In The Village Have They Finally Realized McCain's Lost His Marbles?

Anyone who's ever had any doubts about voting for Obama in November on 2008-- who has been quite the disappointment for many people who imagined he was a progressive and that he was serious about their visions of Hope and Change-- John McCain's manifest nastiness and bigotry this week should put that to rest forever. Joe Klein says he used to know a different John McCain, the Maverick guy (who more discerning people always saw as a gimmick after he wormed his way out from having been exposed as-- if not convicted of-- taking bribes in the savings-and-loan scandal).

In commenting on the defeat of the DREAM Act this weekend, Klein mentions that "[t]wo of the bill's original sponsors, John McCain and Orrin Hatch, voted against the bill...and one wonders why, especially in McCain's case, given the fact that he recently won reelection and doesn't have to pretend to be a troglodyte anymore." Pretend? One of the problems is that Inside the Beltway they were all always convinced that he was always just pretending to be a reactionary asshole. But he wasn't, which is a big part of how Barack Obama became president.

McCain has professed himself all misty and honored in the past when he attended ceremonies in which green-card holders and other non-citizens achieved citizenship through military service. But, because of the anti-immigrant mania, this flagrantly cynical and cowardly politician would deny similar status to young people who-- through no fault of their own-- were brought to this country as children, grew up as Americans and love the country enough to serve it. If the Dream Act were passed, we would have gained an estimated 65,000 valuable, patriotic and productive citizens-- college graduates, military service-members-- each year. We could use them.

McCain distinguished himself doubly this weekend, opposing the Dream Act and leading the opposition to "Don't Ask," despite the very public positions of his wife and daughter on the other side of the issue. I used to know a different John McCain, the guy who proposed comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, the guy-- a conservative, to be sure, but an honorable one-- who refused to indulge in the hateful strictures of his party's extremists. His public fall has been spectacular, a consequence of politics-- he "needed" to be reelected-- and personal pique. He's a bitter man now, who can barely tolerate the fact that he lost to Barack Obama. But he lost for an obvious reason: his campaign proved him to be puerile and feckless, a politician who panicked when the heat was on during the financial collapse, a trigger-happy gambler who chose an incompetent for his vice president. He has made quite a show ever since of demonstrating his petulance and lack of grace.

What a guy.

I doubt Klein is the only one who noticed. This week McCain was hysterical in his opposition to the DREAM Act, to the repeal of DADT, to the START treaty, and he even voted against compensation for the 9-11 first responders. Andy Borowitz thinks he needs more-- and earlier-- naps. Still, McCranky won't make Obama look good to this guy-- after all, no one likes their penis being taken from them-- but everyone else...



In fact, another Villager, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, seems to think McCain is cracking up.

If John McCain gets any more hostile toward his Senate colleagues, they might consider having him go through the metal detector before he enters the Capitol.

Saturday's debate on the repeal of the "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy was only half an hour old when the Arizona Republican burst onto the floor from the cloakroom, hiked up his pants and stalked over to his friend Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Ignoring Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who had the floor, McCain hectored the men noisily for a few moments, waving his arms for emphasis.

When McCain finally stormed off, Durbin shook his head in exasperation and Lieberman smiled. A minute later, McCain returned-- he had apparently remembered another element of his grievance-- and resumed his harangue... It doesn't take much to set off McCain these days.

Earlier in the week, he was observed in the unseemly act of publicly gloating on the Senate floor over his success in killing a massive spending bill. He's also been raising hurdles to the ratification of the Obama administration's nuclear arms treaty with Russia. At the same time, he led the opposition Saturday to repealing the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military-- taking on Lieberman, who led the other side.

McCain's statement on the floor was roughly one part argument, four parts tantrum. "So here we are about six weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side," he said, and those who would repeal don't-ask-don't-tell "are acting in direct repudiation of the message of the American people." (Actually, polls show support for repeal.) ...The Arizonan suggested those who vote to repeal would have blood on their hands. "Don't think that it won't be at great cost," he said, punctuating his words by bouncing on his toes and chopping with his left hand. It will "probably," he said, "harm the battle effectiveness which is so vital to the survival of our young men and women in the military."

McCain famously said in 2006 that he would support repeal once military leaders recommended it. Instead, he led the opposition to repeal. McCainologists in the Capitol speculate that on this and other issues he's driven less by policy consideration than by personal animosity. A decade ago, his antipathy toward President George W. Bush led him to seek common cause with Democrats to thwart a Republican president. Now his antipathy toward President Obama has made him a leading Republican hardliner.

This seems especially odd since by appointing popular Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security, Obama removed the only real threat to McCain's 2010 reelection prospects. Other than winning the election, Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the nasty-- many say extremely vicious-- old curmudgeon. Yesterday 8 Republicans abandoned McCain, including hard right-wingers like Richard Burr (NC) and Jon Ensign (NV), and few Republicans were all that worked up during the debate-- except the histrionic, over-the-top McCain, who made a disgusting display of bigotry on the floor of the Senate, disgracing himself and the whole institution. (Almost immediately after his DADT loss, McCain was dealt another backhand across the snout as the Senate rejected his ploy to derail ratification of the START treaty. McCain was defeated 59-37, with Lieberman reuniting with him on this one but with all the Democrats and three mainstream conservative Republicans shunning an explosion of McCain obstructionism that disregarded national security.)

The loss of Republican votes, no doubt, made McCain even angrier. When it came time for his closing argument before the day's key vote, McCain spoke for only a few seconds: "Today's a very sad day. The commandant of the United States Marine Corps says when your life hangs on the line, you don't want anything distracting... I don't want to permit that opportunity to happen and I'll tell you why. You go up to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Marines are up there with no legs, none. You've got Marines at Walter Reed with no limbs."

McCain turned and, without another word, walked into the cloakroom.

Even if he failed to keep gays in the closet, McCain can at least gloat over his role in deporting young Latinos and other children of immigrants who were raised in America and whom a majority of the Senate felt would make a valuable contribution to this country-- just like McCain himself, though the value of his contributions are debatable, who was born in Panama and came to the U.S. at a relatively young age. This could well have helped, politically, Democrats with the nation's fastest-growing population, who more and more frequently see politicians of the Republican Party standing in the way of their legitimate aspirations. Nevertheless, it also showed the bankruptcy of Obama's get-tough policy of increased deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Sunday Classics "loose ends": A return visit to "Exsultate, jubilate"

by Ken

I mentioned in last night's "loose ends" installment that tonight we would be hearing soprano Christine Schäfer singing from a CD of works for voice and orchestra by Mozart and Richard Strauss. This is a CD I knew I had but just couldn't locate when we were listening to Mozart's infectiously glorious early motet Exsultate, jubilate, inspired by the Columbia LP coupling of George Szell's Cleveland Orchestra recordings of it, with soprano Judith Raskin, and the Sinfonia concertante (with the orchestra's then-concertmaster and principal viola, Rafael Druian and Abraham Skernick).


MOZART: Exsultate, jubilate (motet), K. 165

i. Allegro, "Exsultate, jubilate"
Rejoice and be glad,
ye blessed spirits,
singing sweet songs;
the heavens join with me
echoing your chant.
[4:36]
ii. Recitative, "Fulget amica dies"
The friendly day is shining
now that clouds and storms have fled;
sudden calm has risen on the just.
Dark night reigned all around;
but now arise in gladness,
ye who until now were afraid,
and offer leaves and lilies
with a generous hand,
rejoicing in the happy dawn.
[5:28]
iii. Andante, "Tu virginum corona"
Thou crown of virgins,
give us peace;
and console our minds
and our heavy hearts.
[11:20]
iv. Allegro, "Alleluja"
Alleluja! [and so on, and on]

Christine Schäfer, soprano; Berlin Philharmonic, Claudio Abbado, cond. DG, recorded September 1997

IN THE CLICK-THROUGH WE HAVE MOZART
AND STRAUSS BONUSES. JUST CLICK HERE

#

In case you're not feeling bad enough about your crappy, totally unimportant job . . .

Some days it's a doggie-dog world here in the workforce.

by Ken

You could say it's my own fault for trying to fill out the stupid survey. Goodness knows how many of them I seem to fill out online, where eventually, usually, the surveyors want to know just who the heck I think I am in this doggie-dog world (I think it was in a Dilbert newsletter, probably among the "True Tales of Induhviduals," that I read about somebody overhearing an induhvidual announcing that "it's a doggie-dog world"; it's stuck with me), and rather than just ask you for your occupation, the way the IRS does on your 1040, they break it down for you. I'm used to the employment world being broken down into an exceedingly curious set of career possibilities, and also used to not finding any choice that seems to come anywhere near my particular mode of wage slavery. But this one . . . this one shot the heck out of a day that already wasn't suffused with uplift.

I only got involved with it because it was for readers of The New Yorker, and I thought for once I might feel "with it," since usually these magazine surveys want to know which of the articles in a recent issue you read and how much you liked them, and while usually, even with the magazines I actually claim to read, what I see is mostly a list of articles I now remember thinking I might want to read when I have a moment, lately I've been doing a better job with my New Yorkers. I thought it might make me feel a little more like somebody if I actually had opinions to share.

So I clicked on the link to take the survey, and quickly regretted it. I actually copied the question that blew the whistle on my day. Here it is:

Which of the following best describes your job title?
◊ Chairman of the Board
◊ Board Member
◊ President/CEO
◊ Managing Director/COO
◊ Senior Vice President/Executive Vice President
◊ Vice President
◊ Controller/Treasurer/CFO
◊ Owner/Partner
◊ General Manager
◊ Information Systems/CIO
◊ Group/Division Director
◊ Department Manager/Supervisor
◊ Consultant
◊ Professional (i.e. accountant, doctor, lawyer, teacher)
◊ Technical Staff (i.e. MIS, IT)
◊ Sales Representative
◊ Clerical/Support Staff
◊ Government/Public Official
◊ Other (please specify):

Am I nuts, or is this a distinctly weird set of "job titles"?

Think about it. If you're not in the first 12 categories, which is to say "Chairman of the Board" through "Department Manager/Supervisor," and you're a salaried employee, which is to say not a "Consultant" or "Professional," then the only functions the surveyors can think of, or at least acknowledge, are "Technical Staff," "Sales Representative," or "Clerical/Support Staff" -- assuming of course that you're not a "Government/Public Official." By the time I had worked my options down to "Clerical/Support Staff" and "Other (please specify)," I knew it was time to click the hell away.

By the way, how many people in those first 12 categories would you expect to be completing this idiotic survey?

Anyway, I never did find out what the foks at the magazine wanted to know about my experience as a reader. But then, I'm not at all sure now that they care about my experience as a reader. I'm not entirely sure now that I'm eligible to be a New Yorker reader.

Of course it's possible that the surveyors were acting on their own, and not on the wishes of the client, in this case presumably the New Yorker circulation and/or marketing people. Nevertheless, I can't shake the thought that people at the magazine, possibly including the editors, think that this is who they're putting the damned rag out for. (Just let Mr. Remnick see how quickly I'll be returning his calls now.)

I'm sure I'm making too much of this. Besides, if I had simply claimed to be, say, an "Information Systems/CIO" (that's not worded quite right, is it?), who would have known? And I could have gotten on with my day.

Such as it was.

And come to think of it, I don't remember getting a Dilbert newsletter in quite a while. Do you suppose they've heard about my scheme to try to pass myself off as a CIO?

#

It's more or less official now: Everybody but the rich is now "The Other America"

First published in 1962, The Other America told the story of the part of America living -- mostly out of sight of the rest of us -- in poverty.

by Ken

I guess this post is going to come down to more piling onto the naysaying that both Howie and I have been doing fairly regularly in the course of the tax-cut-extension "debate" (I trust DWT readers will understand why I have to put "debate" in quotes), and which Howe covered so well yesterday ("Obama-McConnell Conservative Consensus Triumphs Over Working Families"), and again in today's "Streams of Consciousness" post. But then, sometimes piling on isn't a bad thing.

Again, I need to qualify that I'm still not sure whether "yes" or "no" was the better answer to the tax "compromise" as it was presented to members of Congress, with only those choices: yes or no. The way the end game played out, was designed to play out, legislators had no other way to enact the modest extension of unemployment benefits or to prevent taxes from jumping back up to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels on Jan. 1.

The problem was that the legislative process allowed it, or again was arranged, to come down to that choice. Even in these economically dire times, there were all sorts of other ways of dealing with the strange assortment of tax provisions that wound up being dealt with in this "compromise," whose mostly objectionable components seem to have been determined by what the oligarchical Right decided it could get away with slipping in and then making "nonnegotiable."

Of course, as more and more people are finally coming to appreciate, there's scant evidence that President Obama ever had much interest in negotiating on such features as the rubber-stamping of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (now effectively permanent, since it's hard to believe that in two years' time Congress will have any more gumption to pull the plug on them), the comfy-cozying of the soon-to-return estate tax, and groundwork-laying for the orphaning of Social Security.

As I pointed out yesterday, the Village motif that "70 percent of Americans support the compromise tax package" is so meaningless as to amount to a lie in itself. Do those 70 percenters have any clue that these are actually the central features of the package? Do they understand the short- and long-term implications of each? Of course not. All they know is that the "compromise" package prevents their taxes from jumping come January 1.

In good part, of course, this is because that's all they were encouraged to know by the infotainment news hacks who take their marching orders from the Village aristocracy, which in turn gets its economic "advice" from the PR machine of the oligarchs. But in good part too it's because so many Americans don't want to know more. Oh, they'll be plenty pissed when they discover that Social Security, which most Americans have come to take for granted as a pillar of the American way of growing old, is a shell of its former self, but by then it will be too late by far, and even then they'll be blaming the wrong people. Very few of the "70 percenters," for example, will recall that they "approved" it back in December 2010, and we've got the poll results to prove it. (I'm still not sure that many people understand how insidious this seemingly innocent innovation of a payroll "tax holiday" really is, so even though it's been fairly well explained here as well as other places where they don't drink the Village Kool-Aid, I plan to come back to this in the near future.)

But just as many Americans seem inwardly driven to swallow the steady barrage of lies the Right has been feeding them these last several years (the necessity for and great triumph of the Iraq invasion, the "death panels" contained in the health care package, a "government takeover" of health care, etc., etc.), they seem every bit as adamant against even hearing let alone acknowledging all the truths made available to them over this same period. I can't explain the phenomenon, but I reckon it has to do with some combination of the amount of money the Right has spent on research into "messaging" over the last several decades, and the additional amount of money they've poured into getting the resulting "messages" out; the inclination of calculatedly undereducated and woefully underinformed people to accept realities that conflict with the mental "comfort zone" they've carved out for themselves.

Do I think we would have been better off with Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office? Nah. It would have played out differently, but the Republican tools of the oligarchy would have played their hand essentially the same way, especially once they discovered what a useful tool the wildly uninformed rage of the Teabagging movement could be.

Unfortunately, I don't think we would have been better off either if John Edwards's campaign hadn't self-destructed. Now that we know so much more about Edwards, it's that much clearer that he never had the strength of purpose to make a difference in the way the American economy has been restructured. Somehow I didn't really trust him at the time, and I think part of the reason was that I wanted to hear more from him on a theme that he owned: the Two Americas.

What other pol of national stature has had the audacity to talk about this in recent times. I realize now that it probably wasn't a coincidence that Edwards himself seemed to go mute on the them. I'm guessing that he and his campaign people discovered that if they hoped to raise enough money to remain competitive in a race in which he already wasn't being taken seriously by the Villagers who provide the definitive ratings of seriousness, it wasn't going to happen by mouthing off against the interests of the moneyed classes who are on the other side of the divide between the two Americas.

While Howie and I were in high school Michael Harrington's The Other America was published. It both grew out of and nourished a growing awareness of the problem of poverty in the country, and helped give rise to such '60s initiatives as the War on Poverty and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. My recollection as that in my high school economics class we were required to buy and read the Harrington book, along with the most recent annual report of President Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisers, to supplement our basic textbook, the then-currrent edition of Paul Samuelson's Economics. (As of the 1985 edition Samuelson was joined as coauthor by William Nordhaus, who has continued to produce revisions. Wikipedia says, " It was the best selling economics textbook for many decades and still remains popular, selling over 300,000 copies of each edition from 1961 through 1976.") Of course it was a Brooklyn public high school, so I guess it's not surprising that we were given all this liberal indoctrination.

The actual idea, though, was to encourage us to think of the economics fundamentals we were learning as something that was directly connected to the real lives of real people. In a country that had been mostly focused on sustaining the postwar economic boom Poverty had suddenly become a viable issue in the 1960 presidential issue. It seems likely that, as Theodore White chronicled it in his first Making of the President book, John Kennedy's forced awakening to it, notably in the West Virginia primary, and his believable concern for it, played a major role in winning him the Democratic nomination and the general election.

Now the "other" America in Edwards's Two Americas isn't all living in the kind of abject poverty Harrington was writing about. But that phrase "the other America" is haunting me, now that the oligarchs have succeeded in using their right-wing warrior-tools to seal the rest of us off from active participation in the fruits of our economy. Even the vaunted middle class, which thought itself safely positioned, is finding that it has been more and more cast off into the "Other" role. (At the moment, the standard text on this process if former Labor Secretary Bob Reich's Wednesday post, "Why America’s Two Economies Continue to Drift Apart, and Washington Isn’t Doing Anything About It," for which AlterNet has provided the helpful blurb: "The Big Money corporations are raking it in, and top pay is soaring as well. But the money isn't going into anyone else's pockets."

Maybe when the Teabaggers wake up to the way they've been used by the oligarchs Congress may become slightly less compliant. But for the foreseeable future, the organization and determination are all on the side of Big Money. And really, it's hard to see how we might ever put together a coalition to provide effective resistance.

#

Getting Ready for Winter: Republican Snow Art

by Noah

You almost have to feel sorry for the Teabag element. Winter is upon us. With no big outdoor hatefests to attend, how are Republicans going to express themselves, especially during the holiday season of love and light? The answer came with the northern tier’s first big snowstorm: Snow art! How better for a Republican to express their feelings and beliefs than to build a Grand Wizard Snowman just like some cretin in Hayden, Idaho, did ("KKK Snowman Spreads Holiday Hate in Hayden"). I’m dreaming of a white Christmas, indeed!

The artist in this case goes by the name of Mark. He doesn’t use a surname, so I’ll just give him a descriptive last name and call him Mark A. While he is dealing with the ire of some of his neighbors, Mark A., who lives 100 yards from an elementary school, is also refudiating claims that he passed out bullets for Halloween. I guess that, even for Idaho, this behavior was going a little beyond the pale. This whole thing is a perfect storm of mother nature and teabag nature. The truly creative can even accessorize their KKK lawn dude with a noose like the creator of this magnificent bit of art did. Lighting a fire and burning a cross might be a bit problematical, though.

If you go to the link I provided, you’ll see some very special comments. My favorite might have to be one from a person named “Noogie” who, true enough says, "“This guy has a right to offend you.” Then he proceeds to blame the messenger and say so much more:

“And why doesn’t the paper have anything better to do than stir the pot? They are the real culprit here, magnifying it. So many of you have turned Marxist you don’t know the value of truth anymore. What about La Raza? The NAACP? Standard hypocrisy. When whites express ethnic solidarity its “hate”. When blacks or hsipos do its “Advocacy”. Please go back to your socialist hell.”

Now that’s commentary! Priceless! Man, if this clown ever saw this post… Well, I guess we should be happy that this genius could tear himself away from watching Fox long enough to channel Glenn Beck and enlighten us all. I had no idea that the NAACP was equal to the KKK. Really? Do they hang people and burn crosses, too?

I’ve been waiting for Rush Limbaugh to launch into a tirade about this just as he did last week when he found a Smithsonian art exhibit objectionable, but, I have waited in vain. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a KKK snowman doesn’t bother him. In fact, he probably wants to market some in a snowglobe. Meanwhile, I suspect that Sean Hannity and his buddy Hal Turner are praying for snow right this minute. This thing could lead to Teabagger ice-sculpture festivals in no time. Meanwhile, I’ll be making a John Boehner snowman as soon as possible. I think I know how to get the color just right.

#

A historic moment: DADT repeal jumps the Senate filibuster hurdle!

Well, the DREAM Act got skunked, as expected ("only" 55 votes for cloture), but as expected that paved the way for a DADT cloture vote. And . . . [Howie has been live-blogging the vote at the bottom of Streams of Consciousness below.]

'Don't ask, don't tell' bill clears Senate procedural vote

By Ed O'Keefe
Updated 11:51 a.m. ET

The Senate voted Saturday to proceed to debate on a bill ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, putting the campaign to end the ban on gay men and lesbians one vote away from completion.

Senators voted 63 to 33 go proceed to debate on the bill. Fifty-seven members of the Senate Democratic caucus and six Republicans -- Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich (Ohio) -- voted yes. Four senators -- Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) -- did not vote.

A final vote on the bill is expected Sunday; a simple majority is required for final passage.

The vote came amid an unusually busy Saturday for the Senate, with consideration of gays in the military, the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty and a bill providing a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants. . . .

Next up: START.


UPDATE: The Far Right Is Angry-- Expect The Anti-Gay Fundraising Letters By Monday

The Family Research Council, a GOP front and Hate Group, sent their president, Tony Perkins, out to insult gay men and women fighting in America's wars after the vote today.

"Today is a tragic day for our armed forces. The American military exists for only one purpose-- to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda. This may advance the cause of reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality, but it will only do harm to the military's ability to fulfill its mission.

"It is shameful that the Democratic leadership, aided by Republican Senators, has forced through such a radical change in a lame-duck session of Congress. The 1993 law which is to be repealed was adopted only after months of debate and at least a dozen Congressional hearings. The repeal has been forced through only eighteen days after the Pentagon released a massive report, which raised more questions than it answered on the impact the overturning of this policy will have on our nation's military.

"It is clear why this was done: not to enhance the military's ability to accomplish its mission or to enhance national security. Rather, it is a political payoff to a tiny, but loud and wealthy, part of the Democratic base. They knew that the Congress elected last month would never adopt such legislation - certainly not without a more thoughtful and deliberative process.

Another far right sociopath, Bryan Fischer of the so-called American Family Association, another twisted hate group, went even further than Perkins: "We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military because of turncoat Republican senators ... Had the cloture vote failed, we would still have sane moral and sexual standards governing military personnel policy. But sadly those days are gone, perhaps forever... It’s past time for a litmus test for Republican candidates. This debacle shows what happens when party leaders are careless about the allegiance of candidates to the fundamental conservative principles expressed in the party’s own platform." This sick and perverted hatemonger went on to predict the return of the draft. Why? "What young man," he asks salaciously, "wants to voluntarily join an outfit that will force him to shower naked with males who have a sexual interest in him and just might molest him while he sleeps in his bunk?"

#

Streams Of Consciousness, Dec. 18

The Obama Administration definitely sees passage of the job-killing/Social Security-harming tax break for billionaires as a way station on the path to Obama's reelection. They're very much in tune with right-wing polemicist Charles Krauthammer, who has convinced himself that by turning sharply right and repeatedly spitting on the base that elected him in 2008, Obama is headed for a win in 2012. How anyone can fall for that in light of what happened in November to the House Democrats who played that game-- Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Travis Childers (MS), Jim Marshall (GA), Zach Space (OH), Gene Taylor (MS), Michael Arcuri (NY), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA), Lincoln Davis (TN), Glenn Nye (VA), Frank Kratovil (MD), Betsy Markey (CO), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Walt Minnick (ID) and plenty of others, plus conservatove fellow-travelers like John Adler (NJ), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Tom Perriello (VA), Rick Boucher (VA), Michael McMahon (NY), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Ike Skelton (MO), etc. Every one of them played that game-- voting for the anti-family Republican agenda and leaving Democratic voters high and dry-- and every one of them was defeated, some resoundingly, for the same reason: Democratic voters and left-leaning independents did not come out to vote. Republicans and right-leaning independents did-- but, of course, they voted for Republicans.

Idaho Blue Dog Walt Minnick, for example, has accrued one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in the House, voting far more frequently with John Boehner than with Nancy Pelosi on contentious and substantive issues. But it did him no good. Democrats were disgusted by him and refused to even show up to vote, and Republicans and independents flocked to an obscure and extreme teabagger, Raul Labador, who beat him decisively, 126,055 (51%) to 101,870 (41%) and destroyed him in 10 of the 11 counties in this district, including in Ada County-- the big one-- by 10,000 votes, and in Canyon-- the second-biggest-- by an even bigger margin!

This week Minnick said he wouldn't even bother to try to win his seat back. In a farewell interview with the NY Times, Minnick, like most of the defeated Blue Dogs, blames liberal policies for their political demise rather than their own shortcomings as political leaders. He whines about Democrats having voted for cap and trade but never explains why he couldn't even explain his "no" vote to his constituents back home.

"Very little went well in energy and the environment," the 68-year-old representative said in an interview last week. "That was an area where we had a particularly tin ear and where the solution to the biggest issue-- global warming-- proposed by the party ... got transformed by its opposition from cap and trade to cap and tax and became politically toxic almost every place in the country."

Minnick calls the political misjudgments that led to House passage of the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" and the inability to then message the bill or have a fallback position "equally disastrous" to the way the Nixon administration tried to message Watergate.

The process, Minnick said, was an "absolute total failure."

..."It was a failure of Democratic leadership," Minnick continued.

In part that was due to the fact that the solution was so partisan and that there was no buy-in from the Republicans, he said.

Minnick faults Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for running the House in a top-down style similar to that of one of her predecessors, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Minnick is a former Republican-- who worked for Nixon in the '70s-- and although he changed his T-shirt color to blue after the Watergate scandal, in his heart he's always been a Republican, with a typically anti-egalitarian, authoritarian perspective that always puts Big Business ahead of society, ahead of individuals and ahead of liberty. He sees the Democrats as being driven by the extreme left, having little idea what that even means. Like his doofus colleagues in the decimated, clueless Blue Dog Coalition, America is far better off without him in Washington. Actually, he's keeping his place in DC-- and obviously hopes to get a job working for one of the corrupt lobbying firms he served so well while he was a Member of Congress.

Sorry for the tangent; back to the Obama-Krauthammer vision of a conservative consensus that is already a proven loser. "[W]ith his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama." Krauthammer slobberingly describes him as even shrewder and more nimble than the triangulating Bill Clinton.

Remember the question after Election Day: Can Obama move to the center to win back the independents who had abandoned the party in November? And if so, how long would it take? Answer: Five weeks. An indoor record, although an asterisk should denote that he had help-- Republicans clearing his path and sprinkling it with rose petals.

Obama's repositioning to the center was first symbolized by his joint appearance with Clinton, the quintessential centrist Democrat, and followed days later by the overwhelming 81 to 19 Senate majority that supported the tax deal. That bipartisan margin will go a long way toward erasing the partisan stigma of Obama's first two years, marked by Stimulus I, which passed without a single House Republican, and a health-care bill that garnered no congressional Republicans at all.

Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go?

They just showed America where they will go-- they'll stay home. But Krauthammer and other creatures of the Beltway think the whole country functions like their incestuous little tiny world. They don't understand that ordinary American families are hurting and that the billions McConnell and Obama just handed to Republicans was like pulling the scabs off their wounds and pouring tabasco sauce on.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid understand that. For although both did their jobs and helped Obama pass his dreadful tax giveaway, neither showed up for the signing ceremony yesterday. They left that for Obama, Tiny Tim Geithner and their new pal, Miss McConnell. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wasn't there-- probably wasn't invited-- and he sees the travesty as non-stumulative to the economy and embodying the essence of Reaganomics.

A disproportionate share of the $858 billion deal will go to people in the top 1 percent who spend only a fraction of what they earn and save the rest. Their savings are sent around the world to wherever they will earn the highest return. 

The only practical effect of adding $858 billion to the deficit will be to put more pressure on Democrats to reduce non-defense spending of all sorts, including Social Security and Medicare, as well as education and infrastructure.

It is nothing short of Ronald Reagan’s (and David Stockman’s) notorious “starve the beast” strategy. 

In 2012, an election year, when congressional Democrats have less power than they do now, the pressure to extend the Bush tax cuts further will be overwhelming.

Worse yet, the deal adds to the underlying structural problem that caused the Great Recession in the first place.

Since Ronald Reagan was president, median hourly wages have barely budged, and America’s vast working and middle classes have taken home a steadily smaller share of the nation’s income (adjusted for inflation). The typical male worker today is earning less than the typical male worker thirty years ago.

Yet the richest 1 percent of Americans is now taking home a larger percentage of the nation’s income than at any time since 1928. And we recall what happened in 1929.

Unless the vast majority of Americans has enough purchasing power to keep the economy going without going ever more deeply into debt, the economy will eventually go over a cliff.

That’s what happened in 1929 and 2008.

START Stop?

The Senate Republicans have the Democrats in a pickle again. There are enough votes to overcome the great homophobic filibuster against repealing the shameful Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and today is supposed to be the day. Susan Coleman, Ben Nelson, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe are grudgingly on board with the Democrats. But don't start the big coming-out party just yet. Obama is far more-- like way far more-- concerned with the START treaty, and die-hard anti-gay Republicans are now saying, in a last-ditch attempt to screw the gays (or screw the Democrats with that part of their base) that if they repeal DADT, the GOP will defeat START. This strategy has been thought up by two Republicans in trouble with their own reactionary bases back home: desperate closet queen Lindsey Graham and quasi-once-in-a-blue-moon-maninstream conservative Bob Corker. Apparently it smells sweeter in Lindsey's closet, but he and Corker are determined to show the yahoos in South Carolina and Tennessee that they can be hostage-taking assholes too, national security be damned.

"I felt like momentum was growing for START," Corker said, adding that since Reid announced he was holding votes on DADT and DREAM, it has had a "chilling effect."

"I'm watching support for the treaty erode, because of highly partisan political issues being brought up solely because activist groups in the Democratic Party want this done," he continued.

Corker said he wasn't issuing a personal threat, and was merely commenting on the reaction of his Senate GOP colleagues. When I pressed Senator Corker on whether Republican Senators would really base their decision on START on whether Reid held a vote on DADT, Corker didn't answer directly.

"That being thrown into the middle of this debate is causing many Republicans to want to see START pushed back and candidly is causing them to oppose it," Corker said. "This is hardening them against passage of this treaty at this time."

The House Took Other Votes This Week Too

On Thursday evening, the House took up S. 987, a widely popular bill meant to help protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage. It failed to pass under suspension (two-thirds needed), the 241-166 majority in favor falling short. Although a dozen Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with all but 9 (reactionary) Democrats, a baseless whisper campaign that discouraging underage girls from being forced into marriages would somehow increase abortions killed the bill. Anti-choice fanatics on both sides of the aisle did their worst, the repulsive likes of Lipinski Jr, Gene Taylor, Travis Childers and Rick Boucher joining forces with Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and John Boehner to make sure the world is a far more miserable place in the future.

Fortunately, not even Boehner's best efforts were enough to kill S. 3874, the bill to reduce the level of lead in drinking water. Hard to imagine anyone would vote against this? Some industries want to keep polluting-- and they pay their congressional supporters well-- and besides, rich Republicans drink bottled water. The bill passed, on suspension, 226-109, only one scumbag Blue Dog, brine-taking champ Collin Peterson (MN), joining Boehner and his 109 GOP poisoners. Shockingly 31 Republicans just did not have the stomach to vote to kill their own constituents outright and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats and against Boehner and Cantor. Even knee-jerk right-wing kooks who never veer from the party line like David Dreier (CA), Frank Wolf (VA), Paul Ryan (WI) and Aaron Schock (IL) found this one too tough to vote against.

None of those Republicans, on the other hand, found it distasteful enough to vote against H.R. 5510, Marcy Kaptur's bill to aid families facing foreclosure. It needed two-thirds and only managed to win 210-145, not quite enough. Interestingly, 4 House Republicans from Boehner's own state of Ohio were among the half-dozen Republicans crossing the aisle on this one. But they were offset by 5 reactionary Democrats, conservative slobs John Adler (NJ), Dan Boren (OK), Jim Marshall (GA), Michael McMahon (NY) and Scott Owens (NY).

Oh, and there was this: Even if the House approved keeping more lead out of our drinking water, the Senate decided to make it eat-at-your-own-risk when it comes to food safety. Very sad that this is the quality of what passes for political leadership in our disintegrating nation:

Live-Blogging The Repeal Of DADT From Marrakech

Ron Wyden was on the Senate floor early this morning-- next week he gets the prostate cancer surgery-- and he said, quite sensibly, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell is wrong. I don't care who you love, if you love this country enough to risk your life for it. You shouldn't have to hide who you are. You ought to be able to serve. (Now there's a concept Miss McConnell, who was booted out of the Army after 10 days for groping a private's privates, Mark Kirk and Lindsey Graham will never understand. All three sickening, hypocritical closet queens are expected to vote no today.) "The history of our wonderful nation, continued Wyden, "is spotted with wrongs, but this institution is at its best when it corrects them. That's the opportunity we will have today." Speaking for the 3 closet cases, a nasty and bitter old John McCain grumbled on the floor of the Senate, "I'm aware that this vote will probably pass today... and there will be high fives all over the liberal bastions of America, and we'll see the talk shows tomorrow, a bunch of people talking about how great it is. Most of them never have served in the military or maybe not even known someone in the military."

No matter how bad much of a disappointment Obama has been, the only choice was between him and the bitter, nasty, bigoted creature quoted above. Bigoted conservatives have already defeated the DREAM Act. The only Republicans with the guts to do the right thing were William Bennett (UT), Richard Lugar (IN), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). Democrats running across the aisle in the other direction to vote with the GOP were Ben Nelson (NE), Max Baucus (MT), Jon Tester (MT-- big disappointment, but he's up for reelection and scared), Mark Pryor (AR), and Kay Hagan (NC). Gun-totin' macho man Joe Manchin (D-WV) hid under his, confused and desk trembling, and couldn't work up the courage to vote at all.

The repulsive Republican filibuster of equality for gay men and women in the armed forces was just defeated 63-33. George Voinovich (R-OH) and closet case Mark Kirk (R-IL) were the last minute GOP aisle crossers in favor. Now it will only take 51 votes to pass the bill and whoever is afraid to voted for equality can avoid it. The cowards afraid to vote on this one were Manchin again, plus Republicans who were expected to vote NO, Jim Bunning, Judd Gregg, and Orrin Hatch. I guess we should thank all 4 of them in a way. DNC Chair Tim Kaine, in an elegant slap at bitter old bigot John McCain, included the term "high-fives all around" in his congratulations statement. After the vote President Obama issued this statement:

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

And they did. The final vote to repeal the heinous DADT was 65-31, two more than the vote to pass cloture and shut down the McCain hate-filled filibuster. Burr and Ensign were the two Republicans who switched sides and voted for LBGT equality at the last minute and once repeal was assured. More than Joe Manchin, still frozen in fear under his desk, did!

Sunday Classics "loose ends": A previously "missing" performance of Telemann's Viola Concerto -- one to LOVE! -- resurfaces

by Ken

It happens sometimes that a record I have in mind for use for Sunday Classics turns up unavailable. Sometimes I can't figure out where I've filed it (like a CD we're going to be hearing from tomorrow, featuring works for voice and orchestra by Mozart and Richard Strauss, and could plausibly be filed under "Mozart" or "Strauss" or the singer, Christine Schäfer). Sometimes I've already plucked it off the shelf and set it . . . well, somewhere. Sometimes the damned thing is just nowhere to be found! And then, until recently, LPs were disqualified because of their LP-ness.

This, then, is our week for such "loose ends": some records I contemplated incorporating into previous posts but wasn't able to by reason of . . . well, see above. (I think we've got examples of all the above categories.) Or at least some records that have subsequently become availab.e

Tonight's featured selection falls into the category of the "mysteriously missing." When we heard the Telemann G major Viola Concerto, you may recall that I was unable to offer the recording I said had made me fall in love with the piece in the first place. That fine old Musical Heritage Society LP (licensed from Erato) of four Telemann concertos conducted by Kurt Redel just wasn't on the shelf, though by some odd chance another MHS LP (also licensed from Erato!) featuring the Viola Concerto was there. Eventually one day it just turned up, lying around -- off the shelf, from which I still have no recollection of removing it.


GEORG SCHMID AND KURT REDEL PLAY TELEMANN

The Erato/MHS performance we heard before, with Philipp Naegele as soloist, is OK, and so is the other recording I offered, which I happened to have an a cheap CD I picked up somewhere. But really, I don't think there's any comparison with this one. Both the soloist, Georg Schmid, and conductor Redel (seen here looking very distinguished, some 40 years after recording our Telemann LP) have imagined the piece in terms of actual phrasing, where lines are shaped not just with remarkable beauty but as an expression of real human communicative impulses.

TELEMANN: Viola Concerto in G
[0:00] i. Largo
[3:35] ii. Allegro
[6:17] iii. Andante
[10:15] iv. Presto
Georg Schmid, viola; Munich Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra, Kurt Redel, cond. Erato/Musical Heritage Society, recorded c1961


NOW WE HAVE A TELEMANN CONCERTO BONUS

It seems the least I can do for you. Obviously, this is from the same Erato/MHS LP. This Flute Concerto doesn't seem to me to have the compulsive listenability of the Viola Concerto, but it's a pleasant enough piece. What's more, here our conductor gets to show off his virtuoso-soloist side.

TELEMANN: Flute Concerto in D
[0:00] i. Andante
[4:30] ii. Allegro
[8:40] iii. Largo
[13:17] iv. Allegro assai
Munich Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra, Kurt Redel, flute and cond. Erato/Musical Heritage Society, recorded c1961
[UPDATE: Sorry about the glitch with the original audio file, which lopped off the end of the concerto. And then while I was fixing it, there was a brief period when there was no audio file attached to this. Should be good now, though!]


AND TOMORROW NIGHT, ANOTHER "LOOSE END"

As noted above we have Christine Schäfer singing, yes, Mozart and Richard Strauss -- with Claudio Abbado conducting. The key work is Mozart's irresistible motet "Exsultate, jubilate," but we've also got Mozart and Strauss bonuses. Sunday's "loose ends" I'm calling "From Russia with love": unrelated works by Rachmaninoff (six preludes played by Sviatoslav Richter) and what I'm calling "A Sort-Of West Coast Firebird," another hybrid performance of the complete Stravinsky ballet.

#

For an authentic "Village Christmas," how can you go wrong with authentic Dem and GOP tchotchkes?

"Capitol Hill Club Merchandise Makes Great Gifts!" That's the message of the GOP club's holiday merchandise page. For that special gift that tells the giftee how you really feel about him/her, check out these cherished GOP tchotchkes. Also available: such treasures as computer bag (adjustable strap, black, $30), men's silk tie & women's silk scarf (red, yellow or periwinkle, made in France, $35; there's also a combo pack of the cap, shirt and bag, a $65 value, for only $55!), cuff links (white/blue or blue/gold, $30), golf divot tool ($12), crystal paper weight ($45), Limoges porcelain box ($45). Um, wait a second there -- "made in France"???

by Ken

I know I cast some unkind aspersions on latterday political polling yesterday. Let me make amends by pointing out that, if there's anything those polls keep telling us the American people love, it's:

* their Congress, and

* their two major political parties.

Naturally it's only to be expected that these loves will carry over into patriotic Americans' all-important holiday shopping, bearing in mind that, in the wake of 9/11, as former President George W. Bush cautioned us, if we don't shop till we drop, the terrorists win. And who better to service this patriotic longing than our pal Al Kamen, who has this to report in his Washington Post "In the Loop" column today?

A party Christmas?

Been working your tail off during the lame-duck and haven't had time to shop for Christmas gifts for politically interested friends and family? Don't worry. There's still time - as long as you move with some dispatch.

Lots of local tourist shops and online gift stores sell Republican and Democratic party wares. But buying in those places is pretty tacky if you're a real inside-the-Beltway type. After all, you want your out-of-town relatives to know they got genuine swag from the actual combatants

Both the Democratic and Republican House campaign committees have a wide assortment of mostly lower-end stuff: baby clothes, baseball caps, T-shirts, mugs, notepads, pens and such.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has some similar items, but its GOP counterpart apparently doesn't have a shop, at least nothing on the Web.

For more upscale items, you might want to try the two parties' traditional watering holes on the Hill: The Republicans' Capitol Hill Club and the National Democratic Club. Neither offers a particularly wide array of goods, but they do have fine-quality ties, cuff links and such.

One problem is that the Democrats sell their stuff only at the club, and you've got to be a member or be with one to go in. (What happened to the party of the people, of inclusion and all that?) So it's who you know.

The GOP club, however, lets you shop online and, even better, has a keen sense of its clientele's tastes. Thus we find a "Limoges porcelain box" with elephants on the side selling for $45, a crystal paperweight for $45, and, yes, a "golf divot tool" embossed with a GOP seal for just $12. (A sure-fire dazzler at the Legends golf course in Massillon, Ohio.)

The GOP club also has men's silk ties and women's silk scarves with cavorting elephants playing musical instruments. They come in red, yellow or periwinkle, we are told, and are made in France.

French ties? Have we forgotten the Coalition of the Willing?

SPEAKING OF CONGRESS AND OUR BELOVED POLITICAL
PARTIES, ANY CHANCE OF SHUTTING "MISS MITCH" UP?

Am I the only one who experiences a seizure of actual physical revulsion whenever Sen. "Miss Mitch" McConnell opens that lying trap of his to yammer about "what the American people want"? Does anyone believe Auntie Mitch either knows or cares what the American people want? Except, of course, insofar as it helps his people to strategize force-feeding them the hooey inspired by his own reactionary political agenda and, more important, that of the moneyed folk who make it possible for him to continue to enjoy the lifestyle he's grown accustomed to as the Senate's chief Republican whore.

#

Streams of Consciousness, Dec. 17

South Florida voters can't blame DWT for not warning them before the election-- over and over-- about what a crook, an exceptional crook, David M. Rivera was, is and has always been. In the end FL-25 voters gave the open seat to Rivera over Democrat Joe Garcia 74,386 (53%) to 60,123 (42%). One has to wonder if they're starting to feel some buyers remorse now that it's come out that the Miami-Dade state attorney's office is investigating more than $500,000 in secret payments from the owners of the Flagler Dog Track to a company tied to Rivera and his mother.

Most of the money was paid in early 2008, weeks after Rivera-- then a member of the Florida House of Representatives-- helped run a political campaign backed by the dog track to win voter approval for Las Vegas-style slot machines at parimutuel venues in Miami-Dade County.

The dog track-- now called the Magic City Casino-- made three payments totaling $510,000 to Millennium Marketing, a company currently co-managed by Rivera's 70-year-old mother. Investigators are still trying to determine if Rivera himself received any of the money, or if anything about the transaction was illegal, according to sources close to the inquiry.

Rivera basically managed the pro-slots campaign and is widely rumored to have been paying off other Florida Republicans-- including teabagger Marco Rubio-- to support it. Rivera refuses to discuss the investigation with the media but his damage control p.r. firm issued a blanket statement, as they always do, denying everything.

In the statement, Rivera said he was "designated by Millennium'' to work on the slots campaign after the firm was hired by Flagler, and added he has not been contacted by investigators. At the time the contract was signed, Millennium's sole corporate officer was Rivera's godmother, Ileana Medina.

But Roberto Martinez, an attorney for the dog track, said it was Rivera who first approached the track owners in 2006 asking to manage the slots campaign, and it was Rivera who suggested that the contract go through Millennium, rather than to Rivera directly. Flagler's contract with Millennium was signed by both Rivera and Medina.

Flagler's owners "wanted to make sure they retained David's personal services,'' Martinez said. Flagler's owners never dealt with Medina or Rivera's mother, Daisy Magarino, who was named a corporate officer of Millennium days after the Flagler contract expired.

In a later statement to the Herald, Rivera confirmed that he suggested the contract with Millennium after Flagler's owners "expressed interest'' in pursuing the referendum.

In October, while campaigning for Congress, Rivera told the Herald he only "helped'' with the slots vote, and denied having a management role in the parimutuel campaign or receiving any payment.

But under the October 2006 agreement with Flagler, Rivera was described as the "strategic director'' of the pro-slots campaign, and its "Top Leader of Chain of Command of All Campaign Consultants and Campaign Activities,'' according to the contract, which was reviewed by the Miami Herald.

Martinez said Flagler did nothing wrong, and the company's owners are cooperating with the investigation.

Rivera "was very good at what he did, at directing the political campaign. He worked very hard,'' Martinez said. "Our clients haven't done anything wrong. They have nothing to hide.''

But in an interview with the Herald earlier this year, a Flagler official denied any contract with Rivera. Flagler's vice president, Isadore Havenick, told the newspaper: "He gave us advice, but he was never hired by us.''

...Martinez said Havenick's statement is not inconsistent, because the payments from the company went to Millennium, not to Rivera directly. "We don't know where the money went,'' Martinez said.

The payments from the track to Millennium were never publicly disclosed. Millennium was paid directly by Flagler, not through a political action committee Flagler established with two other Miami-Dade parimutuels to finance the campaign. The committee's expenses, which totaled more than $6.7 million, were disclosed under campaign finance laws.

...According to records reviewed by the Herald, the track also agreed to pay Millennium another $500,000 in monthly installments of $20,000-- the remainder of a "success fee'' owed to Millennium after the referendum passed in the Jan. 29, 2008, vote. But neither Rivera nor Millennium ever collected on it.

Rivera did not report receiving any income from Flagler Dog Track or Millennium Marketing between 2006 and 2008 in financial disclosure forms filed with the state Ethics Commission.

In the forms, Rivera first reported that he worked during those years as a consultant for the U.S. Agency for International Development. the Herald reported in October that USAID had no record that Rivera worked for the agency; Rivera then amended his disclosure forms, omitting any reference to USAID-- but without listing any other source of income except his $30,000 annual salary as a state lawmaker.

Rivera did report working as a consultant through Millennium for other clients from 2002 to 2005. At the time, however, Millennium was not an active company, state records show.

Magarino, Rivera's mother, first founded a company called Millennium Marketing Strategies in 2000, but it was dissolved a year later. In 2006, a new Millennium was founded by Medina, a longtime business partner of Magarino's, records show.

Magarino reappeared as a Millennium officer in April 2008, four days after the final payment from Flagler. Rivera himself has never been an officer of the company.

Medina and Margarino could not be reached for comment.

With the election of Rivera and Rubio, Miami is now officially a Banana Republic.

Has Rahm Emanuel Ruined Chicago Yet?

Well, no; he hasn't been elected mayor yet. Voting is slated for February 22. In fact, it isn't even certain that he will be allowed on the ballot, since he's a non-resident and the Board of Elections hearings have dragged on for almost a week already. Chicago law says candidates for mayor must have lived in the city for 12 months before the election. Emanuel and his family live in DC and have no home in Chicago.

There are about 20 candidates trying to get onto the ballot besides Emanuel but the latest poll shows him the best known and, obviously the fave to win, beating out "undecided 32-30%. To win, one needs to get over 50%, so it's likely Emanuel will face a runoff. The other top-performing candidates so far are former Chicago Public Schools chief Gery Chico and U.S. Rep. Danny Davis each had 9%, state Sen. James Meeks at 7% and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun at 6%. According to the poll, Emanuel "is out front on the strength of his support from lakefront wards, white voters and the wealthy."

Obama Mania Has Died Down In Africa... Just Like In America

Right after Obama was elected, I was traveling around Mali. You could barely go to a tiny village in the middle of nowhere accessible only by sturdy 4-WD vehicle where you wouldn't find Obama pictures, campaign stickers and America flags. Mali was awash with them. All of Africa was. Everyone was in love with Obama and with America. That's over. Yesterday in the market here in Marrakech where some guy was selling a train set (made in China, of course) with Bush chasing bin-Laden endlessly around the track. I asked him if he had one with Obama and he said to just paint the Bush figure black because it's the only difference between the two.

I first ran into Sam Graham-Felsen when he was blogging up a storm for Obama during the 2008 campaign. I didn't know many professional bloggers back then. Today Sam is a blogging/new media consultant and earlier today the Washington Post published an OpEd by him asking Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?

In the wake of President Obama's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, pundits have focused on how Obama has alienated the left. But the issue isn't the left - it's the list.

Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unprecedented e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independents and even Republicans-- and they were ready to be mobilized.

I worked as Obama's chief blogger during his presidential campaign, and my primary focus was telling the stories of these supporters, many of whom had never been engaged in politics or were reengaging after years of disillusionment. There was a common thread in my conversations with the hundreds of people who gave time, sweat and small donations-- that amounted to $500 million-- to Obama's campaign.

They were inspired by Obama's promise to upend Washington by governing from the bottom up. "The change we need doesn't come from Washington," Obama told them. "It comes to Washington."

Yet at seemingly every turn, Obama has chosen to play an inside game. Instead of actively engaging supporters in major legislative battles, Obama has told them to sit tight as he makes compromises behind closed doors.

During the battle over tax cuts, Obama's grass-roots network, Organizing for America, was silent. An OFA spokesman said that the network would engage supporters when the time is "ripe." But many people feel the time is ripe now-- that tax cuts for millionaires in the midst of cuts in basic services and a spiraling deficit are unacceptable-- and they don't understand why Obama won't let them fight.

And when OfA has been given marching orders, more often than not, it's marching orders against the progressive ideals and values that helped sweep the little known 2 year Illinois senator into office out of the blue. People wanted "not Bush" and they could read into "hope and change" anything they wanted. Too few people looked at Obama's conservative voting record. He was consistently down at the very bottom of the Democratic barrel, worse than Lieberman, better than Ben Nelson... sort of the same as Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. That's what we nominated instead of Hillary Clinton, who wasn't quite as identifiable with CHANGE.

If the White House wants to keep its grass-roots supporters at bay during major legislative fights, that's its choice. But there's a larger problem looming.

Obama needs this list in 2012-- and he needs its members to dig much deeper than in the last election. The Citizens United ruling has allowed campaigns to become an unprecedented corporate cash free-for-all - and Obama will likely need to raise far more than $500 million from the grass roots to be competitive.

While Obama's political team intensely focuses on independents, the grass-roots list seems like an afterthought. Every time Obama chooses to compromise behind closed doors, and keeps OFA quiet, he might win over a few independents. But he's also conveying a message that the grass roots doesn't really matter, that the bottom-up ethos of his candidacy doesn't apply to his presidency.

Personally I think the horse has left the barn. Most Democrats still don't realize that Obama's Conservative Consensus is all he was ever about... but they will. At that point, even Palin may be able to beat him as Democrats and left-leaning independents stay home on election day, just like they did last month.

Congresswoman Yvette Clarke is an African-American freshman representing Brownsville, Flatbush, Crown Heights, Park Slope in Brooklyn. It's one of the most heavily Democratic districts in America. Thursday she voted against the Obama-McConnell job-skilling tax giveaway to millionaires. She told her constituents that she voted against it because "at a time when our nation is facing a 9.8% unemployment rate, with Social Security recipients being denied a cost of living adjustment for the second year in a row, and the most obstinate economic down turn in a generation, I could not in good conscious vote to provide an estate tax give-away and extend the Bush era tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals in our nation. These are an extension of the same fiscal policies put in place under the Bush Administration that has dramatically increased our nation’s deficit as well as added to the challenges of the recovery of our nation’s economy... the damaging results these tax policies will have on the deficit will ultimately empower Republicans to attack and dismantle the social safety-net that residents of my district rely upon. I refuse to be complicit with policies that reward the greed of a handful of our nation’s wealthiest individuals, while hard working Americans and their families are left with policies that leave them struggling in the cold now and for generations to come.”

Another staunch Obama supporter, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson also voted against the bill. “This bill gives more money to the rich and their families, who do not need it. Large parts of it will not create a single job, but it will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national deficit and debt. We cannot afford it and I do not support it... We got the bum rush. The President and Senate Republicans shut everyone else out of the negotiations. Congressional leaders shoved this bill through without a single hearing. We should not be giving away hundreds of billions of dollars to people who don’t need it, without asking questions in committees, marking up the legislation, or reading the bill." On top of that, he singled out 4 areas he was especially unhappy with:

·         Extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest of the rich, which will add an estimated $150 billion to the federal deficit over the next two years;
·         Revamping the estate tax to give six thousand of the richest families in the country an additional $23 billion to boost their children’s trust funds, without creating jobs or stimulating the economy;

·         Giving away $150 billion in corporate taxes, by allowing businesses to write off all capital expenditures in 2011 for items made in foreign countries, and items that they would have purchased anyway, which effectively will “zero out” the corporate income tax; and

·         Cutting the payroll taxes that fund Social Security, which creates the risk of weakening the program and/or forcing a reduction in benefits.

If Obama is losing Members of Congress like Yvette Clarke and Alan Grayson, he better hope there are a lot of Republicans out there who think like right-wing propagandist Charles Krauthammer... and figure out a way to get them to stop watching Fox and listening to Limbaugh.



The Health Care Bill Was Ruled Unconstitutional By A GOP Hack With An Outsized Ego And A Reputation As A Drama Queen

in 2007 Henry Hudson wrote a largely unread autobiography, Quest For Justice, in which he unmasked himself as someone primarily driven by a desire to be in the spotlight.

Throughout the book, he boasts of his ability to generate media coverage; describes relationships with celebrities in Washington and Hollywood; and recalls the boredom of legal work removed from the public eye. ("Perhaps it was ego," he remarks.) At one point, Hudson acknowledges that he was gunning for "a full-time gig as a network legal commentator." Hudson ultimately accepted that he "was never going to make it big in the broadcasting field," but he never lost his appetite for attention. And, if his ruling against President Obama's landmark health care law stands, Hudson might have finally completed his lifelong quest for glory.

The Ruling Elite vs The Real America

Let's end this episode with a discussion Jon Stewart had with some NYC 9-11 first responders on how they view the U.S. Senate's filibuster of their healthcare reimbursement. Notice John Boehner isn't the only weeping girly-man in the Republican congressional leadership... and if you think Hitler was somehow inately different from Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, watch the clip again:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Will the new light shed on the Eisenhower Farewell Address encourage attention to its substance?

President Eisenhower warns about the "military-industrial complex" in his Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961. (The complete speech can be found in two parts, here and here.)

"Speaking three nights before the end of his Presidency, in 1961, Eisenhower warned of a 'scientific-technological élite' that would dominate public policy, and of a 'military-industrial complex' that would claim 'our toil, resources, and livelihood.' In the decades since, Eisenhower's warning has seemed prescient. The convergence of American military might and a powerful arms industry has characterized wars from Vietnam to Iraq, and the web of power that he described seems present in American society today."

-- Jim Newton, in a Dec. 20 New Yorker
"Talk of the Town" piece, "Ike's Speech"

by Ken

"One of the twentieth century's most important speeches" Jim Newton says of the Eisenhower Farewell Address, and it's hard to disagree, except to note the speech has been honored much more in lip service than in real engagement. It really is a heckuva speech. But as Newton notes, it has always been a puzzle -- beginning with its very existence.

Even at the time the speech seemed to come out of nowhere. The audacious substance and challenging seriousness of it didn't much fit with anyone's image of the ex-general. (That he was also an ex-president of an Ivy League university doesn't seem to come into it.) Inevitably, the suspicion arose that the speech really didn't have much to do with him, that it was somebody else's idea and he merely read it for the camera on his way out of the White House.

[G]enerations have wondered what prompted the most celebrated general of the Second World War to leave the White House with a warning about the military. Eisenhower"s grandson David writes in a new memoir that Ike "developed a kind of split personality about the most controversial speech of his life," downplaying its significance to old military and business friends while professing pride in it to others.

Some historians have regarded the Farewell Address as an afterthought, hastily composed at the end of 1960 as an adjunct to the 1961 State of the Union. Others have regarded it as the soulful expression of an aging President who was determined to warn the American people of dangers ahead.

Now we know how little this reflects of the true story. How we know is the news element of Newton's piece, and it's a dandy story.

A few months ago, Grant Moos was closing his boathouse, near Hackensack, Minnesota, as he does every summer, tying up loose ends, sweeping up debris. This year, though, his sister Kathy insisted that it was finally time to do something about six cardboard boxes that for decades had been stacked in a corner next to a 7.5-horsepower Evinrude engine.

The boxes belonged to their father, Malcolm Moos, a journalist and academic who was a speechwriter for President Dwight Eisenhower. When Moos left the White House, in 1961, he donated some of his papers to the Eisenhower Presidential Library, in Abilene, Kansas, but he kept some, too.

The boxes were full of pine needles, acorns, and mouse droppings, and smelled of campfires. As Moos looked through the contents, he came across a batch of folders marked "Farewell Address." He looked up the Eisenhower Library, and sent the boxes off to Abilene.

At first, the library did not know what it had. As archivists began to go through the papers, however, they discovered a trove of drafts, memos, and research materials that had long been missing from the record of one of the twentieth century"s most important speeches.

Among the papers were 21 previously unknown drafts of the speech, for a total of 29.

Eisenhower was a rigorous editor. Major speeches such as the State of the Union might be refined ten or twelve times. Even by those standards, however, the Farewell Address was special. Eisenhower personally rewrote the opening passages, and his brother Milton overhauled the entire speech. It was batted back and forth for months.

Above all,

the Moos papers make clear that the address, far from being an afterthought, was among the most deliberate speeches of Eisenhower"s Presidency. Regarded in his day as inarticulate and detached, Eisenhower in these papers is fully engaged, grappling with the language of the text and the radical questions that it raised.

Contrary to what some historians have speculated, it was not Moos or his assistant, Ralph Williams, who suggested a farewell address. On May 20, 1959, Moos was meeting with the President, when Eisenhower proposed an idea for "one speech he would like very much to make." It was to be, Moos recorded, "a ten-minute farewell address to the Congress and the American people." Moos deemed the idea "brilliant" and began making notes.

It's now clear how much this speech mattered to Ike, who really seems to have had a strong idea of the speech he wanted to give.

One core idea dominates every version: the first draft described "the conjunction of a large and permanent military establishment and a large and permanent arms industry." Policing it would require "all the organizing genius we possess" to insure "that liberty and security are both well served." It added, "We must be especially careful to avoid measures which would enable any segment of this vast military-industrial complex to sharpen the focus of its power." Through scores of revisions, that idea persisted. As delivered, the speech memorably read, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Newton signs off with "a reminder of the contingency of historical research."

Had Moos vacationed in Florida rather than in Minnesota, the documents might have disintegrated. Instead, the memos and drafts survived, snug in a boathouse corner, rejoining history just in time for the fiftieth anniversary of Eisenhower's address.

AFTERTHOUGHT: FOR FULL AUDIO
AND A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPEECH --

The best thing that could come of this new understanding of how the Eisenhower Farewell Address came into being would be some sincere interest in what the retiring president felt so compelled to say to the American public. (It would be hard to imagine any more recent president venturing anything remotely like this speech on his way out the door. Most of them, after all, have been integral parts of the problem Eisenhower was trying to warn us about.) Here you can find a full text, vouchsafed as a transciption of the MP3 audio version that's also included.

#