Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideas. Show all posts

Tuesday

Next for birthers: blame Obama for 911!


Orly Taitz has been the leading proponent of the birther nonsense over the last two years. The revelation of Obama’s birth documents, obviously, was a black day for her cause, and Lawrence O’Donnell invited her onto his MSNBC show to discuss the birther issue. Taitz people had told O’Donnell she would indeed discuss the birther issue, but when she got on the air, she tried to hijack the show so she could launch her next conspiracy theory live on national TV. O’Donnell understandably cut her off, but before he could do so, Taitz was ranting about Obama’s alleged Selective Service fraud.

So I was curious: what is Taitz’ new beef? And I looked it up.

Taitz went to the Selective Service people directly, claiming to represent soldiers who question Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief. She claimed that Obama’s Selective Service records were fraudulent, asserting that the wrong stamp had been used, or something.

Then she went a little woolly.

She also claimed that Obama secretly has hundreds of Social Security numbers, that one of the numbers purports Obama to be 118 years old, that another is linked to al-Qa’ida, and that another is connected somehow to “scientific work in Iran”…and that another number is linked to the plumbers who installed the sprinklers in the World Trade Center just before 911.

Or, specifically, this number which she claims is Obama’s number, allegedly belongs to Obama’s sister-in-law and is connected to an address which has a financial connection to a plumbing firm that is connected to another plumbing firm that worked on the WTC sprinklers. And that one of the plumbers “met a mysterious death”.

So, now that the birther nonsense has been exploded, this is the kind of nonsense we’ll be seeing them throw at Obama until election day.

But, no, the wingnuts wouldn’t accuse Obama of blowing up the WTC? They’re not that crazy, are they?

Who else has a birth certificate?


But rather than throw a snit, I’m going to…turn the tables.

 “Obama wasn’t born in America, his father owed allegiance to Britain, how can Obama be loyal to America? And what’s with the funny names?”

Well, we don't know who might run in 2012, but next year when the Republicans start running in primaries, Democrats are going to go to town on them, challenging their birthplaces, their names, their loyalties, their foreign ties.

Mitt Romney’s real name is Willard. A Mormon, Mitt spent two years in France and someone died in a mysterious car crash there. His family has a long history of illegal immigration: his great-grandfather escaped the U.S. to Mexico to avoid prosecution, and then violated Mexican law too. Then his family returned to the U.S. illegally, without papers. Three generations of Romneys lived in Mexico; his father was born there and entered the U.S. illegally as a child. If the wingnuts succeed in denying birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants, Romney could be deported.

Newt Gingrich is really Newt McPherson, and this son of the south is really from Pennsylvania; as a child he lived in France. Bobby Jindal is actually Piyush Jindal, conceived in India to Indian parents, worshipped in an Asian religion until his teens, went to college in England. He also attended an exorcism!

Mitch Daniels, grandparents came from Syria, an Arab Muslim country. Colin Powell, born to immigrants from Jamaica. Rudy Giuliani, grandparents born in Italy. Pawlenty, Polish and German immigrants. Rubio, Cuban immigrants. Pataki, Hungarian and Italian immigrants.

Jon Huntsman, a Mormon, spent years in Communist China and Taiwan, speaks Chinese, and adopted children in Asia; worked for Obama. Is he loyal to the U.S.? Fred Thompson, worked for a Japanese car company. Does the U.S. have all his loyalty? Trump, parents and grandparents born in Germany and Scotland, had two foreign wives. Santorum, Italian immigrants, a Knight of Malta. Bloomberg, Jew, huge supporter of Israel; Russian immigrants. Lieberman, orthodox Jew, huge supporter of Israel. Mark Sanford, caught with his pants down with a South American girlfriend. McCain, born in Central America, spent years in Communist Asia.

Sarah Palin is actually Sarah Heath; she supports secession and went to college in Moscow! Loyal to America? Barbour, supports white supremacists of dubious loyalty to the federal government. Rick Perry, supports secession.

It’s almost like the UN! The furrin countries, the furrin languages, the furrin entanglements, hopping into bed with furrin wimmin. Republican voters should be interested in all this stuff too.

Also Huckabee, born in Bill Clinton’s hometown! Clinton cooties! Bachmann, actually Michele Amble, was a Democrat who campaigned for Carter!

Incidentally, Gingrich and Trump tie with three wives each; I give the tie-breaker to Trump because he also has bankruptcy on his sheet.

Actually, we all know Republican voters won’t care about the lineage of any of these people. Because they’re white white white white, and their real problem with Obama is his skin tone. And because he’s uppity.

Everybody break out your birth certificates people, while I get my magnifiying glass.

I am not the only one raising this issue. Amazingly, the World Net Daily, the seat and font of rightwing conspiracy theories, has actually turned their fire on their own troops, publicly questioning whether Marc Rubio and Piyush Jindal are “natural-born citizens”!

the birthers and the race card

The race card


So….now can we finally pull out the race card?

Republicans and conservatives have spent years demonizing anyone who doesn’t look like them. Arabs and Muslims? Demonized them.  Mexicans? “They’re all criminals – where are your papers, Pedro? You’re going to jail.” Blacks? Day after day they get pulled over and searched, just for Driving While Black.

“Alright, boy, get out of that car, where’s your ID? Where’d you get your hands on that fancy ride?” Nightsticks and Tasers at the ready.

Only this time, the “boy” they dragged out of his car was our Commander In Chief. Because he’s not a Real American. Real Americans are…white. “Where’s your papers, boy?...Sorry, still not good enough.”

“Blacks and Mexicans actually want to vote? Didn’t You People learn your lesson when we shut you out of the polling places in Florida in 2000?” When Republican leaders were out in the streets in Florida screaming ‘don’t count the votes!’ – imagine saying such a thing in a democracy – they were really saying “don’t count the votes, because they are black votes!”… “And now we’re going to Voter-ID your lazy butts out of the polling places for good. Only Real Americans get to vote.”

And now the birthers are doubling down their bets, implying that Obama couldn’t have been smart enough to get into Harvard, because, of course, he’s black. Just like they wouldn’t publish Frederick Douglass’s autobiography until a white man could attest that Douglass wrote it himself, almost two centuries ago. Progress! Just like Douglass, they are claiming that Obama couldn’t have written his own autobiography. The fact that our most noted jurists have said Obama was one of the brightest legal minds in the country, and he got the Harvard Law Review job and the magna, both of which you have to earn regardless of skin color: “nope, he must have cheated somehow. He’s black. You know how they are.”

And the birthers are shifting, without pause, into the theme that any document Obama produces must be a fraud. Because any black man who beats a white (foreign-born!) man in an election must be a fraud. Guilty until proven innocent. And after all that, they will move on to “Obama is a Muslim until he proves he’s a Christian! Let’s give him a quiz on the twelve apostles!”

They are just begging the rest of America, just to be willing to believe the worst about a black man. Just to dip our toes into the quicksand of fear and hate. “That racism is deep inside you, let it out! Indulge your worst instincts! Go wild! You know you want to!”

All those have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too Republicans who remain silent, who flirt with this racist nonsense, are complicit. “I take the Muslim socialist at his word, wink wink, nudge nudge.” You’re allowing it to happen. With your silence, you’re telling America that racism is okay, that this “find the black boy’s birth records” nonsense is more important than a terrible recession, more important than a trillion dollar deficit, more than two wars, more than health care. And the mainstream media, letting the racists lie about the President for two years and doing virtually nothing to shoot them down, and then criticizing Obama because he was forced to do the media’s job for them, shooting down the lies the way real reporters used to do in the old days: your hands are dirty too.

A real leader would step forward and say “this is wrong, and it’s not what America is about.” So where is that Republican leader? Who has the guts to condemn racism in today’s GOP? The oddsmakers have identified some 30 Republicans who are potential presidential contenders. How many of the 30 have condemned this racist nonsense? Zero.

It is entirely relevant that the Republicans have no policy program of their own, and haven’t had one for two years, others than attacking anything Obama does. And next year they will continue down that path: their nominee will essentially have only one policy aim. To be white, unlike Obama. Because for the GOP base, that will be enough. Because only white Americans are Real Americans. Notice how quickly they ran away from their flirtation with Piyush Jindal, former Hindu, and threw Michael Steele to the wolves?

This birther rubbish will be a permanent stain on American history, like McCarthyism, like Jim Crow, like Watergate, a time when America forgot what America is supposed to mean. A couple of years ago everybody jumped on Michelle Obama for implying that she isn’t always proud of her country, but I understand the implication entirely: the America we profess to be, doesn’t exist anymore. All that stuff about justice and equality is a myth from the past. So then what’s to be proud of? What do we stand for? One of our two major political parties is openly espousing racism, and the media are not calling them out on it. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, we at least pretended to oppose racism.

So, no, I don’t imagine Mrs Obama is proud about this, watching her husband standing at the side of the road, pulling out his wallet, forced to prove he’s not an illegal president, a criminal. Just because he’s black, guilty until proven innocent: no white president would ever have to do that. And it’s all the more astounding in that Obama’s predecessor was, in every conceivable sense, an illegal president. But he of course was white.

And the world, after watching Bush spend eight years betraying everything America stands for and getting reelected for it, now knows that the American example is no longer worthy to be followed. Because we have lost our way. We are no longer the standard against which great nations are measured.

The birthers


We told the birthers for years that they were out of their minds, about this conspiracy that was so enormous that it included the Republican governor of Hawaii who certified that Obama is a citizen, the Republican members of Congress who certified his election victory, the Republican vice president who ratified that vote, the Republican President who handed the White House to him, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court which repeatedly rejected challenges to his eligibility for the White House, and the Republican Chief Justice who swore him in. Twice.

They proved impervious to facts, so Obama released the birth certificate. And by the same afternoon, the birthers were spinning up even more baseless accusations and conspiracy theories. “Where does he get the nerve to publicly debunk the birthers? He’s suppressing evidence! Why did he take so long to release it? Why did we have to force him to release it? It's amazing that all of a sudden it materializes. Why all the secrecy? Why was the birth certificate moved to a secret location? Where are his school records, and how did such an obviously unqualified [i.e. black] guy get into Harvard? The press is protecting him, helping him hide his records! His birth certificate is a fake! He was adopted as Indonesian and lost his American citizenship! He used a fake Social Security number! His birth certificate shouldn’t say ‘African’! It says the word Kenya right on the form!!! And it says nothing about his religion – what’s up with that??  What’s the explanation for the mysterious X’s, the smudges in the reporting-attendant box, the vertical numbers on the right side? Why is the registrar named “Ukelele” [actually, U. K. L. Lee]? Why wasn’t the document registered the day he was born? Why is the green background so seamless when the document was in a curved, bound volume? Why is the signing physician conveniently dead when he was only born 89 years ago (and probably buried with Vince Foster!)? This proves he’s ineligible because of his father!”

That’s just in a few hours. Insanity can run laps around the world, while facts and logic are still tying on their shoes.

Just imagine if these people had used the same scrutiny with, say, the Declaration of Independence. “Who’s this guy Dunlap who printed the Declaration, and where are all the lost copies? Where is the “fair copy” they actually voted on? How come we only got the printed version, not the handwritten version? Why is the ink on the engrossed copy suspiciously fading? Why are there multiple official versions? How come Jefferson didn’t give Tom Paine credit for his writing? Plagiarism! Who signed this thing, did they bring ID? Did anyone check their signatures? Some of those guys weren’t even members of Congress that July! We know some of those delegations voted against independence! How come it wasn’t really signed on the 4th of July? Jefferson, Franklin and Adams all thought it was signed on the fourth but it wasn’t! What are they hiding? Didn’t they know they were breaking the law when they signed it? It’s invalid! Why were there hundreds of changes, none of them recorded? How come they misspelled “unalienable”, with all those college graduates in the room?”

“And where are all their birth certificates?”

What if they did the same to the Constitution?

Or the Bible?

Or John McCain’s birth certificate, from Central America? Oh, right, I forgot. He’s white.

Once the last of the air leaks out of the birth-certificate balloon, they will move on to new conspiracy theories; the World Net Daily people are already shrieking that “there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama’s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life."

The problem lies largely with the media. The reporters have watched almost silently as the GOP smear machine has spent three years firehosing lies and attacks at Obama. He lost the public option because the media didn’t shoot down the lies. He lost the House because the media didn’t shoot down the lies. So he finally realized he had to do their job for them, by revealing his birth documents. And even then they were giving him static as he was doing his briefing: they were wondering why Obama was talking about the birth certificate instead of the economy, and Obama pointed out that he wouldn’t have gotten as much coverage, talking about the economy. The media proved his point by covering Donald Trump’s birth-certificate press conference in toto, while doing just a quick touch-and-go on the Fed chair’s media event the same day.

National security: performance

SUMMARY

Despite all of the Republican caterwauling, George Bush was outperformed not only by Obama but also by Clinton, in the hunt for Usama bin Laden. The Republican track record, and the words and actions of the next generation of Republican "leaders", suggest that dire consequences could ensue if the GOP regained control of national security policy.



CLINTON AND BIN LADEN

Obama has made it clear, repeatedly, that he didn’t catch bin Laden all by himself. But the guy who deserves more credit isn’t Bush, or his torture team. It’s Bill Clinton.


Clinton, before 911, before anybody knew what a bin Laden was, reversed the policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and made it a national security issue. He built a special unit in 1996 that was specifically focused on nailing bin Laden, because Clinton perceived the danger which the Republicans didn’t care about. Also in that year a grand jury began proceedings against bin Laden, and eventually he was indicted. In 1997 Clinton proclaimed al-Qa’ida a worldwide terror threat. In 1998 Clinton worked to prove bin Laden was connected to the attacks on our embassies in Africa.

In 1998 Clinton sent missiles into Afghanistan, which came closer than Bush ever did, to killing bin Laden: Clinton only missed killing bin Laden by a couple of hours. Despite the fact that the intelligence was flimsy, that civilians might be hurt, that air refueling might be needed, that word of the attack might leak, and that foreign airspace would be used for the attack, Clinton gave the “go” order. Gutsy. He also bombed a factory suspected of being a bin Laden chemical weapons plant.

Clinton set up bombing attacks and attacks by the Special Forces; he kept Special Forces personnel and choppers at the ready for possible attacks. Clinton authorized secret coordination with other countries to kill bin Laden. In 1999 Clinton set up a team of 60 commandos to kill bin Laden, to include equipment, training, the works; he even offered Pakistan economic incentives to help make it happen. A coup in Pakistan ended that effort, but several Clinton officials warned the Bush team throughout 2000 and 2001 that al-Qa’ida was a threat, warnings which the Bush gang ignored: nine days after the inauguration, the Bush administration had already decided that Saddam was Job One.

During all of this, Clinton had to hold firm to his purpose, even though Janet Reno and other aides were worried that the hunt for bin Laden might be illegal, and the generals were so hostile to Clinton that they repeatedly refused his orders to come up with attack plans, until finally he made it a direct order. In other words, Clinton made a serious effort against bin Laden. The main thing the Republicans contributed, was to impeach Clinton while he was attacking Usama.


Clinton has much more grounds than Bush, to claim partial credit for the hunt for bin Laden, but you don’t hear him whining, do you? That’s because Clinton is everything Bush is not: a classy patriot.

COMPARING OBAMA AND BUSH IN THE WAR ON TERROR

Bush turned down two opportunities to take custody of bin Laden, he fouled up the hunt for bin Laden in Tora Bora by rejecting the commanders’ pleas for more troops even though we were only a mile away from bin Laden, he said he didn’t care about bin Laden, he shut down the Bin Laden unit, and he took Pakistan’s word for it when they said they didn’t know where bin Laden was. And all this was after 911, when Bush would have had carte blanche to do whatever was needed. The Bush team clearly put so little thought into bin Laden, that a decade later Rumsfeld was still mispronouncing his name: “bin LAY-den”. In other words, Bush just went through the motions against bin Laden, because all he cared about was Saddam Hussein.

So naturally the Republicans want to give Bush credit for catching Usama. In other news, Republicans give Neville Chamberlain credit for winning WWII!

TORTURE

The myth that Bush “got” bin Laden by launching the torture program has been shot down over and over: by the interrogators who had every motive to brag that their techniques found the vital clues, by their CIA boss, by Donald Rumsfeld, by John McCain, by the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The only people still peddling this “torture is good!” meme are Cheney and of course Bush’s legacy-minders. Cheney has no credibility on this anyway, since he’s been caught lying about torture for years now, and Bush’s own FBI Director shot down Cheney’s lies long before Obama even entered the picture; during all this, Cheney was also working to set up illegal death squads with the power, potentially, to operate in the U.S.

Professional interrogators have made clear that torture, or even normal interrogation with untrained interrogators, is dangerous and ineffective. Torture not only leads to lies, but makes it impossible to separate lies from truth. It also provokes our enemies to recruit more attackers; our torture program was the top recruiting tool for our enemies in Iraq. And it is illegal: we convicted a Japanese soldier after WWII for doing just what the Bush team did; Bush’s Pentagon officials admitted that a hundred people died in our custody with no due process, and at least one third were confirmed or suspected homicides. Prisoners were threatened with the rape and murder of children, with threats to crack open their skulls with power drills, forcing them to defecate in their pants and take enemas. And torture is destructive to our own personnel: one interrogator killed herself rather than use torture, and others may end up in court.

Even worse, a senior Bush official admitted that they speeded up the torture, not for fear of imminent attacks, but because Bush wanted to prove Saddam’s link to 911 and nuclear weapons in time to win the 2002 midterms. The plan failed so they just made the lies up, and as a result they recaptured the Senate. Just absorb that for a minute: the GOP was willing to torture and kill innocent people, just to win a midterm.


REPUBLICANS IN CHARGE?


So the Democrats did better than the Republicans on hunting bin Laden, in managing the policy, the politics, the strategy, the military operations, the tactics, and sheer style. Why does this matter?
Take a look at that now-iconic picture of the Situation Room, with Obama and his team watching the Usama raid. Obama had to consider the intelligence and the recommendations for months, then choose the right order, and choose the right time, and choose the right team. And watch and wait. And try really hard not to think of Jimmy Carter.

Now. Look at that picture, and imagine President Michelle Bachmann in that chair instead. Deciding whether to act, how to act, weighing the potential consequences of failure, the myriad international implications, the complexities of Pakistani politics, etc etc. Now imagine Palin, trying to see Pakistan from her house. Or Donald Trump, Commander In Chief. Or Herman Cain, the pizza man. Or Ron Paul who thinks any action by the military is the work of The Debbil.

And then, picture what kind of people they would choose as their national security team. Who else would be around that table? Who would Palin hire to be her Defense chief, her national security adviser? Does she even know anybody, personally, who has that level of expertise in anything, other than shooting moose? Would she rely on the discredited bunch of Bush hacks to build her national security team? Would we see yahoos like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton sitting at the table? Would Todd Palin be sitting on the Sit Room table sucking on a Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Another scary sign of where all this could go: a recent Gallup poll asked Republicans who their choice was, to be their foreign policy expert. Their top choice? Sarah Palin. The GOP’s “bench” for 2012 is so thin, that their top pick for foreign policy and national security is the half-a-term governor from Alaska, who has no ability in foreign affairs and didn’t even have a passport until a year or two ago.

This is the woman who asserted that Africa is all one country, who scared the hell out of everybody by flipflopping on the question of war with Russia, who admitted ignorance about Iraq and Iran and the Bush doctrine, whose claim of controlling the Alaska national guard was shot down by the guard commander, who is nevertheless positive that she’s ready to be commander in chief and take that 3AM call.

This woman is their Top Gun, to deal with the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the War On Terror, our complex relations with Pakistan and India and China and Russia and Korea, the complex interplay of foreign policy and trade policy, NATO and other global alliances, oil and other global resource issues…The best the Republicans can do, is assign all this to the Airhead from Wasilla. And that also means she’s their Top Gun for dealing with all the sensitivities and complexities of our relations with the Muslim world. Oh. My. God.

Remember all this stuff next year when we’re picking a president. Because we know Obama can do the job. And pick a good team. He proved it vividly.

National security and panache

Panache.

Obama promises to find Usama, gives the kill order, and calmly makes fun of Trump at the big correspondents’ dinner (“well played, sir, well played”), all while his sailors are deploying to shoot Usama in the eye like Moe Greene regardless of what the Pakistanis think about it, and regardless of the fact that we weren’t sure Usama was there, and then send him off to sleep with the fishes. Doesn’t break a sweat. Then he waits until Trump’s “Apprentice” is on the air, and cuts Trump off with the “we got him” announcement. And then a sober speech calling for national unity.

He didn’t do a premature Hollywood-style carrier-deck “Mission Accomplished” photo op, with a tight flight suit showing off his package. He didn’t give a big political speech at Ground Zero. He didn’t have his political team package the “political narrative”: in fact his team made some factual errors in the first day or two, because Obama is more interested in leading than marketing a “message”. He actually sent his men out to correct their factual errors, instead of stonewalling. He didn’t do a victory lap, he didn’t exploit his victory for political purposes, he didn’t pander to emotion by publishing the Usama photos, he didn’t try to hog all the credit for himself, he didn’t use it to attack his enemies. Because he’s a leader. Not just a politician.

Style. And he gets extra style points for going to his Attorney General and asking if what he was doing was legal. Imagine Bush even giving a crap about the law.

One thing we can say beyond fear of dispute, is that Democrats outclass the Republicans by a country mile, in terms of showing loyalty to the Commander In Chief in wartime. Desert Storm, for example, proved that vividly. After 911, the Democrats did of course question Bush 43’s actions and motives, and were particularly incensed with the incompetence and lies about WMDs, Abu Ghuraib, the screwup with the armor, losing Usama in the mountains, prolonging the war for years by disarming and then mismanaging the Iraqi Sunni forces, the torture, failing to foresee the Iranian role, the illegal prisons, the illegal wiretaps, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, endangering the troops for political advantage, “Mission Accomplished”, claiming Saddam was in bed with al-Qa’ida, contractor fraud, Blackwater. But generally the Democrats were incredibly patient, and kept the punches above the belt. Their objections were generally sane and fact-based, and rarely personal. A number of them even spoke up in favor of Bush’s intention to go after Saddam. They were, for the most part, classy.
Let’s remember, again, that this was a victory for all of those oft-maligned federal employees who, in the eyes of some, are overfed and overpaid: men and women in uniform, the Special Forces, the intelligence community, the Homeland Security people, our diplomats, the FBI, the Secret Service, all the people who have actually been fighting the War On Terror while everyone else was talking about it. This was also a victory, I think, for New York’s cops and firefighters, who still fight the War On Terror every day, the same kind of people under attack in places like Wisconsin for their collective-bargaining rights. So let’s take a break from telling these government employees how worthless they are, to thank them for helping to put a bullet in Usama’s head.


Classy Republicans?

Now it’s the Republicans’ turn. During the week of our most brilliant military victory in years, we heard a noise something like this: “Obama is still a Muslim who hates America! Obama didn’t do enough to thank Bush for screwing up the Usama hunt for seven years! Usama wasn’t that big a deal Obama took an extra day to decide to attack! Obama’s briefers initially only got 97 of 100 facts right in their briefings! Obama only got Usama because of Bush’s waterboarding! Obama should have taken Usama alive, even though he was resisting! Obama [and by implication the SEAL’s] faked the DNA evidence and the photos, Usama’s alive! Boehner gets credit for this, because it happened on his watch! Obama faked the photo in the Situation Room too! Obama is shamefully exploiting Usama by going to Ground Zero – Bush’s visit there was totally different!! Obama should have kept our stealth helicopters hidden! Obama refused to launch the attack – the “Go” order came from Leon Panetta! Obama made Usama a martyr! Naming Usama “Geronimo” is so mean!”

And so on. Some Republicans went back to the meme that Obama’s heart wasn’t really in this effort to kill Usama because he hates America. Scarborough insisted that Obama had to reject his party base and his own ideology to get Usama, which is GOP code-speak for “the Democrats couldn’t have really meant to kill Usama because they hate America and Obama’s a Muslim”.

The Republicans came up with a hysterically funny line of attack, arguing that Obama had Usama in his sights, but refused to pull the trigger, presumably because he’s a Muslim who hates America, so Panetta had to launch a coup d’etat and take over, giving the kill order to the SEALs himself. There are many absurd aspects to this argument, but my favorite is the fact that they are now crediting Usama’s death to Leon Panetta, an Italian grandpa and purebred Democrat. Clearly none of these people making this accusation has ever served in uniform, because even the most lowly buck private knows that the SEALs only take orders from the commander of SOCOM, and SOCOM only takes orders from Obama or Gates, according to federal law. If Panetta tried to issue orders to the SEALs, the SEALs would ignore Panetta, and Panetta would be fired, if not arrested, within hours. Republicans just don’t want to believe that a black Democrat had more brains and more balls when it came time to kill a Muslim terrorist target in a risky operation.

Then the Republicans blocked a House resolution thanking the SEALs who executed the mission. Because they were afraid people would think they were praising Obama.

Do you think Bill O’Reilly will apologize for saying this, just before the 2008 election? ....“You’re not gonna invade Pakistan, senator, if you’re president. You’re not gonna send ground troops in there. You know it.”

I tried to be generous. I said to myself, the Republicans weren’t always such a bunch of treacherous dirtbags, were they? They were all loyal Americans when, for instance, Roosevelt won World War Two, right?

Sigh.

The leader of the GOP back then was Thomas Dewey. He was the GOP’s presidential nominee in both 1944 and 1948. What did he do when we were just on the point of winning WWII? He drafted a speech in which he accused FDR of knowing in advance that Pearl Harbor would be attacked, and deliberately letting all those people be killed without doing anything. Dewey said of FDR, “instead of being reelected he should be impeached”. Seriously. Dewey’s attack was so appalling that even Republican military leaders were appalled and told him to knock it off, particularly since Dewey also intended to tip off the world that we had broken the Japanese codes; this was in keeping with the actions of two of the biggest Republican newspapers in America, which treasonously leaked FDR’s military strategy to the public two days before Pearl Harbor and risked American lives. General Marshall, who as the military leader for the WWII effort had more important things to do, had to go back to Dewey several times to get him to shut the hell up, until finally Dewey backed down.

So, judging by history, the Republican penchant for betraying their country and their President in wartime, for exploiting the misery of thousands just for cheap political points, goes back decades. And they are perfectly likely to act like treasonous scumbags for as long as there are Democrats to attack unfairly.


All while insisting that it’s the Democrats who hate America.

Roe v Wade

Republicans are undermining Roe v Wade even as we speak, more than 900 measures in legislatures all across the country, banning abortion after 18-22 weeks, requiring longer waiting periods, requiring notification that women can’t be forced to have an abortion (as though this is a problem), requiring ultrasound, requiring that women listen to the fetal heartbeat, requiring scientifically-discredited “counseling” visits on different days, requiring lectures about killing a “living human being”, mandating opt-outs for medical professionals, banning providers from getting malpractice insurance, creating a hostile environment in South Dakota so abortions are only available at one site one day a week, driving providers out of business with punitive regulation.

They are seeking to cut funding for all Planned Parenthood programs including cancer screenings and contraception which reduces the abortion rate; Indiana's plan to cut Planned Parenthood has already been deemed to be in violation of federal law., and may take $4 billion away from Indiana Medicaid patients, in other words voters, who need the care badly. Michelle Bachmann kept up the hue and cry by claiming that Planned Parenthood has turned a blind eye to “the trafficking of underage girls that has gone on under Planned Parenthood's nose."

Six states have banned private insurers from offering coverage that includes abortion, except when life is at stake, and many more states are trying to do the same.

And, when all that fails, shooting abortion doctors in church; there is an organized terrorist campaign against the doctors, some of whom wear bulletproof vests, and many of whom are stalked. Recently another terrorist plot to murder an abortion doctor was uncovered by police; the terrorist had a history of targeting Planned Parenthood facilities. Officials are even tiptoeing in the direction of giving official sanction to violence: South Dakota and Nebraska were considering bills that would characterize the murder of abortion doctors as "justifiable homicide" since it allegedly involves saving a life.

Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties now have no abortion provider at all. South Dakota is down to one provider, Wyoming has two. The anti-abortion zealots specifically target states that already have few abortion providers, with the aim of making those states abortion-free. Kansas has only three clinics left and they’re all in Kansas City, and as I understand it they must bring in out-of-state doctors. A new Kansas law requires the clinics to make changes to their doors, lights, equipment and bathrooms, imposes new rules and new inspections, new restrictions on medications, new fines. Meanwhile the anti-abortion activists are pressuring local hospitals to deny privileges to abortion providers, which means they can’t practice in Kansas.

The national Republicans, as we know, are trying to destroy Planned Parenthood because a small part of the mission involves abortions. That means wiping out PP’s programs for cancer treatment, children’s health, and contraception which, again, will lead to more abortions, and put the lives of women at risk. But the same Washington Republicans overwhelmingly passed a family planning bill – for wild horses. So as far as the Republicans are concerned, wild animals need contraception, but people don’t. So the obvious headline is ”GOP encourages promiscuity in horses!” The shame of it all.

The House GOP has now found a new line of attack: de-funding medical schools that even teach abortion techniques. So if a woman needs a life-saving procedure, finding a qualified doctor will be that much more difficult. Meanwhile they also blocked a plan that would provide abortion services to military women who are raped. 

The ultimate goal is to ban abortion entirely. Santorum has called for criminal charges against doctors who perform the procedure even in cases of rape and incest, and Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi are all working on bills which would impose total bans.  Louisiana wants to make an exception for cases in which the mother's life is at stake -- and then they want the woman to pay for the abortion; their bill is so extreme that they may need to revise it since it goes even further than the oppressive Hyde Amendment. And they are stalking the presidential candidates for signs of apostasy -- they are already dogging Romney for flipflopping on abortion.
The silver lining in all this, is that the independents who decide all the presidential elections are social liberals. But these battles will not be won unless they are fought: where is the clamor to stop the anti-abortion crusaders, and call them what they are, terrorists?

What’s the difference between Operation Rescue and the Taleban?

And isn’t half of the electorate female?


By the by, Republicans are now going after contraception too. Thus ensuring more abortions.

Here's a quick update from the folks at Alternet on the anti-Roe war.

Idaho now only has four abortion providers; they arrested a woman for getting an abortion, claiming on no evidence whatsoever that she lied about how far along her pregnancy was.
Utah has only seven providers. A girl in rural Utah had no access to a provider to she hired a man to hit her in the stomach; she was charged with a crime.
Kansas. One abortion doctor was killed; his successor was denied a restraining order against the vigilantes who want to do the same to him.
South Dakota has effectively banned abortions by forcing pregnant women to go to non-existent counseling centers before getting the procedure. They only have one provider anyway; one third of abortion patients at a North Dakota clinic come from South Dakota.
Iowa: a pregnant woman who had an accident told a nurse that earlier in her pregnancy she had considered abortion; the nurse had the woman arrested, claiming on no evidence whatsoever that the accident was really an attempted self-abortion. She went through three weeks of legal hell for admitting she had considered a perfectly legal procedure, abortion.
Ohio: some pregnant women are actually going to Detroit for abortions to avoid the hassles in Ohio. Because Detroit is such a garden spot. A new Ohio bill bans unincorporated counties from providing abortion coverage, and bans public hospitals from performing abortions.
Louisiana passed new rules making it extremely easy to shut down an abortion provider for real or imagined violations of regulations; they already used the rule to reduce the number of providers in the state down to seven, only three of which are outside New Orleans.
Virginia: there’s an effort to reduce the number of providers from 22 to 5.
Mississippi is considering a referendum which would not only ban abortion but also contraception and IVF, and possibly criminalize miscarriage and stillborns. They may be down to their last provider anyhow.
Indiana is down to 12 providers. A pregnant woman who attempted suicide has been charged with murder. Because clearly she doesn’t have enough problems already.

Hat tip to Alternet -- http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151268/10_states_where_abortion_is_virtually_illegal_for_some_women


Social issues

SUMMARY
While Washington is focusing on economic and fiscal issues, the Republican party is launching a national jihad in the country’s state legislatures to guard against the entirely imaginary “threat” of gays and lesbians, the equally imaginary threat that Islamic sharia law will be imposed, pollute our schools with rightwing myths, and undermine Roe v Wade, which we examine in a separate article.

Notwithstanding the seemingly endless sex scandals involving Republicans, Ensign and Coburn, Chris “Too Sexy For My Shirt” Lee, Craig, Vitter and Foley etc, still the Republicans seem hell-bent on lecturing the rest of us on social values. Presumably heterosexual adultery is less dangerous to America than homosexual fidelity.

Having exploited homophobia to subvert the 2004 presidential election, the Republicans are sticking to the anti-LGBT playbook. They know they’re going to lose the war on same-sex marriage but they intend to exploit it to spin up their base in the meantime. They are fighting civil unions (Bill O’Reilly says civil unions are the first step to polygamy, and sex with turtles!), and civil unions are publicly opposed by Pawlenty, Huckabee, Daniels and Bachmann; Romney and Palin aren’t clear on the issue.

They are blaming all manner of national calamities and tragedies on God’s wrath in retaliation for America’s tolerance of gays. One Oklahoma representative even blamed the recession on the immorality represented by gay sex. They have accused one official of planning on “indoctrinating even elementary-age children in pro-homosexual ideology." Governor Walker in Wisconsin is pushing back on existing LGBT rights, trying to prevent gays from visiting their partners in the hospital.

Newt Gingrich, who rarely misses a chance to throw a grenade on social issues, insists that gays and atheists want to use violence and the power of government to impose their way of life on the rest of us. Weirdly, Fox chief Roger Ailes shares Newt's fear of gay violence.

This article is a magnificent rant by a progressive blogger who ridicules the evangelicals for lamenting that they’ve “lost” the same-sex marriage battle. “In everyday, Constitutional/legal terms, you haven't lost a damn thing. You still have everything you had before you declared that your war on gay rights was "lost." It's the GLBT community that has lost for years, decades, centuries. Lost jobs, lost family ties, lost money, lost homes, lost church support, lost benefits, lost friends, lost kids, lost dignity, lost lives. All orchestrated and perpetuated by people and organizations like you and yours….Tell me, Focus on the Family, cuz I'm curious: what did you Christians lose when you stopped stoning people to death? I know that goes back a ways, but you're experts at ancient history, so tell me: what did you lose when you made that conscious decision to start FLAGRANTLY IGNORING THE WRITTEN AND INVIOLABLE WORD OF GOD by not stoning people anymore?...You lost nothing. Except, perhaps, the label, "monstrous barbarians." And perhaps, by correctly interpreting the writing on the wall regarding the growing acceptance of GLBT Americans, you might one day lose the label "shrill, cruel, opportunistic bigots" by simply calling a halt to your war on gay people.”

Other candidates such as Bachmann and Santorum have long, long track records of anti-gay statements, which you can find in the articles dedicated to those candidates.

And they are laboring to start a fire over the sharia issue. Missouri, like a number of other states, is infested with wingnut Republicans who are terrified that sharia law will be imposed on them. Who exactly is going to impose it on them, is unclear; presumably Obama, according to the extremist subtext.

But as soon as they dive into this sharia issue, they get tangled up in their own hypocrisy. Because the people who want to ensure that Islamic religion isn’t rammed down our throats in the form of statutory law, are exactly the same yokels who want to ram Christian religion down our throats, with laws in abortion, school vouchers, school prayer, intelligent design, putting the Commandments in courtrooms, stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, civil unions, HPV shots, contraception, sex education, faith-based initiatives, banning books, assisted suicide. In other words, religious law is okay if it’s Christian, but not if it’s Muslim.

So the Missouri wingnuts tried a new tack. Their legislative distinguishes between good old fashioned American law and “foreign law”. The idea being that Islamic law comes from furrin parts, but American law comes from America.

The problem is that American legal precepts don’t come from America either: it’s all imported. Our precepts on liberty, justice, equality and democracy were all plagiarized from philosophers and politicians in England, France, Holland, Germany, and Greece. And all the religion-based nonsense they try to ram down our throats, in the form of statutory law, goes back to the Bible, according to their own claims. Written in the Holy Land, and then codified by 1500 years of Christian leaders in the Vatican and elsewhere in Europe, before Columbus even got into his boat.

So they should say what they really mean: “We want America to be governed by Christian dogma as we interpret it”. Laws are to be written, not just by Christians, but hardcore conservative evangelical Christians: there are plenty of liberal Christians whose views on tolerance, charity and mercy are just not being heard. The aim here is government by the most backward, rigid religious leadership we have, and the destruction of any religious belief that might challenge it.

Congratulations, America! We’re raising a generation of Christian ayatollahs!

They are especially intent on hijacking our educational system and perverting it to their ends. They are rewriting history books and science books; they are donating money to colleges in exchange for controlling course content and hiring; they are organizing groups to target professors who offend rightwing students; one plucky teacher taught his kids geometry with an exercise that involved shooting the President: "He was talking about angles and said, 'If you're in this building, you would need to take this angle to shoot the president,' " a one child said. Huckabee’s series of videos rewriting U.S. history with a rightwing slant were particularly laughable.They were also caught trying to rewrite Wikipedia in order to conform to Sarah Palin's idiotic misrepresentation of Paul Revere's ride.

Conservative groups have also declared war on public teachers and schools, or “government schools” as they call them; they want to privatize education and use vouchers as part of their “ school choice” effort. Chris Christie is working on a privatization plan for public schools in New Jersey. 


What to watch for next: a Canadian catholic school banned rainbows as too politically charged – watch for U.S. schools to try the same. Resist The Gay!

Another backdoor victory for the rightwing extremists on the education front: because Republican policies have forced states and counties to cut education budgets, schools are now charging fees for things that are supposed to be free. First they were just demanding that kids bring in crayons and scissors and soap and paper towels, but now parents are being hit with fees for extracurricular activities, honors courses, National Honor Society, AP courses, bus service, and even some basic course work. Some school systems are charging fat fees just to come to school on Day 1, adding registration fees, IT fees, processing fees. And you’ll notice that a lot of the things that cost extra now, are the things kids need to get into college and succeed, like extracurricular activities and AP. And what that means, of course, that the rich kids get an even bigger head start toward getting into college. The Republican response to such problems is to cut education funding even further, shift money to private schools which helps rich kids even more, and attacking teachers’ unions. Hat tip to Washington Monthly.


And lastly, a word to the LGBT activists who are whining about Obama's support for their cause.

Obama’s effort to secure fairer treatment for gays has received bitter opposition, not only from an entirely united Republican party which now controls the House of Representatives, but also conservative Democrats, the same people who blocked the public option. It would have been the easiest thing on the world for Obama to throw gays under the bus.

Instead, he fought. He stopped defending DOMA and committed to repealing it, which is all he can do under the law. He repealed DADT and sent military leader to Capitol Hill to ensure that he got it repealed. He signed the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, signed the HIV treatment act, signed the UN declaration on sexual orientation, lifted the HIV entry ban, made passports easier for same-sex partners to get, gave $13 million to an LGBT program for kids in foster care, set up a national HIV strategy, gave guidance to 20,000 education institutions to stop bullying, and set up anti-bullying hotline.

Obama outraged LGBT opponents with his efforts within the federal government; ensuring fairer treatment for gays on benefits, jobs, census rules, visitation rights, housing and HUD grants, tenant rights, domestic violence, the Family and Medical Leave Act, long-term care under Medicaid, deporation rules, and the right to form
Gay-Straight Student Alliances in schools. Obama changed the culture of the federal government; he appointed liberal Supreme Court Justices, put an equality advocate on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and sent senior officials out to fight for LGBT rights.

He defied LGBT opponents again in his unceasing effort to get out the message of equality. He fought for LGBT rights in speech after speech after speech, sent an anti-bullying message to 8 million people on the net, gave presidential medals of freedom to Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King, invited the shunned high school prom student to the White House, and put gays in PSAs for the census.

He overcame Republican efforts to block accreditation of the UN LGBT commission, and he helped change the rules so that the UN no longer condones killing gays.

Over and over he made history in the fight for LGBT rights: the first national study on housing discrimination against gays, first White House LGBT pride month celebration, first transgender DNC member, first administration to testify in favor of ENDA, first openly transgender administration officials, first transgender policy meeting, first anti-bullying summit, first anti-bullying website.

What issue has Obama done more to fight for, than gay rights? If he had fought as hard for health reform as he did for gays, we’d have the public option; if he had fought as hard for a bigger stimulus, we’d have more jobs.

It is time for the unrealistic LGBT whiners to stop weakening the president and start strengthening his position, so he can fight for them more effectively. It is because they sulked and stayed home in 2010 that we have a Republican Speaker.


Big government

This article explores the little-known reality that a huge majority of human progress was under-written by the very entity that conservatives loathe, Big Government.

So let’s go back to the Big Gummint notion that Republicans have raised. Way back, conservatives ginned up yet another jihad against Joe Biden, this time because Biden stressed the fact that great ideas can’t get off the ground without government vision and government incentive. The right wing, as is customary, went bananas.

And of course Biden is abundantly right, and the wingnuts absurdly wrong.

Let’s begin with the bedrock fact that for 5000 years of recorded history, almost no great achievements happened unless a government was involved in some way, simply because governments – empires, monarchies etc – were the only institutions capable of achieving anything on a grand scale, for most of those five millenia. Whenever people oohed and aahed over some achievement of the ancient world there was always a royal or imperial sponsor writing the checks: Pyramids, the Great Wall, Roman aqueducts, the Roman road system that held Europe together and was built partly by government soldiers, the plays of Euripedes.

Without government, capitalism wouldn’t be possible. The capitalist model was born, grew and thrived because kings and princes nurtured it. Banking began in the government granaries of ancient Egypt, and flourished in the Middle Ages under the auspices of the Medici rulers of Florence, the London Royal Exchange which as the name implies answered to the Crown, and the state-backed Bank of Amsterdam which underwrote much of global capitalism before the Industrial Revolution.

As with banking, so with trade: the Doge of Venice and the House or Orange launched their commercial vessels, as did the House of Hapsburg and eventually Peter the Great. The conquest of the New World was all about kings subsidizing capitalists to go find/borrow/steal resources in the Western Hemisphere, starting with Queen Isabella hocking her pearls to send Columbus off across the Atlantic. George III and Queen Victoria built a capitalist empire so that the East India Company could conquer India and the tai-pan businessmen and opium dealers could conquer China for King and Country. The cotton boom in the south would have been impossible without southern politicians protecting it in Congress. In almost every case, it was the guns of government which protected transportation lanes so the businessmen could make money.

Even in the last century or so when large-scale private enterprise became practical, government was still propping the whole thing up. In the late 19th century the drivers were the railroads and to a lesser extent the telegraph: railroads spread across the country due to a wide range of charters by state governments, and by federal action such as the Pacific Railway Acts which set up land grants, gave away more than 100 million acres to the railroads, and provided subsidies. The telegraph, same thing: it all began with a grant from Congress, and then the Pacific Telegraph Act.

And on into the 20th century. Radio and television are heavily subsidized by governments in most of the world, including America where PBS is actually the largest network; government protected television stations from being swallowed up by the networks. Without federal involvement, how many satellites would we have in the sky, running our entire telecommunications infrastructure? Without government approving the Kingsbury Agreement, AT&T could not have revolutionized the telephone industry; government also nudged things along by fostering the notion that phone service should reach every community in the country, and by issuing an FCC ruling fostering the introduction of answering machines, fax machines, and modems. And giggle all you want about Al Gore, but the internet was also a government idea.

The automakers boomed when the federal government gave them wartime contracts and later bailed them out, and when Eisenhower built the interstate, thus launching half a century of car culture: without government road projects, how many highways would we have, or suburbs, or malls selling all those capitalist goods, or drive-in banks, drive-in fast food? How many of the nodes in our capitalist market system do not have a nice big parking lot in front of them? And the oil that makes the cars go gets to America in large part because of the network of oil companies set up in the 1950s by the State Department to import Middle Eastern oil.

Capitalist achievement is regularly, daily, underwritten with government incentives, incredibly loose regulation, and tax breaks, particularly in the finance and insurance industries. And when government protection does not keep the markets safe, chaos ensues, as we learned in the 1870s, in the 1929 crash, the S&L scandals, and all the nonsense stemming from Bush’s orgy of deregulation.

Know what else you rightwingers wouldn’t have without government? Religion. The three monotheistic faiths would have collapsed without Big Gummint: the caliphs and their warriors built the Muslim empires, the Jewish kings built the temple and subsidized Judaism, and Christianity was an absurd little cult until the Roman Emperors and then the medieval monarchs embraced it. When governments like the Tudors rejected religion, religion suffered; when religion and government joined hands again, religion boomed, whether the partnership was being crafted by the Taliban, the Iranian ayatollahs, or goons like Jerry Falwell.

So while you wingnuts are screeching that all government is evil, take a moment to show some respect for all those underpaid big-gummint soldiers, policemen, sailors, firemen, airmen, teachers, marines, Secret Service, and mailmen who can carry your documents 3000 miles across country, reliably, for half a buck. You're welcome! The next time we hear rightwing weasels screaming about Big Bad Gummint one day, and whining for stimulus money and hurricane aid the next day, we'll stifle the impulse to tell you to go fornicate with yourselves. Because, unlike you, we're grownups who put national needs ahead of personal gripes and neuroses.

Incidentally, the last twenty years have proved that every time we try to privatize government services – education, health care, military operations – its costs us money, because of waste, fraud and abuse. Private firms are there for their own profit, not the taxpayer’s interests.

Budget and health issues


SUMMARY

The Republicans, so far, seem to be doubling down on their very dangerous bet, the proposition that they can convince the American people to give up Medicare in exchange for health-care vouchers. They even seem to be making it a litmus-test issue for presidential candidates, as Newt Gingrich found out the hard way. They are trying to avoid the wrath of seniors by pointing out that the cuts won’t apply to them – only their kids and grandkids. Democrats, already angry that the GOP won the 2010 midterms by accusing them of being the Medicare-killers, are attacking Republicans on this, particularly the GOP presidential hopefuls, who like the Republicans in the Senate wanted desperately to waffle on the Ryan Medicare plan. While Washington is fight this battle, they will also be fighting the debt-ceiling battle, which exposes a rift between the tea-party and the Wall Street Republicans who are terrified of a default, and also fighting the battle to repeal Obama’s health reform package, which Obama must do better to sell to the voters. Five sections in the article:

The backlash against the Ryan plan
The Republicans double down on the Ryan plan
The Democrats attack
The debt ceiling
Obamacare

DETAILS

The backlash against the Ryan plan


The Republicans have been trying to kill government programs like Medicare for decades. Here’s Reagan’s apocalyptic and wildly inaccurate warning from 1961: "First you [the government] decide that the doctor can have so many patients. ... So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him, "You can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors, you have to go live somewhere else. And from here it's only a short step to dictating where he will go. Pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living, but will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. ...And if you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

…And then they will sap your precious bodily fluids. Needless to say Reagan was dead wrong, but Republicans have been trying to wreck Medicare for decades, so trying to deny it now is silly. Not only is Medicare so wildly popular that the GOP is taking a serious beating just for threatening it: it actually saves money. Let’s look at some numbers: Medicaid covers 49 million people for $208 billion; Medicare covers 43 million people for $440 billion, and the VA covers 26 million vets for $87 billion. So those three programs cover 118 million people for $735 billion, about $6000 per person. This is thousands of dollars less than the rest of us are paying the private insurers: the government programs are cheaper that the private companies.

Also, the private companies are overwhelming covering healthy people in the prime of life: the government programs are overwhelmingly covering the young, old and poor, in other words the people who cost the most to cover. In other words, the government outperforms the private sector.

Along comes Paul Ryan, whose plan would destroy Medicare (as even the Wall Street Journal admitted), add 30-40 million new uninsured including more than a million children within five years, and add crippling financial burdens for the sick, disabled and elderly. And the aim is not to tackle the debt, but to give tax breaks to millionaires, which makes all of the debt-ceiling brinksmanship silly. The plan was so obviously unsound that Republicans privately chastised Ryan for being so explicit about the damage it would do: they said he should have just inserted some vague language into that part of the budget. All the same, almost all of them voted for it, even though they knew it would never pass. Mass suicide almost on a Jonestown scale. All while complaining that it's Obama who's the radical.

Another dangerous gambit the Republicans are trying: assuring seniors that the Medicare cuts won’t apply to them, only to their kids and grandkids. The plan would keep Medicare for everyone over 55, but everyone else gets the private system. So how many grandparents really want to hear that? Pawlenty tried something similar, promising to cut Social Security benefits, but not for today's seniors. And the worst thing is that the claim isn't even true: Ryan's plan would hurt today's seniors immediately, by jacking up costs for prescriptions and probably long-term care and other phases of coverage.

The Republicans also tried out "where is the Democratic plan for Medicare?" Whereupon Pelosi shot back that their plan is called Medicare. And as for the budget itself, Obama put out his plan back in April. It cut the debt by $4 trillion. This line of attack is particularly ironic since the Republicans promised a plan to replace Obamacare and then never delivered; even the House GOP rank and file complained that their own leadership didn't follow through.

Ryan got one ringing endorsement from a big-name Republican: “I worship the ground the Paul Ryan walks on". Unfortunately it was the incredibly toxic Dick Cheney, fresh off his "Torture Is Good" publicity tour. Thanks for the help!

(Footnote: when Ryan wasn’t plotting to destroy Medicare, he was working with might and main to destroy the economy by screaming at the Fed chair to tighten the money supply, right in the middle of a recession. Fortunately the Fed ignored him; this is exactly why the Fed is supposed to be immune to political pressure from economic illiterates with gavels. This Ryan rube was the Republican party’s choice to be their top budget expert in the House. And for anyone trying to get him to run for President, know that in 12 years in Congress, about all he has accomplished is to propose a series of doomed, wildly irresponsible budget proposals just like the one he is now famous for.)

Congressional Republicans saw the reactions to the plan, and they panicked: 61 House Republicans come from districts which Obama won in 2008 and the effort to destroy Medicare could kill them in 2012.

One must wonder: are the Republicans really terrified that their base will insist on trashing Medicare? Isn’t their base the same bunch of elderly coots who screamed “keep your hands off my Medicare” in those town halls a year ago?

The Republicans double down on the Ryan plan


But then a strange thing happened. The GOP leadership decided that rather than run from the Ryan fiasco, the smart thing to do was double down on their bet. They have now made the Ryan bill a litmus test: support the Ryan plan or you will be shunned like an Amish prostitute. Not only must congressional candidates go back to their districts and suicidally promise to cut Medicare, which is already creating those very lively town-hall meetings, but presidential candidates must toe the line as well.

Newt Gingrich found this out the hard way. All he was trying to do was tell the truth and position himself with a relatively moderate position for the general election: “look at me, saving your Medicare!” And the wrath of the entire party establishment fell upon him: Ryan himself, Jim DeMint, Cantor, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Pat Buchanan, Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal, Limbaugh, Krauthammer, Rasmussen. One of Newt’s own allies blamed it on both Newt and the extremist primary voters: "Why doesn't [Newt] know that these issues have become the Holy Grail for GOP primary voters?"

The other potential presidential nominees, seeing Newt’s bleeding body on the ground, decided to say nice things about Ryan’s plan, but mostly they were careful to endorse it as is. Huntsman did endorse it and Palin called it a good plan. Pawlenty said his own plan would be similar when he unveiled it; then he was cornered by the press and waffled on whether he would have signed the Ryan plan as President, and then he said he would have signed it. Romney also promised his own plan later on, but he also claimed Ryan's plan saved Medicare for future generations: characteristically Romney is trying to have it both ways. Paul said the Ryan plan is a move in the right direction; Daniels called it “serious”. Bachmann supported it but urged caution about Medicare and added some vague blather to qualify her comments: if even Michele “Damn-The-Torpedoes” Bachmann is being cautious, it really must be a dangerous issue. Gingrich himself had half a dozen positions on it within a week.

There are more signs that the Republicans are indeed going to double down on this. Senate Republicans voted almost unanimously to back the Ryan plan; Mitch McConnell was working to have it both ways by trying to spin the Ryan plan as an effort to “empower” grandma to shop in the private market, but also admitting that he wouldn’t whip support for the Ryan plan, and that there were a number of other Republican plans, none of which was going to even become law anyway.

Key tea-party leader Dick Armey is still sticking with Ryan, and the Wall Street Journal still calls entitlement "reform" a key building block of the party agenda, which is no great surprise since Newt tried to attack Medicare in the 1990s and Bush attacked Social Security a decade later. Americans For Prosperity were leaning on Republican Senators to vote for the Ryan budget, and Grover Norquist plans to send an army of activists out to sell the plan. One Republican admitted that the House Republicans couldn't tinker with the Ryan plan "or the Tea Party will kill them". The only conservatives to wander off the reservation and admit that Ryan's plan is indeed a voucher plan are Fox and Herman Cain.

Another sign: when the GOP attack on Medicare enabled the Democrats to steal a House seat in New York that hadn’t gone blue in decades, the Republicans refused to accept that Medicare was the cause. “Ryan’s a great guy, his plan is just a conversation starter, we have other plans, one plan is to make Medicare optional, we need to sell the plan better, it’s the Democrats who really want to cut Medicare, we're going to save Medicare, the media is making too much of one close race, we lost in upstate New York because it's hostile to Republicans and the state party is incompetent and we had to deal with Davis and our candidate ran a bad race!” Republicans like Ryan complain that the Democrats indulged in scare tactics and demagoguery, which, again, is a bit much, coming from a party that told scary lies to seniors throughout the 2010 race.

Medicaid is also in danger from the GOP. Two Republican governors are working to make it practically impossible for Medicaid patients to get care: Chris Christie of New Jersey, by lowering the eligibility threshold to way below the poverty line, and Mitch Daniels of Indiana, by signing an illegal anti-Planned Parenthood law which pulls the plug on Medicaid in his state. Texas is working on a bill to convert Medicaid into a capped block grant, seeking exemptions from Medicaid rules and allowing the privatization of Medicare; Texas, which already has the highest rated of uninsured in the country, is on a path to lose a third of its federal dollars which would force deep Medicaid cuts.

Also Rick Scott in Florida privatized Medicaid coverage for two million residents. It’s based on a local experiment which failed: patients complained that they couldn’t get specialists and doctors complained that necessary care was denied. It is purported to cut costs and improve care, but it also increases reimbursement rates and limits lawsuits, which is rather counterintuitive.

Two more lines of attack which the GOP is using to take away the programs we were told would be there: the House GOP has introduced a bill to destroy Social Security by making it optional -- they're out on the stump claiming it's all a pyramid scheme -- and Republicans in state legislatures are attacking children's health programs, which will actually cost more in long run.



The Democrats attack


More and more, the Republicans are returning to the delusional theme that they just need to sell their plan better. The Democrats are biting their tongues and crossing their fingers, hoping the Republicans will blunder in this direction, and spend months telling voters that their really terrible, dangerous plan is really a good thing for Americans. They may actually make 2012 the Medicare Election, promising every day in hundreds of districts to take away Medicare.

The Democrats are not waiting, however. They are already exploiting this issue: they want 2012 to be the Medicare election, rather than the jobs election, and make Ryan the public face of the GOP. Obama versus Ryan. Chuck Schumer, a real wartime consigliere, said “we will not miss a single opportunity of reminding the public what it means for seniors”: those seniors went for the GOP by 21 points in 2010 because the GOP lied to them, so if that bloc swings back to the left, election day will be ugly for the Republicans. Democrats are already using Newt’s anti-Ryan language against the Republicans who supported Ryan, and they are using Romney’s public support for Ryan against Romney.

Schumer pounced again when a GOP Congressmen was recorded berating one of his own constituents: “Hear yourself, ma’am. Hear yourself. You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, ‘When do I decide I’m going to take care of me?’” then told another “If you want a socialized health care program, there are lots of places to find that.” In other words if you want coverage, leave the country. Schumer responded: “No matter how hard you’ve worked your whole life, no matter how severe your medical hardship, the Republican motto is clear: you’re on your own. This lays bare the ideology behind their goal of ending of Medicare as we know it.”

Another wartime consigliere, Anthony Weiner: "Well, ladies and gentlemen, that might be the rationale for our Republican friends wanting to eliminate Medicare, but none of those things are true. It is not a ‘construct to develop a plan’ it is the proposal of the Republican party of the United States of America to eliminate Medicare as a guaranteed entitlement. If you don’t believe me, go get the book that they wrote, go get the budget that they wrote, go get the bill that they wrote."

Occasionally a Democrat will walk in front of a camera and open the door to Medicare cuts, which is incredibly sloppy: they must publicly, repeatedly, daily, reject cuts to Medicare benefits.

If they stick to their guns, they have a winning issue. According to a June CNN poll, Americans hate the Ryan plan to kill Medicare, they say Obama is trying to work with the GOP but the GOP isn’t trying to work with him, and they no longer are in love with the idea of having the GOP control the House: they want Obama to have more influence over the direction of America. Even half of Republicans and conservatives hate the Ryan plan. Ninety percent of Americans say “no major changes to Medicare”.

The Democrats are particularly incensed about Ryan’s Medicare attack because the Republicans lied about all this stuff to win back the House in 2010. “The Democrats are going to destroy Medicare and throw grandma under the bus!” And as soon as the Republicans regained the House, what did they do? They launched an effort to destroy Medicare and throw grandma under the bus. So who is it who tried to pull the plug on grandma, again? The Republicans won the 2010 election by egregious fraud. "Democrats will take coverage from seniors, raise premiums, cost five million jobs, enlist the IRS to hunt people down, pave the way for rationed care and a government takeover and a European social welfare system!" The Republicans are weakly counterattacking by insisting that it’s still Obama who’s trying to kill Medicare, but they’ve been busted.

The Republicans also lied about other things, and then flipflopped: during the campaign they hollered that Democrats would put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, and then in 2011 they began doing exactly that themselves, whenever abortion is involved. In dozens of states, legislatures are forcing doctors to accede to bureaucrats on giving abortion patients wildly inaccurate warnings about abortion, and imposing a lot of other needless restrictions. Hat tip to Rachel Maddow.

If the Democrats wanted to play ball the way Republicans do, they could certainly use Republican logic to argue that the Ryan plan uses government action to force seniors to pay $6000-8000 more each year. In other words, it sounds an awful lot like a tax.

Meanwhile the House GOP leadership is using their control of the franking office to prevent Democratic members from using their campaign fliers to warn their constituents about the GOP attack on Medicare. So Democrats can't tell their story to constituents, but Republicans can. Thus, the death of democracy.


The debt ceiling


Perhaps the Republicans and their primary voters will make crashing the debt ceiling a litmus-test issue too, as they tried to do in the spring 2011 budget talks: “shut down the government!” Mitch McConnell said he will block a rise in the debt ceiling, and in so doing crash the economy, unless there are some Medicare cuts, thus ensuring that the Republicans will get credit for destroying either the U.S. economy or Medicare, or possibly both. Other Republicans are competing to show how rigid they can be: McConnell and Boehner are insisting that canceling the tax cut for the rich must be off the table, which is particularly counter-intuitive right now since the New York special election in a very red district was won by a Democrat who opposes tax breaks for the rich; Romney and Pawlenty insisted that cutting the size of the defense budget must also be off the table, which means that Pawlenty would rather cut Social Security than the defense budget.

As the debt-ceiling talks began, the Republican posturing and chest-beating grew worse. One Republican refused to meet Obama, claiming that he didn't want to be lectured by Obama, the man who caused the whole problem. They whined about Democratic demagoguery, which out in the real world is known as "facts". McConnell is not only demanding spending cuts, but specifying that Democrats must approve Medicare cuts, to neutralize the toxic issue of the Ryan budget; Kyl went further by specifying that merely cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare wasn't enough -- he wants the Democrats to sign up for benefit cuts. One Republican demanded that Obama write a plan which the CBO could score; the White House response was "nice try, let's reach a joint deal and then score that". Another Republican  bragged that Obama was in the most danger, and that in the end Obama would be forced to give in. After the House debt ceiling vote, the NRCC sent out talking points attacking the Democrats who voted for and the ones who voted against. Democrats, they’re going to attack no matter what!

Republicans may be thinking they have nothing to lose: if they're doomed to be crushed by Obama and the Medicare issue in 2012, why not crapshoot by wrecking the entire economy and hoping to deflect the blame? Of course they were confident in 1995 that they could at least split the blame with Clinton for the government shutdown that year, but Clinton mopped the floor with them, and Obama should be able to do it too.

Democrats like Steny Hoyer initially bobbled the ball by hinting that they could be persuaded to cut Medicare, but now Hoyer, presumably after a trip to the woodshed with Miss Pelosi, has pledged to strengthen and preserve Medicare. They are ruling out attacks on Medicare and Medicaid, and Obama demanded a cancellation of Bush's tax breaks for the rich. A couple of Democratic Senators stepped forward to get Pelosi's back on this, and they're pressing Biden to hold the line also, both on Medicare and on Medicaid. Now the Democrats are specifying no vouchers or benefit cuts. They got a boost from the Fed chair who undercut the GOP’s debt argument by indicating that we shouldn’t necessarily be cutting spending right now, in a recession: “a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating,” and will probably “undercut the still-fragile recovery.” The Dems should also be arguing that the debt isn't Obama's fault, and that we did in fact have surpluses before the Bush tax cuts.

The debt ceiling is going to make Boehner’s summer unpleasant. Boehner is under pressure from the young radicals who are growing in numbers and strength; they think Boehner is an cranky, abrasive, old-school dealmaker, and are wary of Boehner’s compromises. They began to rebel when Boehner backed down during the budget fight, and Cantor is already distancing himself from Boehner, claiming his heart wasn’t really in Boehner’s budget deal. So Boehner will not go too far to the left in the next budget fight – the young guns will depose him if he does. That split is also reflected outside Washington: corporate America and Wall Street are terrified of the prospect of a default, but the tea party folks love it.

Two things that make the GOP stance even more foolish. The GOP let Bush raise the debt ceiling seven times, without trying to take their president hostage. Also, the Ryan plan will require more rises in the debt ceiling. So they're hypocritcal and clueless.

Obamacare


The Republicans still want to kill Obama’s ACA health care package: they are very emphatic about it, and they are going out into their districts trying to peddle all sorts of tall tales about how top Democrats are gaming the system with waiver fraud, for example. They are recycling all the lies from a year ago: Obama's plan cut Medicare, death panels, rationing, threat to your liberties etc. But now the Republicans are getting pushback in the townhalls that they didn’t face in 2010. Republican members of Congress began to ban reporters and even camera-phones from town halls, so that when constituents bust them for lying about the ACA or threatening Medicare, they won’t become instant Youtube stars – they were pretty good at dishing out the lies at Democratic town halls two years ago, but not so good at taking it when the truth is rubbed in their faces.

Obama still must do a much better job selling the ACA successes: it saves Medicare $120 billion, extends the life of Medicare and expands coverage, rewards doctors and hospitals that do well, cracks down on waste, fraud and abuse, uses an independent commission to bring costs down, brings equipment costs down, cuts annual increases to medical institutions, provides free preventive care and physicals for Medicare patients, it paves the way for $24 billion in annual savings if HHS can negotiate drug prices, and helps with the dreaded doughnut hole. It cuts the giveaways, overpayments and corporate welfare which now goes to insurers. And amazingly, no death panels or dead grandmothers: they need to remind folks that all the scary Republican warnings about the plan turned out to be nonsense. Likewise, many of the ACA changes to Medicare are also in the Ryan plan.

The Republicans are trying to assume the mantle of grown-up tough-love budget masters, but they have a dreadfully tin ear with respect to telling the difference between frugal and just plain mean. Just as Missouri was reeling from the tornadoes that killed more than a hundred people, House Republicans were not only working to cut tornado warning services, but actually refusing to provide emergency help for the victims unless Obama cut something in the budget. Holding tornado victims hostage.

Obama can also remind people that the notion of end-of-life consultations that caused so much brouhaha (a clamor launched by Palin in a paroxysm of either ignorance or deliberate dishonesty) was sponsored by Susan Collins, endorsed by Gingrich, and signed into law by Bush, who also approved the biggest government takeover of health in history with Medicare Part D, unpaid for, like the Iraq war.

Any day that focuses on health care is a bad day for Gingrich, but worse for Romney. Because the GOP spent two solid years condemning any comprehensive health plan, promising to repeal it, nominating Romney means admitting tacitly that they were wrong. Romney’s state plan actually did well and is popular: it got more people covered, stayed under budget, and reduced so-called free care. But now he must run away from his greatest achievement, like Eisenhower not being allowed to run on winning World War Two. It is rather sad: many Republican candidates advocated sensible health-care innovations and then backed away like Romney did, but the others didn’t make the issue a central pillar of their careers, the way Romney did, so he’s stuck. Of course the Republicans do have one other thing to hate Romney’s plan for: unlike Obama’s plan, Romney’s covers abortions.

Yet another dangerously stupid move: there is an effort afoot to set up a board which would eliminate waste in the Medicare system. The GOP should like the idea, they’re all about cutting the costs, right? Nope, they’re blocking it, because it is linked to Obama’s health care plan. Attacking America’s Democrats is more important than attacking America’s problems.

Also, by the way, Republicans, studies show that tort reform does not cut health costs.