Air America, the liberal radio network, went down in flames, Jan. 21, when it filed for bankruptcy. It wasn’t because of air-to-air combat with conservative talk shows and bloggers. It wasn’t because of the Recession, although reduced advertising revenue, a reality of all media, also affected Air America. It wasn’t even demographics, even though older, marginalized conservatives tend to listen to radio more than do younger liberal professionals. And media history was only part of the problem.

By the 1960s, liberals had become masters at developing and using not only mainstream media but also an emerging alternative media to advance a social agenda. But then they choked, sputtered, and fell into disarray.

During the past two decades, conservatives slowly, almost methodically, established a talk show base that ignited its own movement.

By 2000, with liberals more focused upon the print media and the emerging social media, and having neglected the advantages of a re-energized AM bandwidth that was more adaptable to talk than to music, the personality-drenched conservative talk radio medium filled the vacuum. The talk shows targeted the same kind of audience that the liberal ’60s alternative media had targeted—the socially and politically marginalized who distrusted Big Government and believed in individual liberties. Any emerging liberal network would be seen as merely an annoyance, rather than competition. The conservatives, embraced by Fox News and talk radio, solidified their hold upon the listeners by playing to irrational fears of their base—that the media were controlled by liberals, and that government was out to get them.

Air America had begun as a fresh challenge to the conservative talk show movement. It had a decent mix of comedy, rant, and music. Eventually, it would syndicate shows to about 100 affiliates. Air America had come into a market saturated by right-wing talk radio—and then committed suicide by incompetence. Its death was celebrated by a vitriolic rightwing mix of radio commentators and listeners.

Even facing the Recession, diminished advertising revenue, a target population that had almost abandoned radio except for niche music stations and NPR, and the dominance of conservative talk radio, the six-year-old network could have survived . . .

IF it had better investment funding . . .

IF it didn’t spend a disproportionate share of its small investment on lavish studios in a high-rent Manhattan commercial building . . .

IF it didn’t have so many management changes, and so much ineptness among senior managers. . . .

IF it could have hired more on-air personalities and off-mike producers who had significant radio experience. Even the most talented (among them Al Franken, Sam Seder, and Rachel Maddow) had minimal radio experience. In contrast, almost all of Rush Limbaugh’s career was in radio before he became the man most loathed by liberals.

Air America might have survived if it tried to evolve slowly, as had conservative talk radio, and not try to match it in salaries and personalities the first year.

It might have survived if its primary message wasn’t to attack the conservative infotainment hosts but to develop its own entertainment and issues, and to deliver a focused message. By the demise of Air America, conservative talk radio not only had a larger fan base but better websites and outreach.

But, most of all, Air America might have survived if it wasn’t so arrogant. Its hosts and producers ignored phone calls and e-mails from liberals and moderates who were not on its radar as “important.” And, it and many of its affiliates also ignored calls from many reporters who were trying to do stories about the network and its personalities. If the producers arrogantly didn’t think something mattered, then it didn’t.

In the end, Air America didn’t do for the liberal movement what the rest of talk radio did for its conservative movement—it didn’t respect its listeners enough to allow them their own voice.

[Dr. Brasch is an award-winning reporter and editor, media analyst, and author of 17 books. His latest are Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush; 'Unacceptable': The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina; and America's Unpatriotic Acts. All are available at Amazon.cm, and other bookstores. You may contact Dr. Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu, or through his website, www.walterbrasch.com]

By Walter Brasch
It wasn’t unusual that Rush Limbaugh went ballistic on his show, Nov. 13. He does that several times a day.

It wasn’t unusual that he mixed a few facts with opinion and outright lies in his three-hour daily show. Fact checking for the man who calls himself “America’s Truth Detector” is as rare as union organizers working for Walmart.

What is unusual is that Rush Limbaugh, whose web site shows a picture of him carrying a large gold-fringed American flag on a six-foot staff, spoke out against the Constitution of the United States.

Because logic and reason avoids his black-clad bouncy body, he may not have even known he was attacking the history of the United States and its Constitution. But on this Friday the 13th, the forces of evil spewed forth from his unfettered microphone mouth.

The United States had announced it was removing five persons accused of plotting the 9/11 terror from Guantanamo Bay and putting them into the federal judiciary system. Attorney General Eric Holder, at a press conference in Washington, D.C., had announced, “After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. . . . I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial just as they have for over 200 years [before] an impartial jury under long established rules and procedures.” He announced that the Department of Justice would “prosecute these cases vigorously,” and would seek the death penalty in each case. President Obama had said earlier that day he was “absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheik Mohammad [the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, and the other defendants] will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people insist on it, my administration will insist on it.”

Limbaugh called the decision a “disgusting travesty perpetuated here by Barack Obama.” That was just the beginning of his rant. Over the next few minutes, Limbaugh said the decision to bring terrorists to trial was solely “to satisfy the rabid, radical, far left that hates this country; that hates George W. Bush; that hates the U.S. military.”

Limbaugh opposed the use of lawyers; several times he branded them as leftist and Marxist, disregarding the reality that membership in the American Bar Association skews to the right. Although he came from a family of lawyers, he disregarded Constitutional guarantees that require even the most heinous of criminals to be assured their rights, including the right to be represented by an attorney. While erroneously claiming that terrorists have no rights, Limbaugh also objected to providing the defendants “fairness,” because in what he called the “new America,” fairness is something created by “a bunch of radical leftists.” He claimed that the defendants didn’t even deserve lawyers because, in the world of Rush Fairytale Logic, the lawyers would use the courts to attack the United States.

He attacked the federal judiciary, claiming, “There are a bunch of radical leftists on our federal bench,” all of whom apparently, if you believed the Mouth That Roared, are governed by such mundane and useless rules like—well—the Constitution of the United States. What Limbaugh didn’t say, possibly because the facts didn’t agree with his own distorted version of reality, is that there are more conservative judges than liberal judges in the federal judiciary. About one-third of all federal judges were appointed by George W. Bush, with a majority of all judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes. Limbaugh, in his deliberate distortion of facts also didn’t point out that 62 percent of all appeals court judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and that conservatives are the majority on 10 of the 13 appeals courts. He also failed to point out that six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents. The Republican-dominated federal courts have cut down several unconstitutional provisions of the PATRIOT Act; the Republican-dominated Supreme Court has twice rebuked the Bush–Cheney Administration for procedures that are blatantly unconstitutional. In one major decision, conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, speaking for the majority, ruled, “Any process in which the Executive’s factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short . . . [T]he constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties . . . remain vibrant even in times of security concerns.”

Like most conservative radio hosts and their teabag party followers, Limbaugh several times had blasted the Department of Justice for even thinking about bringing the terrorists onto the mainland, claiming the men were so evil that they would endanger all Americans. Unsaid by the talking mouths and empty heads was that the Department of Justice successfully prosecuted numerous gangsters, serial killers, and terrorists, and then successfully imprisoned them without danger to civilians.

For emphasis about how he thought a trial for the 9/11 terrorists would be unfair, Limbaugh threw veiled anti-Semitic attacks upon a possible jury pool. “Before it’s all said and done you’re going to find some whack nut jobs on the Upper West Side of Manhattan that are going to be on this jury,” said Limbaugh. The Upper West Side is largely identified as a community that was settled by refugee Jews, and which still has a significant percent of Jews.

Several times, Limbaugh stated that since the defendants had already “confessed,” the need for a trial was not necessary, and would only embarrass the U.S., placating those “leftists,” and exposing the entirety of the American intelligence community. This, said Limbaugh, is the “hidden agenda” of the Obama Administration. “They want the United States on trial,” Limbaugh cried out. Disregarding the absurdity of his own remarks, Limbaugh never acknowledged that the “confessions” were made only after severe torture. Bringing criminals, who have been subject to torture, to trial, who have confessed, said Limbaugh “is yet another internal assault on the fabric, the traditions, the institutions that have made this country great,” he told his equally rabid listeners.

Having attacked the President, the Attorney General, lawyers, judges, the Department of Justice, and Jews, Limbaugh put Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) into his cross-hairs. Sestak, said Limbaugh, is “a dangerous left-wing radical ideologue.” What drew Limbaugh’s rage was that Sestak not only supported the prosecution of the 9/11 terrorists in federal court, but that on Fox News, he argued that “Most studies have shown that [torture] does not give you evidence as readily or as credible as other means.” Persons who are tortured, said Sestak, raising concerns about the legitimacy of the terrorists’ “confessions,” will often confess to anything in order to stop the torture.

What Limbaugh didn’t tell his audience was that Sestak was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a retired vice-admiral who had led a carrier battle group, and was the first director of the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit after 9/11. Sestak’s views are the same as John McCain’s, also a Naval Academy graduate who had led an air squadron. Listeners could now choose between two war heroes, one of whom had suffered torture as a prisoner of war, and a college drop-out who, said his mother, flunked almost all of his classes in his only year in college, was declared 4-F in the draft, and now hails on 600 radio stations as the mouthpiece for the right-wing fringe.

“We are in the process of destroying American ideals; we are in the process of subordinating America’s greatness, America’s exceptionalism,” Rush Limbaugh wailed.

The reality is that flag-waving fact-impaired Rush Limbaugh has no idea what American ideals are, nor does he have respect for the legal history of the United States or the power of the Constitution.

[Walter M. Brasch, an award-winning former newspaper reporter and editor, is a syndicated social issues columnist, author, writer-producer, and professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. His latest books are Sex and the Single Beer Can, a probing and humorous look at the nation's media; and Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, with a focus upon the shredding of Constitutional protections. Both books are available at amazon.com, and other bookstores. You may contact Dr. Brasch through his website, www.walterbrasch.com.]

The only question today after the Republican Party successfully engineered the loss of the New York 23rd House seat for the first time in 100 years is how much destruction in the GOP will follow. Surely the blame for this debacle for the GOP needs to be laid at the feet of the crazies on the extreme right, the Palins and Limbaughs, as the New York Daily News notes. It must also be laid at the feet of Glenn Beck, to whom the extremist right wing candidate Doug Hoffman owes fealty. Shall we throw in the extremist Club for Growth, the organization calling for fiscal responsibility that nonetheless wasted over $1MM in supporting Hoffman’s candidacy? Sure, why not.

The expected happened before the polls even closed with the Hoffman camp blaming ACORN for the defeat, despite zero evidence. They even claimed the sabotage of a campaign worker’s car, and had no comment when later it was found by Plattsburgh police that the worker had run over a bottle and blown his own tires. Whiney excuses are located near the soul of the Republican Party, right near the hate gene. And let’s not quibble that Doug Hoffman was a member of the Conservative Party. The Assistant Chair of the GOP, Michael Steele, was not ambiguous in celebrating and backing Doug Hoffman’s candidacy.

As Chris Kelly of Real Time with Bill Maher notes, this was a stunning loss for the teabaggers, for the 9/12ers, for Limbaugh and Giuliani and Fred Thompson and a whole raft of right wing crazies.

Doug Hoffman lost his election last night. He was supported by a plurality of talk radio entertainers, and a majority of former half-term governors of Alaska, but it wasn’t enough. An obscure quirk of constitutional law says you also need votes from voters. This is the same cruel hurdle that tripped up three of his other biggest supporters, Gary Bauer, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, all of whom ran for President of the United States, but failed the “getting votes” test, because everyone hates their guts.

With their help, and a million dollars from the Club for Growth, Doug Hoffman lost a part of New York State that had voted Republican since the best way to get from Albany to Buffalo was by canal.

Not bad for a first try.

Doug Hoffman didn’t just have money to burn and the staunch support of Facebooking frost bunnies, Fox News and the Ghosts of Vanity Campaigns Past. He also had coots on the ground; an army of volunteers from the tea bag movement, the 9/11 Project and the fanatic anti-choice fringe. The problem was, they could shout at the polling places as loud as they wanted, and they did, but they didn’t live there, so they weren’t allowed to vote.

There’s probably a lesson to that. Something about politics being local.

And beyond that, about the people who do live there resenting being told what to do.

Rush Limbaugh predicted that Hoffman would win. In fact, Hoffman’s victory was such a foregone conclusion yesterday that Rush had already moved on to mocking Democrats spinning their loss.

Oh, I will mourn the vote in Maine today, that good Americans have had their right to marry taken away. That will change for the good over time, though. I won’t mourn a bit for the governors in Virginia and New Jersey. Virginia reliably goes to the party other than that holding the White House and has for years. Big deal. And John Corzine was in real trouble in a state that’s in real trouble. Chris Christie will be a one-term Governor, though don’t be surprised if he tries to run for President in 2012, or is chosen as a GOP Veep nominee. The guy’s ego is as massive as his build.

The real question mourning here should be among sane Republicans. There was an insurrection in the NY 23rd, and because of that insurrection from the extremists on the GOP right, they lost. I don’t think for a minute that the Limbaughs and the Palins and the teabaggers will consider that they are done, though. Wait until Iowa in 2012 and watch the support for a GOP whackjob. Watch the moderates continue to flee what has become a party of extremists. It’ll be fun for those of us who are progressive, these next few years, but for my friends who are sane Republicans, this one is going to hurt for a long, long time.

Never let it be said that I’m a big fan of Maureen Dowd. Her column on the op-ed pages of the Sunday New York Times has long been a source of frustration for progressives such as myself. While she may fancy herself as a liberal, old-school Irish dame, she usually ends up somewhere closer to a jumbled, not-quite-clear attempt to reach a centrist conclusion.

Today, though, Dowd eloquently broaches the real motivation behind the words of South Carolina congressman Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: “You lie, boy!” [emphasis mine]

Perhaps it’s that Dowd’s own ancestral roots give her a sense of perspective. After all, it’s not all that long ago that Irish immigrants were treated with about as much racial disdain in the northeast U.S. as African Americans were (are?) south of the Mason-Dixon line. I don’t suppose it really matters why her emotions were so stoked by Wilson’s outburst on Wednesday evening, but she really nails it with this:

For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both.

With two single-syllable words, Congressman Addison Graves Wilson (R-SC) became the poster child for all that is wrong with today’s Republican Party. The GOP may call itself “The Party of Lincoln™”, but MoDo’s column makes it clear that Honest Abe himself wouldn’t recognize the racist political party that is branded with his name. Why? At the heart of it, it’s quite simple - two words worth of simple:

They’re afraid.

Update: Jill at B-at-B and Buzzflash have more.

Indeed…

Instead of whining about Barack Obama calling out the lies of people like her (in her badly ghostwritten WSJ column) in his speech last night, she should focus on family values. Palin whined about Barack Obama not being civil by simply speaking the truth, but she’s forgotten her extreme incivility during the campaign last Fall, her inciting an ugliness that was uncivil in the extreme.

Sarah Palin can do something about values in the country and sign on to campaign for family values in California. That campaign is designed to strengthen marriage by outlawing divorce. John Marcotte has filed a petition with the California Secretary of State that will outlaw divorce. Simple. And the measure is sure to help preserve the institution of marriage, surely helping our whole society find a little bit of the civility we have lost. Here’s the simple text of the petition:

No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of an unmarried person during the lifetime of the other party unless the marriage is void or voidable, as set forth in Part 2 Section 6 of the Family Code.

In other words, unless you have been married illegally, you’ve got to live with that marriage. That’s family values Sarah Palin can surely support, and be doing so she would be working in a positive manner, rather than via whining, to help our country come together civilly. Oddly, Mr. Marcotte seems to be a supporter of Ms. Palin, especially as it bears on his ultimate goal, to void all past divorces and reunite marriages. As he comments in this interview, he doesn’t expect such a thing to happen until Sarah Palin’s inevitable ascent to the Presidency:

RC: well, this is a bold step. Do you think you face a strong opposition?

John: The opposition will always be there. The secular progressives, gays and MSNBC hosts — but we beat them once with Prop 8 and we’ll beat them again. If people are thinking about getting a divorce, just remember “Hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be.” Jesus still loves you if you get divorced, just not as much as before.

RC: What about people who are currently married? Will this law apply to them, or only new marriages?

John: I wish that I could force people that hate each other with the intensity of a thousand white suns back into a loveless marriage, but my attorneys tell me that getting that law passed would be unlikely in the current political climate.

I’ll try to get a “win” by banning divorce and save that for 2012 — when Sarah Palin will be president and/or the end of the world will occur.

RC: Its good to have a plan.

John: One step at a time. We can return this country back to it’s proud, traditional Judeo-Christian roots.

There is nothing in this petition about what would happen to couples who have children without the benefit of that most sacred of institutions, marriage, so Sarah Palin will not seem a hypocrite if she supports the petition. Think, though, of the benefits she can reap politically. So far, there is no big group backing Mr. Marcotte’s petition, and if Sarah Palin were to come out in favor and actively campaign for the repeal of divorce laws, and then if the measure were to prevail, she could pull off a stunning victory far greater than Proposition 8 in CA. She could change the face of family life in America, keeping people who hate each other tied intimately. Heck, they’d either develop civil behaviors or they’d kill each other, and given our instincts for survival, I’m betting such a measure would end up creating a whole new culture of civility. Heck, such an outcome might even benefit Sarah Palin.

I am utterly speechless.

According to an email obtained by TPM Muckraker, financial news network CNBC has asked the fringe right wing group Tea Party Patriots to stage a health care town hall “event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger”:

Yesterday, Tea Party Patriots national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin sent an email, obtained by TPMmuckraker, to a Tea Party google group. Martin told the group: “We have a media request for an event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger. This is for CNBC.”

She then asked: “So, where are the big events this week and where can TPP best be represented on the news?”

Later that day, a Tea Bagger named Pat Wayman responded with a suggestion, also obtained by TPMmuckraker: “This one should be a riot! literally….” he wrote.

Wayman then posted information for an upcoming “health fair” hosted by Rep. David Scott (D-GA), at which the uninsured will receive free medical coverage*.

As Wayman noted, “[t]his is the Congressman who got a swastika painted on his office sign last night.” …

Teabagger spokeswoman Martin quickly walked back the request to her group when it became public:

She stressed that her group “does not endorse anything that incites violence of any kind,” adding that the email list is un-moderated. “I can’t moderate every single comment,” she said.

Asked whether CNBC had specifically told her they were looking for an event with “lots of energy and lots of anger,” Martin replied: “That was the impression that I received from them.” She declined to elaborate.

The organized astroturfing and disrupting of congressional “town hall” events is no longer just a production of the GOP fringe: a major news network is now overtly encouraging the disruptions.

We should recognize these efforts what they have clearly become: active sedition of the U.S. government, now aided and abetted by a major news network.

It’s time to halt all health care town hall forums, both congressional and presidential, before someone is seriously hurt (or worse). The kettle has boiled over, and there is no longer any way that the safety and security of the public can be assured at these meetings.

AP/AR is is business shorthand for “accounts payable / accounts receiveable”. In theory, as long as AR > AP on the corporate ledger, a company is profitable and satisfies the needs of its stakeholders (business partners, customers, vendors, employees, and stockholders). So, most large companies employ teams of individuals who manage corporate risk. Guidelines and protocols are established to enable these teams to make decisions on when it makes economic sense to spend money, approve projects, and invest in research and development.

It’s all about risk management. Keep this in mind as you read further — because you are a risk, not a client — to your healthcare, life, auto, and homeowners insurance providers.

Many Americans were outraged in Dec., 2007 by the case of 17 year old Nataline Sarkisyan. The short story, for those who may need their memories refreshed:

Ms. Sarkysian had leukemia, and was admitted to a California hospital for a bone marrow transplant. As is possible with such procedures, there were complications, and her kidneys and liver failed. Her brother donated a kidney. She was ready for a liver transplant (a relatively routine procedure in this day and age), but even though hers had failed, her family’s insurance company would not approve the procedure by claiming it was “experimental”. In other words, a bean counter at Cigna made the decision that since they had already shelled out a lot of cash for the bone marrow and kidney transplant, that the cost of a liver transplant and followup care was just too high.

The bean counter at Cigna effectively sentenced Nataline Sarkisyan to death. Even after Cigna reversed course following a public outcry, it was too late. Ms. Sarkisyan passed away the evening that Cigna finally agreed to cover her procedure.

So, what was the value of Nataline’s life to the risk managers at Cigna? I did about two minutes worth of research, and found the following:

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), estimated charges for liver transplantation are:

Estimated First-Year Charge: $314,600
Estimated Annual Follow-up Charge: $21,900

To Cigna, the cost of Nataline’s transplant was like buying a Nintendo Wii. When you buy a Wii, it’s not so much the initial investment in the game machine, but the ongoing followup costs in purchasing games and other hardware add-ons. The risk managers at Cigna who made the decisions in Nataline’s case weren’t so much looking at the cost of the initial transplantation procedure, but the annual cost of followup care and medication.

Nataline was 17 years old. The average lifespan of a woman in America is 79.1 years. So, rounding off, for actuarial purposes she had the potential to live another 62 years. In effect, the costs of the transplant and her first year care ($314,000) were chump change to Cigna. Plus, there were already “sunk costs” - business jargon for payouts already made for her prior procedures. So what was the value of Nataline’s life to Cigna?

The cost of her followup care for the next (projected) 62 years: $1,302,000.

When I first heard the story of Cigna’s denial of coverage for Nataline, two thoughts entered my mind. Why doesn’t the hospital just do the damn procedure, then sort out the financial details afterwards? The second thing: where are the screaming hoards that descended upon Terri Schiavo’s deathbed in Florida back in March of 2005? Wasn’t Nataline’s life just as important? Wasn’t Cigna (in effect) removing her feeding tube by denying coverage?

We all need to be “visibly angered”, particularly when someone like Nataline Sarkisyan would still be alive in Canada, the UK, or even Cuba or Venezuela. The healthcare system in America is broken, and we can no longer accept placing a dollar value on human lives to keep the insurance company bean counters employed - and the private “death panels” enabled.

I would like to see one single blue dog dem, Max Baucus, or any of the other Dem “compromisers” discuss their plan with Nataline’s parents, and how it would have saved her life. I would like to see one GOP/industry toadie explain to Nataline’s parents why her daughter didn’t deserve to live.

Mike Madden at Salon posted an article on the same topic, with even more examples. It’s still hard to believe that not a single person involved in the “Personal Health Security For Americans Act of 2009″ negotiations had used this high profile example to counter the GOP mendacities.

How long are we supposed to wait?

How long are the American people going to put up with this crap?

How long are we willing to blindly accept the ministrations of a federal government that clearly subscribes to the Buck Turgidson School of Social Darwinism?

“I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops!”

At the end of July, 2009:

More Americans are without access to basic healthcare or medical insurance than ever before.

More Americans died in Afghanistan during the month of July than at any time since the start of hostilities in that country.

More Americans are unemployed tonight than in recent memory.

More Americans will go to sleep hungry tonight (or worried about where the next meal for their families will come from) than at any time in history - even as foodbanks and feeding programs are stressed at unimaginable levels.

State after state - it’s not just California - is laying off or not paying state workers. Essential services are being cut beyond the bone: entire governmental limbs are now being severed.

I actually, for a few months, entertained the audacious thought that health care reform might really get done, and get done right. My “audacity of hope” has been rapidly transformed by the “mendacity of nope”. DKos diarist teacherken wrote a series of diaries over this past weekend regarding a rural health care event that literally made me cry with sadness and anger.

I am sick to death of listening to the gasbags on NPR blather on about how much healthcare reform is going to cost. The banks should have been allowed to collapse, and single payer, universal health care should have been a no brainer. Instead, the banks got a trillion and the sick, uninsured, and poor are gonna get bupkis.

Same as it ever was…same as it ever was…

I am sick to death of being sick to death.

Oh, and before anyone slams me asking what I’m doing about it - yeah, I’ve done my time. I’ve pissed into the tide of social activism so many times that I’ve lost count.

Jeff Miller, Allison Krause, Bill Schroeder, and Sandra Lee Scheuer never had the time to consider that giving up their lives would make a profound difference. But each of them contributed immeasurably to a true, real, movement (and a single cause) that changed the course of history.

I would quite literally give up my own life for this stuff if I thought it would make a difference. But in this day and age, I fear it wouldn’t.

With each passing day, it feels more and more like we’re all drowning in a roiling, angry sea of ineffective national leadership. A riptide of malignant political indifference has washed over the government of the United States of America, and it seems as if we proles are powerless to escape the undertow.

US Representative Nathan Dean (R-Confederacy) is proposing to do away with at least a portion of the first clause of the 14th Amendment. He’s all upset about immigrants having children here in the US and the children getting citizenship, so he wants to do away with that first clause. Here’s the story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.

Supporters of Deal’s proposal say “birthright citizenship” encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult. Opponents say the proposed law wouldn’t solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country’s traditions of welcoming immigrants.

Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” That provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

“This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

Under Deal’s proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.

Azadeh Shahshahani, director of the Immigrants Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, said the proposed law “is not cognizant with the American spirit.”

“We would stand in strong opposition to this bill as it’s in fundamental contradiction to our nation’s long history of welcoming immigrants and bestowing inalienable rights” on all people born here, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, she said.

Oh, this is surely about immigration and the whiney Republicans not happy with our constitution and its amendments. But it is also about the 14th Amendment and how it has become awfully inconvenient for Republicans as of late. Sure, it is inconvenient for them in terms of immigration, and the xenophopic wing of the Republican Party — is that all of them? But it is also inconvenient as concerns its due process and equal protection clauses. That first section of the 14th Amendment (the rest of the 14th is focused on anti-slavery actions during the post-cilvil war period) reads like this, as found on the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell University Law School web site:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No, these folks don’t like any of that language, at least their policies show they don’t. They don’t like Americans getting due process, ergo their railing against the ACLU when it tries to defend the due process of prisoners, etc. Heck, these folks would throw due process out the window if it meant they couldn’t torture an American they think is a terrorist, or spy on Americans at will. And the equal protection clause gives them a bunch in their underwear as well, especially as it is used as a legal justification by judges for gay marriage. Look for more Republicans to try to rewrite the 14th Amendment in the future, and not merely this back bench Republican Congressman from Georgia.

It’s becoming an article of faith, no pun intended, that the GOP (as presently represented by the most loathsome faces of the party) finds itself hip deep in elephant poo. Even Republican-leaning pundits and “strategists” are lamenting on how far the party has fallen, in such a relatively short period of time. What they can’t seem to wrap their heads around is how to get their leadership heading back in the right direction.

Therein lays their biggest problem: when the best the Republican party leadership can do is to trot out John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Jeb Bush as the “new face” of the GOP, the poo pile seems bottomless.

Based on the numbers in a recent GOP internal poll obtained by the Associated Press, the situation might be even more grave than the most loyal of the Republican loyalists imagined:

Republicans are widely viewed by the public as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from health care to education and energy, according to internal polling presented to top GOP officials in Congress…

The survey found the public holds greater confidence in Democrats than in Republicans in handling most of the issues that are involved in Obama’s legislative agenda…Democrats were favored by a margin of 61 percent to 29 percent on education; 59 percent to 30 percent on health care and 59 percent to 31 percent on energy…Democats were also viewed with more confidence in handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror.

The survey found Obama’s job approval at 62 percent.

However, lest we get too cocky about the current state of the GOP, let’s remember that it wasn’t so long ago that conventional political wisdom held forth that the GOP was heading for a permanent political majority in America.

National politics is a particularly fickle animal, and it would only take a few negative events to turn opinion quickly. The Dems retook the majority not so much based on their own ideas and plans, but because those of the GOP had become so absolutely toxic.

The time nears for the Democratic Party leadership to put the boldest of plans in motion: an inclusive national healthcare plan that leaves no American without access to good medical care, labor laws that favor workers over corporations, and an end to regressive tax laws that cause the working class to shoulder a disproportionate share of the common tax burden.

Do those three things, and the Democratic Party will be closer to a true permanent majority than the GOP ever dreamed of having.