, like a slickly handled brand. It's on thing for a pop star; it's something entirely different for a politician.

Early in May we expressed our concern that the DCCC would back one of New Mexico's least trustworthy right-wing Democrats, Marty Chavez, in a race for Martin Heinrich's open House seat in Albuquerque. Chavez was mayor of Albuquerque and his name recognition is as high as it could possibly be. But many Democrats who recognize his name, don't recognize it with fondness. So he's trying a Madonna-like reinvention. I doubt it will work as easily on New Mexico voters as it worked on the incompetent lunkheads at the DCCC. I doubt it and I fear it-- fear it because America doesn't need another right-wing hack in Congress making believe he's a Democrat. And in this case, the man Chavez is running against, state Senator Eric Griego, is one of the most promising progressive leaders running for Congress anywhere in America. Yesterday I got this statement from Eric's campaign:

"I stand with seniors, the disabled, and the working and middle class families of New Mexico in calling on President Obama and Congress to keep their hands off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as they negotiate a solution to the federal debt default crisis. While I support President Obama in his effort avert the catastrophic collapse of our recovering economy, any deal with Republicans that cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid for New Mexico seniors and working families while failing to ensure that our nation's wealthiest are paying their fair share is entirely unacceptable."

That's where Eric Griego is coming from-- and he has a record to back it up. It's why Blue America endorsed him and it's why we feel good asking donors to contribute to his campaign. It's who he really is. Don't be surprised to see a similar kind of statement from Chavez as he tap-dances around his reinvention process-- even though it is decidedly not who he is. Who he is, as political observers in Albuquerque are well aware, is a triangulating, self-serving hack who fought against increasing minimum wage and fought against environmental protections and, in fact, fought against reformers and Democrats throughout his disgraceful career.

The first time I really became aware of what a destructive tool Chavez is, wasn't even that long ago. New Mexico's progressive congressman, Tom Udall, then a Blue America fave, was running for the open Senate seat being abandoned by Pete Domenici. Chavez wanted the Senate seat as well and went on an insane, well-financed and distorted jihad against Udall. He was confident, he bragged, that he could defeat Udall in a primary.

“Philosophically, he’s so far to the left,” Chavez said. “I’d rather not have him in the race, but that’s a challenge I’d not shy away from.”

But he did shy away from the challenge. Polling showed him consistently losing to any Republican in the general-- and to Udall in the primary. So he quit the race... and then told the Albuquerque Journal running for a mere House seat-- the one he's running for now-- was beneath him.

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez on Tuesday tossed a bucket of ice water on any speculation that he might be considering a run for the 1st Congressional District seat.

Chavez, in a telephone interview, blasted the U.S. House of Representatives and said that jumping into the race for the open, Albuquerque-based seat is "not an option."

The House is "not a place where I want to be," said Chavez, who late last week unexpectedly abandoned his short-lived bid for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

He said Tuesday that while the Senate remains a place where "individuals of substance gather," the House-- whose members face re-election every two years, compared with six-year terms for senators-- is "not a place for ladies and gentlemen any longer. ... They play a type of politics (that) I think is destructive."

Odd he would shy away from destructive politics. That, after all, is his hallmark. His short-lived race against Tom Udall didn't endear him to New Mexico Democrats.

Continuing his recent mean-spirited barrage against his high-polling Dem primary opponent for U.S. Senate, Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez is now accusing Rep. Tom Udall (NM-03) of "endangering our national security."

...It's one thing to criticize your primary opponent's positions, but I think this kind of over-the-top rhetoric coming directly from Chavez can only serve to turn more Dem voters against him. Chavez already has a reputation for publicly and privately trashing fellow Dems on the Albuquerque City Council, supporting Repubs and their causes and vowing to vote for Repub Sen. Pete Domenici if he ran for reelection.

Do Chavez and his campaign team really believe that using inflammatory language like this to attack one of the most highly respected and popular Dems in the state will help him in his quest for Dem primary voters? Astonishing. Not only is it wrong, it's bad politics.

Now Chavez, a pro-growth, Chamber of Commerce type hack, is trying to reinvent himself as what he calls a "green mayor." It's a joke and completely manufactured by him and demonstrably false--he's actually terrible on the environment, and spent most of his tenure as Mayor defending himself against lawsuits from environmental organizations and fighting all of the City Council's pro-environment initiatives. Union members know how awful he is and he's not going to hoodwink them, so he's trying to persuade voters of his "progressive" cred using environmentalism.

Eric Griego makes no bones about joining the Congressional progressive Caucus and working on an agenda focused on American families, rather than on multinational corporations. Everything in Chavez's record points to another slimy pro-corporate Blue Dog if he gets into Congress, which is probably what makes Steve Israel so excited about him. This guy's got to be stopped. Please do what you can to help Eric Griego win the primary.