THIS IS INCREDIBLE.
“Even one high-profile break with conservative orthodoxy would’ve had a protective effect. Imagine if Ryan had said, as Tom Coburn has, that balancing the budget means ‘my taxes are going to go up.’ Forget the fact that raising taxes is an obvious and inevitable element of a budget deal. Proposing it would’ve been politically masterful. It would’ve given Ryan cover for reforms like medicare privatization, which are, both from an ideological and fiscal point of view, more important. In the absence of any such attempt to share the sacrifice, however, Ryan’s left us with little more than a conservative wish list backed by some very funny numbers.”
“NPR and its programming often veer far from what most Americans would like to see as far as the expenditure of their taxpayer dollars.”
— Eric Cantor, majority leader, on the House floor today
Heard this today (on NPR — IRONICALLY) in the car and burst out with a “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
So much to call into question about this quote. “Often”? “Far”? “Most”?
Meanwhile, “Nearly two-thirds of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting,” according to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll — the Afghan war, which is costing American taxpayers $300 MILLION PER DAY. Sounds like something that veers from what most Americans would like to see as far as the expenditure of their taxpayer dollars.
The House’s vote today would save $22 million annually. Obviously, our priorities here in America are SPOT ON.
Stephen Reader at Death and Taxes says it best: “Fiscal austerity is all the rage now, but it’s really just an excuse to snipe the (relatively inexpensive) federal programs that Republicans don’t like.”
“We’re an institution that values integrity, and then asks other people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us — and lie about who they are the whole time they’re in the military. That’s what just doesn’t make any sense to me.”
— Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
“And, you know, politics aside, the success of Sarah Palin and women like her is good for all women—except, of course, those who will end up, you know, like, paying for their own rape kit ‘n’ stuff. But for everybody else, it’s a win-win. Unless you’re a gay woman who wants to marry your partner of 20 years—whatever. But for most women, the success of conservative women is good for all of us. Unless you believe in evolution. You know—actually, I take it back. The whole thing’s a disaster.”
— Tina Fey’s censored Palin joke, told during her Kennedy Center acceptance speech Sunday night. (via motherjones)
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: She really is just the best.
“The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.”
— Nicholas Kristof in his Sunday column for The New York Times (Timothy Noah’s Slate piece is here).
So the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots grows, and yet anyone who even suggests spreading the wealth around a little is demonized as a socialist. But this isn’t socialism. It’s the right thing to do. This is the richest country in the world, and yet 44 million Americans live below the poverty line, or one in seven residents. That’s shameful, and despicable. The Haves, as these letter writers point out, built their wealth on the backs of American infrastructure and workers educated at public expense, so they do indeed have a greater debt to society. Time for them to pay up.
Bill Maher addressed the Rally to Restore Sanity on “Real Time” last night, but I don’t see it as a “diss” or a “harsh critique,” as some bloggers wrote today. Rather, I think what Maher’s saying here is more along the lines of “Nice job, guys, but if you do this again, let’s try something a little different.” An excerpt:
When Jon [Stewart] announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama’s a socialist and people on the left who believe 9/11 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama’s a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.
Stewart said from the start that the rally was an apolitical, nonpartisan one, which of course is arguable given the positions he takes on “The Daily Show” every night, so calling out the crazies of each side, regardless of the equivalence of their craziness, is all about keeping up apolitical, nonpartisan appearances. He wanted the rally to appeal to as wide an audience as possible — if showing some clips of Olbermann mixed in with Beck and Hannity would help attract people from the right, so be it. And maybe that’s an understated point Stewart was making, the same thing that Maher picked up on: that the crazies on the right far outnumber the crazies on the left.
(I mostly enjoyed the rally, watching it from the comfort of my La-Z-Boy, but Stewart’s 12-minute speech at the end is what saved it from being a disappointment. Going in, I’d hoped more of the three hours would be like that. Instead, we got Kid Rock(?) and Sheryl Crow(?), which was weird, but at least gave viewers at home a bathroom break during the commercial-free three hours.)
Maher is using the Rally to Restore Sanity here as an example in a larger argument, with which I totally agree, that “two opposing sides don’t necessarily have two compelling arguments.” We do ourselves a disservice oftentimes by pretending the other side has an equally valid point. Sometimes, they’re simply wrong, like when they say that climate change is a hoax, or that gays and gay marriage destroy “family values,” or that all Muslims are secretly plotting to make America an Islamic state.
An example of this thinking on a macro level is the idea that Fox News Channel is on the same plane as, and is a competitor to, MSNBC and CNN. It’s pretty clearly not. Just because something has “News” in its name doesn’t mean it’s a news organization. A more accurate description of Fox News might be “a right-wing entertainment channel that occasionally reports live events.” MSNBC, despite its apparent attempt to mirror Fox from the left, still has journalistic standards, proven this week with the Olbermann debacle. Fox, as Rachel Maddow shows in this clip, has allowed its hosts to endorse and fundraise for Republican candidates (even on the air!) and currently employs nearly every potential 2012 Republican presidential nominee. The “Fair and Balanced” network, Fox apparently doesn’t feel the need to balance out its stable of high-profile conservative contributors.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans’ No. 1 goal for the next two years is — no, not creating jobs or fixing the deficit or making sure America stays competitive in a global marketplace (silly you for thinking that!) — to ensure Barack Obama’s defeat in the 2012 presidential election. THAT’S THEIR NO. 1 GOAL! How utterly ridiculous is that statement? So, basically, Republicans are going to spend the next two years using any influence they have to gum up the legislative process and make Obama as ineffective a president as they can. Cool. Very cool. Good use of your time and efforts, Republicans.
Remember when we all had Myspaces and you could share your mood with everyone? Mine would read “Exasperated.” I need a beer.
Politics, politics
Did you folks know today was Election Day? It just snuck up on us! Like, no warning at all! Really gotta give us some prior warning next time, everyone. Who are we, Britain?
In all seriousness, though, I’m thrilled to have this election season over with, mostly because all this talk (and talk and talk and talk and talk) about 2010 has been totally impeding an in-depth examination of 2012 (the presidential election, not the impending apocalypse). I mean, we’ve hardly talked about it. How will we ever be ready? Never mind that the political climate can flip inside-out in two years and anything said now is really just hot air filling what would otherwise be empty 24/7 cable news airspace.
Before we move on, let’s visit some of tonight’s high(low?)lights:
- Carl Paladino can return to hibernating in that racist, sexist, homophobic hole from which he crawled out in the spring.
- Alvin Greene received more than a quarter of the vote in South Carolina. More than a quarter! He can barely form a sentence! (I should clarify that last exclamation as a criticism of Alvin Greene’s qualifications to hold public office, and not a personal attack. Alvine Greene seems like a perfectly harmless and likable person.) Sheesh, I mean, yes, Jim DeMint is perfectly awful, but who are these some 300,000 people who voted for Alvin Greene?
- Really, let’s hope Christine O’Donnell doesn’t become the next Sarah Palin and that this is the last we hear from her.
- Tonight ends Meg Whitman’s $140 million drive to personally revive California’s economy.
- I was going to make a joke here about Blanche Lincoln and Rue McClanahan and how 2010 has been bad for women named Blanche, but that just seemed distasteful.
- Wisconsin voters ousted the Senate’s true maverick in Russ Feingold, a man who spent three terms in Washington and still maintained an independent mind. Bravo, Wisconsin voters.
- Until the next map redraw, New York’s congressional districts are still utterly ridiculous-looking.
- Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, Alaska and the Dakotas all have one representative in the House. Is being a representative more prestigious than being a senator in those states? (A serious question!)
- Hey, Jan Brewer overcame a total brain fart to win Arizona’s gubernatorial race! Congratulations! Now show us your papers!
- Shut up, Sarah Palin. And don’t use the plural when you only have one representative.
- Harry Reid survives. Will he remain majority leader? Will he grow some cojones?
- Marijuana is still illegal in California. Thousands of Californians exhale in protest.
Unlike Brian Williams, I have to work at 9 a.m., so it’s well past my bedtime. This has been fun! I mean, as much fun as a referendum on the status quo (woohoo, election lingo!) can be (isn’t every election a referendum on the status quo?). And as much as we should all MAN UP! and keep ourselves awake through unreasonable hours of the morning, this 2010 campaign cycle has been exhausting and we all could really use some beauty sleep. OK everyone, have your 2012 predictions ready in the morning!
Rod Watson at The Buffalo News:
Despite the e-mails he forwarded, we don’t want to ask ourselves: When Paladino thinks of welfare recipients who “hop onto” the program, what color are the images running through his mind? We dare not ask what a Paladino administration would look like, or how any blacks and women in it would be treated.
To be sure, there’s way more to an election than some e-mails sent by one of the candidates, but let’s not believe for a second the notion being pushed by the Paladino campaign that they’re inconsequential, because that’s ridiculous and we shouldn’t want an angry, bigoted, loose-cannon racist in power any more than we want to maintain the status quo. Dismissing something you did repeatedly as “poor judgment” is not dismissing it at all and is ACTUALLY SAYING that you possess poor judgment. It’s a conscious decision to forward an inappropriate e-mail — if you don’t agree with the message or find it distasteful, it stops at you. Carl has apologized numerous times for forwarding the e-mails, but really, he’s only sorry that he got caught.
And while we’re on the subject, anger is not a political platform, folks. It’s an emotion, and one that’s not particularly rational. Coors Light makes a huge deal in its commercials of coldness, how every batch is “frost-brewed,” in an attempt to distract you from the fact that what you’re buying a pretty mediocre beer. “Anger” is Carl’s “frost-brewed,” and he’s hoping New Yorkers’ anger can distract them long enough to get him elected.
“Is it those who wrote the language, or proposed the language? Amended it, promulgated it, argued for ratification, or ratified the words that matter? This easy concept that trips off the tongue, intent of the framers, is astonishingly complicated, and by the way, in modern academic discourse that’s why intent of the framers no longer is really much looked at.”
— Ronald Allen, Northwestern Law School professor, in Thursday’s Interfaith Lecture at Chautauqua Institution. (via chqdaily)
See, and that’s exactly my thought, too, when a politician or talking head reminds us of this mystical “Intent of the Framers.” We should be more concerned with how policies and laws affect us, in the now, Americans in 2010, than with what a bunch of old white guys in 1787 would think of them. Yes, these men were incredibly intelligent and prescient, and we should be forever thankful to them for constructing a lasting, mostly workable political system, but we should not treat them as infallible gods. Not only is their intent in writing the Constitution, as Allen notes, “astonishingly complicated,” many of these men owned slaves and believed only white, male property owners should have the right to vote. They were clearly wrong there; we should not — and cannot — simply assume they were right about everything else.
