Category: Republicans

Tearing Down the Reagan Myth

Posted on by TL
Ronald Reagan statue

From Philly.com:

This Friday marks the 99th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. You’re going to be hearing a lot about the Gipper this week, and you’re going to be hearing a lot about him for the next 12 months. Already, a Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission — signed into law by President Obama last June, at a ceremony attended by Nancy Reagan — is busy planning a slew of Feb. 6, 2011, events that may take the nation one step closer toward Reagan’s political canonization. Meanwhile, day in and day out, the legacy of the 40th president still looms large over the national conversation, some 21 years after he left the Oval Office and nearly six years after his death — thanks in part to a deliberate campaign of distortion by modern conservatives, a Reagan myth has been used to justify disastrous spending policies at home and disastrous militarism abroad .

This week also marks the new paperback release of my book, now slightly retitled: "Tear Down This Myth: The Right Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy." When I was working on the book in 2008 in preparation for the original hardcover version, I did worry somewhat whether the likely election of a center-left Democratic president would render as moot the power of the Reagan myth. As it turned out, the inauguration of Barack Obama and the arrival of a large Democratic majority in Congress instead showed the limits of government in the face of this powerful philosophy that is loosely based on Reagan’s 1980s presidency but distorts or exaggerates the reality of much of what happened in those years.

The Reagan banner as carried by today’s conservatives involves deep and unrelenting mistrust of the government to solve any problems, even as crises from joblessness and unsound fiscal policies and a lack of a serious approach to energy and global warming fester from a lack of… problem solving. Reagan’s predecessor, Jimmy Carter, captured the White House in the election after Watergate by promising "a government as good as the people," but when Carter stumbled for a host of reasons, Reagan was elected with a much different message. In his 1981 inauguration, he said: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems — government is the problem."

Little remembered is that in the same speech, Reagan also said: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back." But is the first message — that there is no government solution to any problem, no matter how complex — that has been hammered home by the powerful right-wing infrastructure, most notably talk radio and now the highly rated Fox News Channel on TV, that has endured and grown since Reagan’s tenure in office.

More here.

Buy Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future here.

Weekly Address: President Obama Pledges to Rein in Budget Deficits (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 30, 2010.

At this time last year, amidst headlines about banks on the verge of collapse and job losses of 700,000 a month, we received another troubling piece of news about our economy. Our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate – the largest six-month decline in 50 years. Our factories and farms were producing less; our businesses were selling less; and more job losses were on the horizon.

One year later, according to numbers released this past week, this trend has reversed itself. For the past six months, our economy has been growing again. And last quarter, it grew more quickly than at any time in the past six years.

This is a sign of progress. And it’s an affirmation of the difficult decisions we made last year to pull our financial system back from the brink and get our economy moving again.

But when so many people are still struggling – when one in ten Americans still can’t find work, and millions more are working harder and longer for less – our mission isn’t just to grow the economy. It’s to grow jobs for folks who want them, and ensure wages are rising for those who have them. It’s not just about improvements we see in quarterly statistics, but ones people feel in their daily lives – a bigger paycheck; more security; the ability to give your kids a decent shot in life and still have enough to retire one day yourself.

That’s why job creation will be our number one focus in 2010. We’ll put more Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country. And since the true engines of job creation are America’s businesses, I’ve proposed tax credits to help them hire new workers, raise wages, and invest in new plants and equipment. I also want to eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and help small businesses get the loans they need to open their doors and expand their operations.

But as we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long – deficits that won’t just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now.

There are certain core principles our families and businesses follow when they sit down to do their own budgets. They accept that they can’t get everything they want and focus on what they really need. They make tough decisions and sacrifice for their kids. They don’t spend what they don’t have, and they make do with what they’ve got.

It’s time their government did the same. That’s why I’m pleased that the Senate has just restored the pay-as-you-go law that was in place back in the 1990s. It’s no coincidence that we ended that decade with a $236 billion surplus. But then we did away with PAYGO – and we ended the next decade with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Reinstating this law will help get us back on track, ensuring that every time we spend, we find somewhere else to cut.

I’ve also proposed a spending freeze, so that as we increase investments in things we need, like job creation and middle class tax cuts – we cut spending on those we don’t, like tax cuts for oil companies and investment fund managers, and programs that are redundant, obsolete, or simply ineffective. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected – and neither will national security – but all other discretionary government programs will.

Finally, I’ve called for a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission – a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would sit down and hammer out concrete deficit-reduction proposals by a certain deadline. Because we’ve heard plenty of talk and a lot of yelling on TV about deficits, and it’s now time to come together and make the painful choices we need to eliminate those deficits.

This past week, 53 Democrats and Republicans voted for this commission in the Senate. But it failed when seven Republicans who had co-sponsored this idea in the first place suddenly decided to vote against it.

Now, it’s one thing to have an honest difference of opinion about something. I will always respect those who take a principled stand for what they believe, even if I disagree with them.

But what I won’t accept is changing positions because it’s good politics. What I won’t accept is opposition for opposition’s sake. We cannot have a serious discussion and take meaningful action to create jobs and control our deficits if politicians just do what’s necessary to win the next election instead of what’s best for the next generation.

I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who’s serious about solving the real problems facing our people and our country. I welcome anyone who comes to the table in good faith to help get our economy moving again and fulfill this country’s promise. That’s why we were elected in the first place. That’s what the American people expect and deserve. And that’s what we must deliver.

Thank you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Should a 12-Year-Old Child Face Porn Charges for Sexting?

Posted on by TL

There’s a legal situation brewing in Northwest Indiana that should give us all pause regarding the purpose of the law.

First, from the Sun-Times:

A 12-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl from Northwest Indiana are accused of "sexting" each other, officials said.

Each could be charged with child exploitation and possession of child pornography for allegedly sending nude photos of themselves over their cell phones, officials said.

Earlier today, I wrote about 12-year-old Jordan Brown who was 11 when he was charged as an adult with two counts of homicide for the shotgun shooting of Kenzie Houk, 26, and her unborn child in February. As of this writing, Judge Dominick Motto has not yet ruled on whether Jordan will be tried as an adult or a juvenile. Now, we have two young children possibly being charged with child exploitation and possession of child pornography for allegedly sending nude photos of themselves over their cell phones.

What the hell are we doing? Is the purpose of law to punish, or to assist society to move to a higher place? A better place?

I know the two cases are very different. On the one hand, we have a child charged as an adult in a double homicide case. On the other hand, we have two kids sending nude pictures of themselves over their cell phones. However, in both cases, we have the potential for very adult charges against children.

Ask yourself this: if the person arrested for "sexting" nude pictures of 12 and 13-year-old children was 50, would you be more angry at the alleged murderer (if he was an adult), or the guy or gal sending JPEGs of children?

I would be furious with the 50-year-old dude sending out pics of kids. Given the number of murders committed by adults in the Chicagoland area every year, I’m afraid to say, I don’t know if I would even read that story. That’s not necessarily right. That’s just where I am, I guess.

What is the purpose of our legal system? Is it better to punish a child — a child — for life, or should we help that child move to responsible adulthood? Would you want your child charged with pornography for doing something stupid children might do because we give them the phones, and therefore the means, to do so? What would you have done with that technology as a 12-year-old? How responsible would you have been?

Do we really want a legal system that forces our children — our children — to become registered sex offenders for life … at age 12?

Justice Samuel Alito Says ‘Not True’ During State Of The Union When Prez Calls Out SCOTUS

Posted on by TL

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s lips. He’s sitting on the far left (no pun intended) behind Cheif Justice John Roberts. Justice Alito says, "Not true," when President Obama shares his reservations about the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate spending in elections.

Watch the video closely.

Obama Declares ‘I Don’t Quit’ in First State of the Union Address

Posted on by TL

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Declaring “I don’t quit,”‘ an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with fresh stimulus spending. Defiant despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.

“Change has not come fast enough,” Obama said before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. “As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it’s time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.”

Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day’s barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins.

A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress, and to resist the temptation to substitute a smaller-bore solution for the far-reaching changes he wants.

“Do not walk away from reform,” he implored. “Not now. Not when we are so close.”

Republicans applauded the president when he entered the chamber, and even craned their necks and welcomed Michelle Obama when she took her seat. But the warm feelings of bipartisanship disappeared early.

I don’t know how “embattled” President Obama is right now. Every president is “embattled.” I found the tone of the SOTU remarkable. But Congress needs to remember how to be a parliament, and they’re not there yet. Republicans say, “NO!” Democrats let the tail wag the dog and give up the fight. The intelligence factor in Congress is rather low right now, I fear, on both sides of the aisle. Republicans are too dumb to realize that there is more to life than cheap politics, and Democrats are too dumb to know how to make Congress work.

Too bad.

I’m glad this president does not “give up.” We still have work to do.

Christopher Hayes: Health Care Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by TL

From Chris Hayes at The Nation:

For the first time since the Massachusetts debacle, I’m cautiously optimistic about the fate of health care reform. Here’s why: In the wake of Scott Brown’s election, what was most dispiriting was the total leadership vacuum and chaotic, every-man-for-himself atmosphere among congressional Democrats. There didn’t seem to be any hard consensus on what to do next. Some said: break it up into smaller pieces, radically pare down the bill, go back and find Republican support (ha!) or let the thing die. Every one of these options would actually spell the death of health care reform, and one of the most stunning legislative failures in recent memory. To even consider such a move seemed insane, and yet those of us paid to observe Congress have spent the last two weeks watching, with mouth agape, as congressional Democrats slowly raised a loaded gun to their collective mouths and volubly considered pulling the trigger.

But sanity has, tentatively, provisionally prevailed. After spending much of yesterday talking to folks on capitol hill, it’s clear there is increasingly consensus on a path forward: As I explained last night on Rachel Maddow, it involves a few steps, but is relatively straightforward. The House has to come up with a list of changes to the Senate bill that will get them to 218 votes (and will also pass muster with the procedural constraints of “reconciliation”. For more on that you can listen to last week’s episode of The Breakdown.) They then send those changes to the Senate leadership, which can pass them through reconciliation, a process that requires a simple majority. Once that process has moved forward or (better!) is completed, the House can then pass in quick succession the Senate bill, and the amended fix.

To be honest, I want to read this in depth later on.  Just placing a link to Hayes’ post here so I can come back to it later on.

But this is good news.

Weekly Address: President Obama Addresses This Week’s Supreme Court Decision (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

NYTimes: The Supreme Court’s Blow to Democracy

Posted on by TL

From the New York Times:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.

The Times is right. If Congress does not act, your vote will be meaningless. You are a person. A corporation is not. Corporations will now be able to give as much money as they want to any and all politicians.

This is incredibly insane.

Olbermann: U.S. Government Completely For Sale

Posted on by TL

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

With no limits on campaign financing, corporations will take over the government.

I was flabbergasted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions, the New York Times said today.

The ramifications of this are incredible. Everything Keith Olbermann says in the video above is true. Sometimes Keith overreacts. Not this time.

I didn’t get a chance to listen to Thom Hartmann today, but I’m sure he was beside himself. Hartmann has been arguing for a long, long time that corporations are not people. He’s right. A corporation is a legal entity which exists on paper only. The First Amendment should not apply at all, but it was the First Amendment which persuaded five of nine justices otherwise.

This is incredibly unnerving. The New York Times editorial board is correct: "Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy."

Conservatives Longing For More Of Ross Perot’s ‘You People’

Posted on by TL

I chanced on a blog today written by a self-proclaimed "Concerned Christian Conservative." The Left – Watch What They Do, Not What They Say! appears to be a decenly-traficked site for a relative newcomer to the blogosphere. The author laments in a January 11 post the use of the term "African American," seeming nostalgic for the days when other terms were used instead. And, just in case you want to accuse the writer of being racist, he had black friends in the 60s, so let’s have none of that.

Mostly, the author is still hurting for Ross Perot, who took heat during the 1992 presidential campaign when he referred to African Americans as "you people." Yes, you see, Perot is the victim here.

From the post:

It seems that the American People have just about had it with the contrived leftist power technique of “Political Correctness.” Yes, power technique, the technique of changing a simple word and meaning to another and over and over again. Example, the word used to describe people from the African Continent. We first used the name “colored people” than to “negro” and on to “black” and now “African-American.” It’s funny, I specifically remember in the 60’s when my black friends in college insisted that I call them black instead of colored. That was fine with me, it made sense and it seemed they were happy about the new name. Then came the very political name in the 1980’s “African-American.” Now, that name was purposely issued direct from the Democrat National Committee to manipulate the majority of whites in America. It irritated many in America that the black population needed to change their name again. Many just came to the conclusion that the black population in America had an identity crisis. But the real reason was to have more ammunition and issues to attack the majority white population, who usually voted Republican. It’s simply manipulation and power control over a majority for which they cannot gain control in other ways. Anyone who didn’t conform was labeled racist, thus the political overtones and manipulation.

Ross Perot found that out in his attempt at the Presidency when he made an off handed comment referring to a group of black voters as “You People.” Boy, you would have thought he used the “N” word.

As a Christian, I really don’t get some of these so-called "Christians." What is anyone losing by calling our black brothers and sisters "African American?"

How dare any group decide for themselves what they should be called without asking white Americans first? Racism is about power, and the writer misses the power of those words.

Blessings to all on this day celebrating the memory of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blessings and peace to all.