Disjointed Thoughts on the Tuscon Shooting

1. Yes, the right wing's rhetoric has been violent and nasty in recent years. However, I think it's unfair to tie the Tuscon shooting to that rhetoric, especially when the shooter was mentally disturbed and rather apolitical.

2. I thought President Obama's speech in Tuscon was excellent. Maybe one of the best speeches I've seen him give--up there with the speech on race in Philadelphia in 2008.

3. I love how many heroes there are in this story--the intern who rushed to Congresswoman Giffords' side, the people who shielded others from the spray of bullets, the woman who prevented the shooter from reloading, the two men who wrestled the him to the ground.

4. Although this shooting cannot and should not be blamed on conservatives' rhetoric, it does make it harder to ignore the Right's mix of paranoid anti-government hysteria and gun fetish. Not a good combination. Am I the only one who thinks it strange that in order to win a Republican primary, candidates often have to one up each other over how many guns they own? "How many guns do you own?" was a question in the recent debate between RNC chairman candidates. The more guns listed, the more excited was the crowd.

5. Jared Loughner used a Glock 19 with a 30-round magazine to kill 6 people and wound 13. Can anyone tell me the appropriate use for this weapon? A Glock is light, easy to carry, easy to conceal, carries a bunch of rounds, and is easy to fire rapidly. In other words, it's perfect for pulling out in a crowd and wreaking havoc. That made it the weapon of choice for the Virginia Tech shooter. I mean, who really needs a 30-round clip for home defense? What I'm getting at is this: There's no good reason that weapons like this are for sale for just about anyone to buy. America has weird-ass issues with gun worship, and we pay a heavy price for it.

6. You need to watch Jon Stewart's take on Fox's coverage of the memorial service in Tuscon.

7. That's all for now. This is too big and too sad a topic for me to discuss in any concise and coherent narrative.

Social Justice: Coming To A Military Near You

Let's review where things currently stand on repealing the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

• Nearly 8 in 10 Americans favor repealing DADT.
• Service members, by a large majority, say repealing DADT would cause no problems.
• Military leadership says, essentially, "Please repeal DADT. It's the right thing to do, and it won't hurt the military."
• It's obviously the right thing to do, morally speaking. Duh.
• President Obama wants to repeal DADT.
• The House of Representatives just approved a repeal of DADT by a vote of 250-175.

So what could stop such an enormous mandate for change?

Just one member of a legislative body that was created to be an American House of Lords, where today you need an overwhelming 60 out of 100 votes to do anything important. Just one Senator of a party that continually vilifies minority groups of all stripes and colors. Just one erratic hothead Senator who thinks he looks tough and masculine by being anti-gay.

That is unless Democrats in the Senate can roust up 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. And from the sound of it, they think they can. Senators Snowe, Collins, and Brown are the Republicans who now seem likely to vote for repeal. Sen. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) is the only Democrat likely to vote against. 59 Democrats plus + 3 Republican crossovers - 1 Democratic crossover = 61 votes (if everything holds). Lisa Murkowski and Richard Lugar (and probably others) sound like they'll support repeal once it's clear 60 votes have been reached. Very brave. You see, they want to be on the right side of history without actually having to do the right thing.

So as with so many other issues, a nearly unanimous Democratic Party supports a modest step toward justice, and a nearly unanimous Republican Party stands opposed, clinging to a morally indefensible argument.

I didn't used to get so angry about the ultra-predictable anti-human divide-and-rule money-grubbing positions of the GOP. But seeing the country have to drag its feet on civil rights all because of the antique sexual hang-ups and insecurities of the old men in the Party of Wealth in the House of Lords? It's almost more than I can stand. But I take some comfort in knowing that the country is changing rapidly beneath their very feet.

What Are You Up To On Friday Night?

Me? I've got Senator Bernie Sanders' filibuster of the Obama-GOP tax cut plan cranked up while I eat a peanut butter and blueberry preserve sandwich. This is an old fashioned filibuster, meaning he's actually they're talking for hours and hours. He started at 10:25am, has not taken a break, and has only had water since then. This is a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment. This is what it looks like when a filibuster is used for good. Give Bernie a listen. He speaks goodness.

Obama's Preemptive Surrender on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

I don't think I've ever been too angry to blog. When President Obama took office and filled his White House economic team with the same guys who brought us financial deregulation and the Great Recession, I typed away. When Obama's Justice Department refused to even investigate Bush and Cheney for their self-confessed war crimes of torturing prisoners, I blogged on. When Obama refused to campaign for a public option in the health care legislation, when he doubled down on the war in Afghanistan, when he didn't lift a finger for the Employee Free Choice Act, when he continued the NAFTA-style trade policies he campaigned against, it was all blog, blog, yap, yap on my end.

But watching Obama's preemptive surrender to Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy made me afraid I'd break the keyboard. What makes this sellout different than the rest is that it's not just bad policy, it's bad politics.

So, Republicans said they would block everything that came up in the Senate unless the rich got their tax cuts extended. Oooh, I'm really scared. How easy it would have been to expose them for what they're doing--essentially holding the American people hostage until we pay ransom money to the rich. Congressional Democrats started on that line of attack. They put forward bills that would extend tax cuts for the middle class but let those for the rich expire. Meanwhile, in typical fashion, Obama did not lift a finger to influence the fight going on in Congress. Before that fight even got started, we were hearing in the news media almost daily that a deal was going to be struck to extend the tax cuts.

What should have happened: With the Republicans demanding money for their wealthy clients while holding a gun to the head of the middle class and Democrats standing strong in Congress, the news media should have been full for days and days of discussion on the differences between the Democratic and Republican positions. There is probably no better issue out there to expose the GOP for what they are--shills for big money. Republicans had staked everything on an indefensible position ("We will kill all of you unless you throw more cash to the rich!"). With pressure, which requires the White House weighing in and prolonged national media attention, eventually enough Senate Republicans would have peeled away for Democrats to pass the middle class tax cuts only, and we would have won. Heck it wasn't long ago that even John Boehner was saying that he would vote for the middle class tax cuts if the Democrats did not also offer them for the wealthy. In the worst case scenario, the deadlock would have remained into January and all of the tax cuts would have expired. And voila! Democrats would have an unbeatable political issue going into 2012: "Republicans voted to raise everybody's taxes. Their only care in the world was serving the rich."

What actually happened: Instead, Obama broadcasted such weakness and willingness to "negotiate" so far in advance on this issue that Republicans were emboldened. So much so that Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell was comfortable scribbling his ransom note. So Obama and the Republicans agreed to a deal--a two-year extension of all of the Bush tax cuts (and additional cuts to the estate tax beyond even those of the Bush years...huh?!) in exchange for extending long-term unemployment benefits for one year and a one-year payroll tax reduction that would cut the amount contributed to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Doesn't sound like much of a deal to me.

A glimmer of hope: Somebody forgot to tell Congressional Democrats that it was time to cave. There are now petitions going around progressive websites trying to rally Democratic opposition to the Obama-GOP deal. So far, it's working. There are reports of "triple-digit" Democratic opposition in the House and several Senate Dems have spoken out strongly against the deal. Bernie Sanders even promises to filibuster the deal as it stands.

What happens next depends on how much Democratic opposition there is to Obama's deal with the hostage-takers. If the deal ends up passing with a unified block of Republicans and a few crossover Dems to get the majority, there will be new calls to challenge the president in the Democratic primary. And rightly so.

Here Come the 'Boss Hogg' Republicans

I think we can reasonably expect that Boss Hogg himself will receive a committee chairmanship in the new Republican-led House of Representatives.

Think about it. Jefferson Davis (J.D.) "Boss" Hogg merged political, corporate, and judicial power in a way that even today's Republicans would have to admire. He was the perpetual commissioner of Hazzard County and the owner of virtually all property and business in the county. But because no amount of money and power was enough, he continually engaged in criminal schemes to rob and defraud the public.

The GOP's "Boss Hogg" Committee Chairs

Now consider a few likely Republican committee chairs in the new House of Representatives, whose political operations and policy positions are indistinguishable from the PR operations of the industries they will oversee.

Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), "the quintessential oil congressman," will probably chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton infamously apologized to the CEO of BP during the Gulf oil spill crisis, calling the compensation account BP was setting up for the economic victims of the spill the result of "a shakedown" by the government. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Barton has been the top House recipient of campaign cash from the oil industry, including $22,800 from poor old BP.

--Please let me know if Barton does a single thing while chairman that does not absolutely delight oil companies.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (California), will probably chair the House Armed Services Committee. It's no coincidence that the cash flowing his way from military contractors skyrocketed to $400,000 over the last election cycle (compared to $86,000 for the previous cycle). It's not that his re-election campaign was a nail biter. It's just that Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and others want more funding for weapons programs America doesn't need. They've made a big bet that "Buck" is their man. Although, "bet" would imply that the outcome is in some doubt, so "solid investment" or "bribe" would probably be more accurate.

--Please let me know if McKeon does a single thing while chairman that does not give weapons manufacturers a warm fuzzy.

Rep. Richard "Doc" Hastings (Washington), will probably chair the House Natural Resources Committee. Hastings' committee will oversee mining safety, national forests, endangered species, and fisheries, among other things. It should be no surprise that his top PAC contributor was a timber company. While BP's oil well was pumping into the Gulf, Hastings was busy opposing stricter safety standards for off-shore drilling operations. And--what do you know?--he collected $70,000 from the oil and gas industry for the recent election cycle (compared to $10,000 for the last cycle).

--Please let me know if Hastings does a single thing while chairman that does not make extraction industry CEOs want to dance a little jig.

Boss Hogg For President 2012!

As I was writing this, I came across Jonathan Chait's posts at The New Republic about Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's potential run for president in 2012. Chait, in what he concedes is "a fairly juvenile shtick," has been referring to Barbour as "Boss Hogg" in his articles for some time now.

Haley Barbour really is like a fictional character come to life. He's the governor of what was once the most anti-civil rights state in the country (which we won't hold against him personally, but he has been involved in conservative politics since the '60s, and I'm just sayin'). He's the chairman of the Republican Governor's Association, where he oversees a large campaign war chest and can make contacts in crucial Republican primary states. He's the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former tobacco industry lobbyist, which I'm sure has nothing to do with why he vetoed a broadly supported cigarette tax in Mississippi, where the cigarette taxes are the third lowest in the country and grocery taxes are the highest.

But it's the personal touches that put Haley Barbour over the top. According to a Newsweek profile:

"The Republican governor of Mississippi keeps a large portrait of the University Greys, the Confederate rifle company that suffered 100 percent casualties at Gettysburg, on a wall not far from a Stars and Bars Confederate flag signed by Jefferson Davis. Then there's the man himself. Rather than walking across the street from his office to the state capitol, he rides a hundred or so yards in the back seat of a large SUV, air conditioning on full blast."

Wow. We'll see how far glorifying the slavocracy gets his presidential campaign.

You couldn't make this stuff up. The "Boss Hogg" Republicans everyone: corporate power and government power become one unified force, and we're supposed to feel nostalgic for the Confederacy.

Why Democrats Lost, And What It Means

After this election, the predictable knee-jerk reaction from the media is going to be that President Obama and the Democrats "overreached" and they now need to scale back their agenda and "compromise" with Republicans. In fact, we're already hearing that. Obama himself used the word "overreach" in his post-election press conference, bowing to the conventional wisdom of the Beltway pundit class.

This is like a bad movie you've seen 10 times, and it's completely wrong. "Move to the center," what Democrats are being told by the GOP and the media, is a recipe for more of what lost in 2010. So let's talk about what really led to the loss before we decide how Democrats should react.

A Whirlwind Recap of 2009

Obama came into office with sky high approval in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He immediately started working on a stimulus package that prevented the recession from being an actual repeat of the Great Depression and began the long, slow recovery. Republican obstructionism as well as the general do-nothing attitude in Washington when it comes to the plight of the middle class prevented more dramatic measures that could have spurred a much faster recovery from even being considered, such as direct job creation for the unemployed.

Fast forward to August 2009. The economy remains anemic. Democratic health care legislation that would guarantee health coverage for virtually every American while also reducing the deficit is bogged down while Democrats seek Republican support in Congress (which they didn't need). The health insurance industry and the Republican media machine stokes a number of "grassroots" anti-health care rallies. This culminates in a rash of disruptions at town hall meetings during the Congressional recess, where angry audience members shout down bewildered Democratic legislators. Also in August, conservative groups begin bringing assault rifles and other guns to anti-Obama protests, including to one rally outside a convention center where the president is speaking.

Ceding Anger To The GOP

All of this had the effect of redirecting populist economic anger away from the real source of middle class hardship--unregulated corporations and, by extension, Republicans--and toward the very institutions that could improve the picture for the middle class--a bold progressive agenda to rein in corporations for the public good. Republicans casts themselves as the party of the people's resistance against "the powers that be," which necessarily involved redefining those powers not as Wall Street banks and industry lobbyists but as the "socialist forces" taking over government.

This is just the latest iteration of what has been the conservative strategy since time immemorial. Each generation of super rich have to answer the questions at the heart of that strategy: How do you steal people's life chances and get them to thank you for it? How do you get the people to hand ever more power and privilege to the already powerful and privileged?

When this strategy is successful, as it was in these elections, it produces results that make you scratch your head. Consider this exit polling paradox. The economy was the top issue for voters. And when asked, "Who's to blame for the economy?" a plurality said bankers (34%), followed by Bush (29%), and Obama (24%). Of those who blamed bankers, Republicans held an 11 point advantage.

That may be the single best illustration of what went wrong for Democrats. It's not that people blamed Obama for much of anything; they just didn't think of Obama and Democrats as fighting anybody else who was to blame. Democrats were clobbered by default.

What The Electorate Looked Like

Even if you ignore the 'ceding anger' argument entirely, this second reason alone would be enough to explain the Republican tidal wave of 2010. I'm talking about who came out to vote and what the electorate looked like compared to 2008. Some of the most telling numbers:

"Voters under 30 dropped from 18 percent [in 2008] to 11 percent [in 2010]; African-Americans from 13 percent to 10 percent, and Hispanics from 9 percent to 8 percent. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16 percent of the electorate to 23 percent."

In short, the electorate was older, whiter, and more conservative this year. The electorate was less representative of what America actually looks like than it was in 2008. This is very normal for a midterm election. It's true that reporting, "This was all really normal!" doesn't sell newspapers or advertising time. But normal it was. Anyone telling you that this election represents a major shift in American political thinking is either ignorant or dishonest, or both.

Enter Republican Party, Stage Right.

A Repudiation? Not The Kind Boehner Thinks.

In his victory speech, Rep. John Boehner, the next Speaker of the House, called the elections results "a repudiation" and a message to President Obama to "change course." I think Boehner may be right, just not in the way he intends. If anything, this election should be seen as a repudiation of a Democratic strategy that seeks to move slowly and conciliate corporate power and the right wing. If anything, it's a repudiation of the Obama administration's instincts favoring political negotiation over political conflict. Those instincts lead to a bogged down legislative process and then legislation that is so compromised it's difficult to hold up (or explain) as a victory for ordinary Americans.

It's time for President Obama to pick a fight with the right. It's time to take off the gloves. Obama must reclaim his position as the representative of an American public fed up with a corporate elite that is selling the middle class down the river. He should hammer home that message every chance he gets. Then watch as progressive rallies and protests begin to overshadow the Tea Party gun rallies. And when the 2012 electorate comes out to vote, in record-breaking numbers and with diversity that mirrors America itself, it's going to be a Republican nightmare that dwarfs 2008.

Check back later for, What Happens Next: Looking Ahead To 2012.

Midterm Results, Part 2: Silver Lining Edition

Let's start with a couple of good news items today:

First, the Denver Post has called the Colorado Senate race for Democrat Michael Bennet. When I went to bed last night, this one was still in doubt. But as more votes came in from Denver and Boulder, Bennet moved up. A recount would be required if he ends up ahead by less than .5%, but his current lead is .9%. And most of the votes still to be counted are in the Democratic stronghold of Boulder County, where Bennet is winning 67% of the vote. So the Denver Post thinks this was is in the bag, but other media outlets are waiting to call it. This one feels especially good because I happened to see Glenn Beck ranting about this race last night, predicting the Democrats' demise and saying Colorado was turning back to its red roots after voting for Obama in 2008. Also, establishing Democratic strongholds in the mountain west states extends the playing field for future Democratic presidential candidates beyond just the coasts and the upper Midwest--the combination that dealt Kerry a losing hand in 2004.

In the Washington Senate race, Democrat Patty Murray holds a 1 point lead (14,000 votes) with 62% of votes reported. There are a lot of votes all across the state still to be counted. But Seattle's King County, where Murray has run up an 88,000 vote margin so far, has only reported 55% of its votes. I think it's safe to feel pretty confident about this one, but no one is going to call the race at this point.

Likely New Senate Breakdown: 53 Democrats, 47 Republicans. These numbers are almost certainly good enough to prevent ConservaDems like Lieberman and Nelson from switching parties and tipping Senate control to the Republicans or at least threatening to do so in order to water down progressive legislation.

Some Election "Firsts" From 2010

• First black Republican congressman from the Deep South since Reconstruction: Tim Scott.
• First black woman to win a House seat from Alabama: Democrat Terri Sewell.
• The nation's first female Hispanic governor: Republican Susana Martinez in New Mexico.
• Oklahoma's first female governor: Republican Mary Fallin.
• First openly gay mayor in Lexington, Kentucky: Jim Gray.

It's interesting to me that three of these "firsts" are Republicans. Granted, Republicans in general are not very concerned with equality issues. But the country itself continues to shift, albeit with fits and starts, in the direction of civil rights and social equality. The fact that Republicans and conservatives are part of that shift demonstrates how powerful it is. As always, progressives and left activists lead the way, but the country as a whole eventually comes around.

Check back a little later for my postmortem: Why Democrats Lost and What Happens Next. (Spoiler alert: It's not as bad as you think, and there's stuff to look forward to.)