The Right Wing Media (Discussion)

On June 4, 2015 I posted my commentary entitled "The Right Wing Media."

Almost imediately I received three commnets on the post. My reponse to the one from Albert Nekinken ended up being rather long and so I will save that for my next post.

The other two, however, are set forth below:

From Mike Cerrato, Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, came this generous compliment:

As usual, very educational. I fear, however, that many of the people who SHOULD be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between. Thanks for the ammunition, though, I will certainly use it appropriately.

To which I was forced to reply:

As you will see from one of my future posts, I made a mistake, and while one should always " be comparing and contrasting the "reported facts" to the actual article will be few and far between” I ended up quoting the wrong article from  Cynthia Tucker. Mea culpa.

Robert Malchman of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

This is why I *don't* read "conservative" (i.e., reactionary) news sites or watch their television.  I know I should, if for no better reason than "know your enemy."  The combination of hypocrisy and imbecility enrages me, which adds nothing to my day.  I'd much rather watch MSNBC and John Stewart skewer these evil trolls, even if it doesn't have much affect.  Luckily the Foxpublican Party is going to die out, as ignorant white men become a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate.  The Koch Brothers can spend a billion dollars per election cycle and try to suppress minority voting, but their base (and I do mean BASE) electorate is slowly but surely going six feet under.

To which my response was:

Thanks for your comment.

I can understand your reluctance to read Right Wing commentary. It can be infuriating. But as you say one should read it, "if for no better reason than "know your enemy.”

 But actually, I think there is an even better reason. How can one be sure ones views are sound unless they are constantly tested against different views. If one choses to live in an echo chamber, and unfortunately, recent surveys have shown that this is exactly what most people are doing, how can one ever be sure that ones views are sound. I feel I have to expose myself to a variety of views to get stimulation for my own, though I have to admit that this is easier for one who is retired, then for one who has to earn ones daily bread.

My post “Facts, Facts, Facts! They are pesky things," is an example of the extent to which the Right Wing media will go, telling outright lies about the Clintons. Yet we have to recognize that the smears of the Clinton’s are definitely having an effect, as the polls on Hillary’s popularity have shown. In November of 2012 her favorability rating was 58.6% favorable v. 33.1% unfavorable. As of June 1 it was  favorable 46% v. 48.4% unfavorable, and in a discussion with a very liberal friend (supporter of Bernie Sanders) today, she expressed concern about Clinton's ethics on the basis of foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

 In the hubbub over foreign contributions to the foundation, what is overlooked is that it is a charitable foundation, from which the Clintons do not profit. One might even argue that turning down donations, which benefit people in need throughout the world, is something no one has the right to do, since the money refused is money that is not available for the recipients of the foundations work. But the media has always enjoyed lots of good copy by playing up accusations that eventually, more often than not, have turned out to have no basis in fact. Whitewater never proved to be Clinton corruption despite the best efforts of Keneth Starr, and in the end all they could get on Bill or Hillary was that he lied about an extra-marital affair, as just about anyone would lie about something like that, and as e.g. Martin Luther King (of sainted memory) did.

 But the so-called liberal media is a myth concocted by the media echo chamber, and the New York Times, despite its liberal editorial page, has spread more than its share of Right Wing lies. 

And then added:

After I sent the below set forth message I started thinking about the things that do bother me. For instance I think it was wrong to indict former speaker Hastert for paying blackmail. But I am much more bothered by the amount of money he reportedly made as a lobbyist after leaving Congress. Influence peddling is a big deal in Washington and the Clintons never indulged in this form of payola.

 On the other hand they have made huge amounts in speaking fees, which I find abhorrent. But this is so ingrained in our culture that it is difficult to fault them. See ABC News for an article about how much Sarah Palin has been making. But that article has an even more important item. I quote from the article. "President Reagan once got $2 million from a Japanese manufacturing company for two 20-minute speeches… And George W. Bush told reporters he expected to make a "ridiculous" amount of money on the speaker's circuit when he left office.”

 Our system also effectively makes it impossible for anyone to run for public office unless they have one or more rich angels, and that includes Sanders. 

 We cannot hold people to a standard that is completely out of line from that which is ingrained. More important is whether they want to change the system.

 In the end we will always have to choose between realistic, and I emphasize realistic, choices, unless we want to simply opt out of the process and leave it to the very worst elements.

 Sorry! I do get carried away.

Which only prompted a further repsonse from Malchman as follows:

Well, a couple of things. One, if Hillary is elected and one or more of the SCOTUS Republicans leave the bench, Citizens United will get overturned.  My fantasy is that the Court say corporations are not people for purposes of constitutional protection.  Corporations are creature of state (and sometimes federal) law, and could be banned outright (caveat: I haven't thought about the implication of the Contracts Clause here), and therefore could be regulated to restrict speech.  The Constitution protects people, not legal fictions or business constructs.  But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that ruling.

 As for Hastert, he was not indicted for paying blackmail, he was indicted for structuring cash bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and then lying to the FBI about it.  Those are real crimes.  At a moral level, I have no doubt he's serial a child molester, and anything bad that happens to him is karmicly (if that's a word) deserved.

Ending that exhange with my concluding reply quoted below:

I am afraid that this is indeed a fantasy. The more likely scenario, even if Clinton is elected, which is not a given, is that Ginsburg will retire and her replacement will face a filibuster leaving eight on the court and we get 5-3 Right Wing decisions. Eventually one of the Right wing judges retires and we get a deal of one on the right and one on the left, continuing the 5-4 split of today. Maybe in a Clinton second term we get control of the court, but that is a long way off.

 Sorry, I wish I could buy into your fantasy.

And then concluded with:

As for Hastert, I know they got him on a law that might stick, but that is just the handle. I don’t believe in prosecuting people on a legal fiction, on the theory that you, or they think, but can’t prove, that he's a serial child molester.

 The sale of influence is of much greater concern to me.

Next time I will share with my readers my exhange with Nekimken, where I confessed a serious error in having set forth in my original post the wrong article from Cynthia Tucker. But that will have to wait for my next post.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Congress and the Public - Kudos to Sarah Palin

In my last post entitled "Discussions With My Readership" I quoted Judge Edwin S. Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach Florida as pointing out that: “our basic problem is the influence that money has on elected officials.” A truer word could not be said, but it is not the fault of the Congress. It is the system that keeps every Congressman or Senator, beholden to those who finance their campaigns and in fear of those who will bankroll their opponents. We have seen this recently in the Republican primaries, where a number of “Independent Groups” who for whatever their reasons want the nomination to go to Mitt Romney unloaded on the surging Newt Gingrich and had his poll numbers down in a matter of days. $4,470,935 had been spent by these groups and other non-profits to oppose him (Gingrich) as of the end of last week. But just when all seemed lost for Gingrich, casino king and America’s eighth-richest person Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million to Winning Our Future, a political action committee that supports Gingrich’s campaign, according to The Washington Post. And the money comes just in time for the former Speaker of the House, who just placed fourth in the Iowa caucus. Gingrich’s Super PAC will reportedly use the money to run advertisements that directly attack Romney for destroying jobs and profiting from failed companies while at the head of private equity giant Bain Capital. See here.

This is in the Presidential race, but Congress is just as much if not more beholden to the deep pockets. Recent estimates reveal that many members spend anywhere from 25 percent up to 50 percent (and sometimes more) of their time fundraising. 

Whether that is the reason, or at least one of the reasons, that Congress is held in such low esteem is hard to tell from the polls. What we do know is that the public holds Congress in what can only be described as contempt. According to Gallup’s latest poll, 11% approve of the job Congress is doing and 86% disapprove. 

The reasons for this are many. But the gridlock, the gamesmanship, and the brinksmanship are certainly a major reason. Many, too many in my opinion, react with throw all the bums out, which strikes me as simplistic and downright foolhardy. The only way to reform a corrupt system is to spend the time to know what each and every member of Congress stands for and to be selective.

What we do know is that Republicans are not entirely unhappy with this result. They are anti-government, (being anti government used to be the purview of anarchists who were feared and hated, so much so that the Zacco and Venzetti case is a landmark of the hysteria surrounding that movement) and so a bad opinion of government serves their end. If gridlock, by filibustering, brings about a bad opinion of government, that serves their end. If governing badly creates hostility to government that serves their end, but of course, not if it costs them votes.

So let us examine more of the reasons for the contempt Congress is held in. Part of it is the result of a concerted campaign of lies intended to besmirch Congress. Thus I recently received an e-mail, (one of many in the same vain that I have received over the years.) I went through it – and found that almost every word was a lie and yet a good friend had forwarded it to me with approval. The public’s naiveté never ends.

I urge my readers to first read the e-mail in full without any comment from me. You can find it here. 

Now let me address the lies. The portions from the e-mail to which I have reference appear in italics. My comments thereon appear in bold letters.

How Can We Make This Happen?

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Most of the above was not said by Warren Buffett. He did say: “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election" but it was said in jest. See here. What Buffet did say in all seriousness and it is very sound is, "the debt ceiling should be done away with, arguing it is nothing more than an “artificial limit” that ends up wasting time in Congress. See here.

As for eliminating the deficit, that is not so easily done. It was done under the Clinton Administration, but eight years of the Bush Administration’s tax cutting and unnecessary spending, ending in the greatest recession since the Depression of the ‘30s makes it a very difficult task. Ending the Bush Tax cuts would make a large dent, but would not do the job alone. Cutting alone would require doing away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the SEC, the Fed, the FDA and all the programs of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. As I have said before and will again, adjustments to Social Security and Medicare are absolutely necessary, but the draconian approach of doing away with these programs, as is proposed in the Ryan budget is neither necessary nor desirable. And As I have also said before the Ryan budget actually increases the deficit by $6 trillion. See here.

Now allow me to take the rest of lies one by one.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011    
    

 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives pay when they're out of office.

                                               

This is the law now.

2.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

                         

This is the law now.                                               

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

                                               

The congressional Retirement system is no different than that given by most corporations to their employees and is the same as that given to all federal employees. Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS. 

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. See here.

The Social Security Trust Fund is intact. It is invested in U.S. Treasury Securities, from where it collects interest and the Securities are the safest in the world.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

That too is the current system.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

This too is the current law or something close to it. Congressional cost-of-living adjustments are calculated using a formula based on changes in private-sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. However, Congress can refuse such raises. A bill nixing Congress' automatic 2011 pay raise was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The move marks the second consecutive year lawmakers have opted not to receive their automatic cost-of-living increase. The law governing congressional pay raises requires members to vote against getting a raise. Otherwise, the increase takes effect automatically. But keeping pay for members low is not desirable. Rich members don't need their salary at all, while it discourages people who are not rich from serving in the Congress.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers. Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees, and their families. 

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

That is the law at present. Members of Congress are not exempt from any laws that apply to others. 

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

There are no contracts with members, or past members of Congress. If there were any, their voidance by legislative fiat, like all contracts by anyone, would violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

Now there other valid reasons to be critical of Congress and I urge readers to demand of their representatives in both the House and the Senate to take action as recommended by Sarah Palin. Yes, I said Sarah Palin. Kudos to Sarah Palin for her totally valid demand for reform of the Congress, which was exposed by the TV program 60 Minutes. You can watch the relevant portion of that program here. 

And then read the article by Sarah Palin here.

Write to your members of Congress and ask them to act on Palin’s recommendation, which I think to our media’s discredit has not gotten the publicity, which it deserves. The media is only interested in politics as a sporting event.

The Politics of the Big Lie

Leaders of the Republican Party are bragging that more Americans are against the Health Reform legislation than are for it and while this is true they cannot resist exaggerating even when polls are in their favor.

Thus Senator Jim DeMint appearing on Face the Nation on March 28 says “Over sixty percent of Americans still want Republicans to fight to repeal this.” Bob Schiefer to his credit immediately corrects this saying, “a new poll…does not suggest that a majority of Americans are against this…It says forty-six percent support this, fifty percent oppose it.”

But before the program is over so many out-and-out lies are told that with all good intentions Schiefer cannot keep correcting the falsehoods.

It isn’t 50% who are against this bill. It is 50% who are against a bill (now a law) characterized by endless and baseless lies. If I believed the lies, as many Americans apparently do, I would be against the law as well. But most people assume that their leaders would not tell out and out lies. They assume that there must be at least some truth to what they say. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What is being circulated are baseless lies, without a shred of truth to most of them. I have spend a great deal of time and effort documenting many of these lies and rather than try to repeat myself refer the reader to earlier writings on this subject - Health Insurance Reform, Health Insurance Reform - Lies and Damned Lies, Health Reform - Reality, Health Care Reform – Facts and Fiction, Republican Talking Points on Health Care, Continuing the Health Care debate and Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!.

But I return to this subject because I keep running into ever greater whoppers. I thought I had heard the worst of them when Sarah Palin claimed “Death Panels” without any basis whatsoever, and hoped that there were some Republicans who were responsible enough to repudiate it. But to my great disappointment not one Republican denounced it or distanced him/herself from it, and most even tried to justify it. What kind of a Party is it that would be so irresponsible?

Last Sunday I listened to the Sunday interviews and if anything the lies have gotten bigger, the claims more hysterical. The claim by Sen. DeMint mentioned above was minor compared to what followed in the form of wild claims of Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I reproduce part of the transcript from that interview with my comments in bold letters:

“Congresswoman--and we used a little clip of what you said in the beginning of this--you said last week that health care reform was dangerous, and-- and you equated it with tyranny. Do you really mean that?"

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-Minnesota): "I do, because now we have the federal government, Bob, taking over ownership or control of fifty-one percent of the American economy. This is stunning. Prior to September of 2008, one hundred percent of the private economy was private."

            I will return to the claim that the government has taken over 51% of the economy. At this point let me address the claim that prior to “September 2008 one hundred percent of the private economy was private.” Has she forgotten that the government ran & runs the military, the US Postal Service, Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc. But then I realize that she is right. She is playing three cards Monte. It was 100% of the “private economy was private.” But 100% of the “private” economy will always be private by definition.

So we have to look at the reference to 51% of the American economy which the government has taken control of since 9/08. But allow me to expand on this.

           "Today, the federal government has taken either direct ownership or control of banks, the largest insurance company in the United States, AIG, Freddie and Fannie."

            The only part of this that is true is that the government has taken control of Freddie and Fannie, which are relatively small companies. They loaned money to the other entities mentioned to keep them from going under and took Preferred, non-voting stock as surety, but have neither ownership nor control. This is a barefaced lie!

           "The federal government now owns, Bob, over fifty percent of all home mortgages..."

Since Freddie and Fannie own many mortgages, the government owns those mortgages, but it is nowhere near 50%. This is a barefaced lie!

"Now, the direct student loan industry..."

            The government didn’t take it over. It was always the government that was making the loans since the banks wouldn’t. Under the old system the banks acted as a middleman and took a large cut. The middleman has been eliminated with a substantial saving to the US taxpayer. This is a barefaced lie!

           "...Chrysler, GM. And with the health care industry that’s an additional eighteen percent of the private economy…"

            The government didn’t take any of these over. Chrysler and GM were both given loans and are not owned by the government and the health insurance reform did not take over the health care industry. The health insurance companies remain private but are now subject to certain regulations just as we regulate and have always regulated numerous industries. The rest of the health care industry i.e. doctors and hospitals are not even regulated. This is a barefaced lie!

"Remember, when President Obama told Congress you have to pass my trillion-dollar bailout or we could get unemployment as high as eight percent..."

            Again not true! What most economists and the Obama Administration said was that we faced a potential repeat of 1929 when unemployment went above 37% and that with the measures taken they hoped to keep unemployment under 8%. They were a little too optimistic, because they only succeeded in keeping it from going substantially above 10%, though it has now dropped below 10%.

"President Obama’s own numbers, his own economic advisor, Christina Romer, said that Obamacare..."

(it isn’t Obamacare - Congress drafted the legislation much to the chagrin of many Democrats who felt the President should have drafted it for them.) 

 "...could cost the economy five and a half million jobs lost. "

Christina Romer did not say anything of the sort & health care reform could create millions of jobs over the next ten years, another barefaced lie without the slightest basis for it!

BOB SCHIEFFER: "… Sarah Palin famously said last week that it is not time for Republicans to retreat. It is time to reload. Now, she has since modified that and said she wasn’t talking about guns. She was talking about getting out there and using the vote. Do you think Sarah Palin has overstated it here?"

            The fact is that Palin not only talked about reloading she published a map with gun sights “one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.” 

While I am sure Bachman wouldn’t agree, I urge the Attorney General to impanel a grand jury and seek an indictment against Palin for incitement to commit murder.            

   Bachman continued:

“And again, the New England Journal of Medicine released a survey the week that President Obama signed Obamacare stating that the-- ov--over thirty percent of American physicians--would leave the profession if the government took over health care. That’s very serious going forward."

            It would indeed be serious, if true, but it is a lie! And this one is worse than all the others if that were possible, for this one is the result of a plan to give the appearance of truth to this lie. The story originated with CNS News, which Source Watch describes as “a subsidiary of the conservative news monitoring group the Media Research Center (MRC). Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. CNS posted an article on their website under the headline: “Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, According to Survey Reported in New England Journal of Medicine” and then gave details of a purported article in the New England Journal of Medicine. This was given further credence by Fox & Friends where co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine." But the New England Journal in a statement said that it neither conducted nor published the "survey." On their website they posted the following:

“Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment."

“On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here."

“The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.”

(Emphasis added)

Any legislation has a downside to it. Any legislation can be opposed or criticized on legitimate and valid grounds. Why don’t Republicans make such arguments? One can only surmise that they are not interested in legitimate debate. They want to incite, and reasoned debate does not provoke the kind of emotional demonstrations, which they rely on to advance their agenda.

We all have an obligation to set the record straight. These lies are not to be tolerated. They are to be denounced. Where are the great newscasters of yore, like Ed Morrow, to take on the liars and the provocateurs?

But what is even worse is that the media encourages such outrageous and inflammatory behavior, for why is Bachman getting all this publicity? Why is she on "Face the Nation"? She has no leadership position in the Congress. She is just one of 435 members of Congress, representing one small district in Minnesota. She get all this exposure because she makes outrageous statements. The media rewards this. Thus the media becomes an accomplice and a promoter of the lies and the outrageous. It is the way to get the media to make them into celebrities.

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"

Bush's Third Term

The Obama campaign keeps warning that John McCain is running for a third Bush term. I have concluded that as bad as that would be, a third Bush term would not be as bad as a McCain/Palin administration. Some of you might wonder how I could make such assertion, but when we look at the record we see that Bush in the waning days of his Presidency, and in an effort to save something of his legacy, has begun to moderate his confrontational foreign policy. After years of denouncing Clinton’s diplomatic approach to North Korea, which yielded increasing concessions by that dangerous regime, and after spending seven years of his Presidency with nothing but belligerency toward that nuclear power, even calling them one of the “axis of evil”, Bush has been resorting to diplomacy. His previous policy resulted in North Korea exploding a nuclear device in 2006. The new diplomatic stance has resulted in North Korea agreeing to resume disabling a plutonium plant and allowing some inspections to verify that it had halted its nuclear program as promised months earlier. John McCain who had earlier criticized the diplomatic effort, quickly expressed concern. (NY Times October 12, 2008)

Barack Obama has called for negotiations without preconditions with Iran as having more promise of getting results than simply making threats. The preconditions which Bush had demanded were that Iran stop reprocessing plutonium before we would talk to them, which of course would mean that Iran would have conceded the very thing which negotiations are supposed to accomplish. The Bush Administration has heeded Obama’s call for unconditional talks and sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the Iranians. (cnnpolitics.com July 16, 2008)

McCain has denounced such an approach and continues to insist on no talks until our conditions are met first. He thinks bombing Iran is a joke and sang, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of Barbara Ann. His running mate Sarah Palin and the person who would become Commander in Chief with her finger on the atomic button if anything should happen to McCain, said in her first interview since becoming the Republican nominee for vice president that the U.S. might have to go to war with Russia under certain circumstances. (The Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2008)

If the election were to be between a third Bush term and McCain I would vote for Bush. Thank God that is not the choice I, or anyone else, has to make. Yes, the economy and McCain total lack of comprehension as to what got us into this mess or how to get us out of it is what is on most people’s mind and national security is supposed to be McCain’s strong suit. But if anything, I find him and the woman he has chosen to be his running mate even scarier on defense policy than on the economy. But what have they offered us on the economy. They decided to change the subject. With the Standard and Poor having dropped 37.7% as of October 11 from the beginning of this year (even more since its last high) and having dropped 18.2% just the week of October 6th McCain took to a campaign of slander, with Palin accusing Obama of “hanging around with terrorists.” (October 4, 2008 Associated Press) Of course aside from the fact that Obama’s connection to William Ayers, a 1960s radical, is tenuous at best, they are trying to give the impression that Obama has a connection to what they call “Islamist terrorists” or specifically Al QAEDA, which of course fits into the underground slander, which claims Obama is a Muslim, when they know he is a Christian, and the use of Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

That didn’t seem to work and, lo and behold McCain switched tactics again. The Washington Post of October 11, 2008 reported:

“At the end of perhaps the most charged and negative week of the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain sought to tone down his rhetoric toward Sen. Barack Obama even as his running mate, allies and his own advertising continued to attack the character of the Democratic nominee.

“On Friday, McCain urged a crowd of skeptical supporters at a town hall forum in this Minneapolis suburb to be respectful of his rival for the presidency despite their deep policy differences with Obama.

“The Republican nominee drew a cascade of boos from the crowd when he called Obama ‘a decent person’ and told an expectant father that he does not have to be scared if he is president of the United States.

"We want to fight and I want to fight, but we will be respectful," McCain said, again prompting loud boos when he declared that he admires Obama's accomplishments. "I want everyone to be respectful, and let's be sure we are. . . . That doesn't mean you have to reduce your ferocity. It's just got to be respectful."

“At one point in the event, McCain grabbed back the microphone from an elderly woman who had begun to say that she didn't like Obama because he is an Arab. “ No, ma'am. No, ma'am," McCain said. ‘He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

“His comments came a day after an angry crowd at a Wisconsin rally shouted epithets about the Democratic nominee, pumped their fists angrily in the air and catcalled repeatedly when Obama's name was mentioned. Several called him a "socialist," and many flipped their middle finger as a press bus drove by.

“McCain appeared determined to respond Friday, saying that he respects Obama and only quieting the boos by saying "if I didn't think I would be one heck of a better president, I wouldn't be running."

“But throughout the day, McCain's allies and advertising unleashed a flurry of attacks on his rival's ethics, touting Obama's ties to a Vietnam War-era radical and accusing him of being connected to a group accused of engaging in voter fraud.

“He launched a tough new television ad linking Obama to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed U.S. facilities in protest of the Vietnam War. The narrator in the ad says Obama "lied" about his relationship with Ayers and accuses the Democrat of "blind ambition, bad judgment." (For those who might want to hear McCain’s actual words defending Obama click here)

My first reaction upon seeing this video clip was to react positively and to say to myself, “Finally the old McCain is back, he may have the wrong policy prescriptions, but he is showing integrity” but then I realized that this is just another zig-zag in a McCain who will do anything to keep his chances of the Presidency alive. The smear was backfiring. The crowd, which he was addressing, was small and the media audience would be large. Maybe, just maybe, this might get him some independent voters. It is just another campaign tactic in the erratic and indecisive McCain campaign.

Jewish voters in Florida having been flooded with smears leaving many of them believing that Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he is an Arab, which he is not, that he is anti-Israel, which he is not. If McCain is sincere about his newfound integrity let him go to Florida and address elderly Jewish voters down there and tell them the truth. It may not get him elected, but at least he will have regained some measure of his integrity.

These Jewish voters as well as other voters may be interested in an article that appeared in the NJ Jewish Standard of October 10, 2008, which has the headline, “FOR SECOND TIME IN A MONTH, GOP THWARTS IRAN SANCTIONS” and goes on to say, “WASHINGTON – Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

“Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

“We’ve tried to get this done in this body; there’s been objection by the Republicans. That’s unfortunate,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate majority leader. He made his comments after Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) exercised his prerogative to obstruct the legislation.

“Senate Republicans continue to block anti-Iran sanctions introduced by Democrats, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Chris Dodd."

So much for Obama being soft on Iran or anti Israel.

More about McCain

As the campaign for President unfolds I find myself saddened by the devolution of McCain from the “maverick” and “straight talk express” candidate, to one who doesn’t hesitate to lie and who instead of tacking to the middle in the general election campaign, appears to be tacking further to the Right.

In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.

But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.

The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)

She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)

She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)

She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)

She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.

The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.

But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.

Here are some examples:

Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)

At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)

Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’

Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?

Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.

“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”

In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.

McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.

“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.

There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.