We don’t know what happened yet in Boston. Most people are holding back from blaming anyone yet. Some on the left are blaming right-wingers. Right-wingers are blaming Islamists. Islamists are denying involvement. Right-wingers are attacking left-wingers for blaming right-wingers. And far-right-wingers are saying it might even be a false-flag operation to start a war in Iran.
A few key elements have been pointed out: the bombing occurred on Tax Day, a day anti-government extremists are strongly offended by; the day coincided with Patriot’s Day, a day many of these same groups consider significant.
Less indicative of a source but still of note are the facts that the bombings were home-made devices, pressure-cookers, with crude shrapnel, packed into duffel bags—a weapon anyone could use, but leans towards domestic in nature; and the target was in Boston, a city identified with left-wing politics.
The general timing also coincides somewhat with Waco; although the siege ended in fire on April 19th, it was ongoing for a month and a half previous to that. Also, the Boston Marathon may have been too “good” a target to wait another four days.
Pointing away from an Islamist terror bombing is the lack of anyone claiming responsibility.
Right-wingers are quickly and sometimes preemptively denying right-wing involvement. Glenn Beck, for example, quickly came out with the defense that, “when our crazies go off, they target the government.” Other right-wing sites are simply venting that a few on the left are making such suggestions, while the comment sections of the articles sport a fair number of people claiming it was a false-flag attack by liberals to make conservatives look bad. (You may fully expect, when a suspect is named, that right-wing blogs will be rife with the phrase “Registered Democrat,” no matter what the suspect’s orientation.)
One thing that is kind of hard to ignore: while we are still a ways off from knowing who did it or why, the evidence definitely leans towards the right-wing-extremist theory. Not that this is what conservatives want—they are decrying this as evil as much as anyone else—more likely, if such extremists are responsible, they are likely crazies with their own deluded ideas.
It does, however, bring back into focus the fact that the rhetoric on the right is often fuel for such fires—one reason, perhaps, there is so much pushback from conservatives against what is now the most likely theory.
It may turn out it was just a demented non-political loon looking for thrills and attention, or who knows, maybe an extremist from an country we haven’t even considered yet. However, there is no bad time for discussing the dialing back of violent extremist rhetoric in our national dialog. I don’t think that it is too much to ask that this kind of messaging be denounced by everyone, whether or not it had anything to do with this week’s attack.
Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, a rising national star in the Republican Party, announced on Friday that he has a gay son and could no longer justify his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Mr. Portman’s revelation makes him the only sitting Republican senator to publicly support giving gay men and lesbians the right to marry, and one of the most prominent so far of a growing number of Republicans to publicly oppose their party on the issue.
Think: Nancy Reagan and stem-cell research.
This is one of the few ways that conservatives make progress: someone they know and love is involved, so they “get it” and switch sides to join liberals. And sometimes not even then.
This makes me wonder if there is an emotional component to the conservative political makeup: some variation on the inability to understand another person’s point of view in the abstract.
This would help explain the self-centered, self-important, intolerant and uncompassionate views held by many conservatives. The Randian hatred of social support systems, the “screw you I’ve got mine” mindset. Not only the lack of tolerance and sensitivity, but the sometimes stunning tone-deafness displayed by conservatives. The “I’m better than you” state of mind displayed in memes such as non-urban areas being the “Real America,” or of the concept of “American Exceptionalism,” deserved or not. The easy bigotry accompanied by the sense that one is not at all bigoted but that’s just “the way things are.”
Having an impaired ability to empathize with others, to see things from their perspective, could tie in to so much that we see in conservatism.
Five years ago, I put up a post titled, “Are You a Democrat?” I asked questions which I felt demonstrated values held by those on the left. The list still holds true, which I take to support the idea that they are indeed representative of principles and values of liberals, and not just for-the-moment causes or rationalizations.
For fun, I thought I would re-post it—in reverse—and ask the questions if they were to point in the opposite direction. While it is true that the two extremes are not always polar opposites, reversing these questions is a fairly good yardstick. Here they are, followed by clarifications and elaborations below:
- Do you favor going into debt instead of paying for what you get? Do you prefer perpetually maintaining your debts as opposed to paying them off?
- Do you support only the parts of the Constitution you find appealing?
- Do you believe that people who have more should support society less?
- Should people with certain talents and background be treated better than others beyond basic remuneration?
- Do you believe it is the role of society to tell people what they can and cannot do in their private matters?
- Do you agree with the idea that everyone in society should fend for themselves, as opposed to everyone supporting each other?
- Do you favor waiting for something bad to happen and paying greatly for it over paying a lower but immediate cost for preparation and prevention?
- If you feel certain that a man is guilty, but cannot definitively prove it, would you punish him even though it means there is a chance you are punishing an innocent man?
- If treatment for a crime works better than punishment, would you favor punishment instead of treatment anyway?
- Do you respect people more for being effective than for being honest?
- Do you believe that true patriotism means never criticizing your own country even when it is clearly wrong, or denying that it ever commits a wrong?
- Could you support the statement “America is better than everyone else in the world” over the statement “America is as good as anyone else in the world ”?
- Do you believe that your leaders should be average Joes instead of intelligent, people who excel at their work?
- Would you rather hear news that makes you feel good rather than the truth? Do you feel confident that you are always right on important issues?
I know a lot of conservatives would see this as an unfair or inaccurate portrayal of their values, but that would be more an artifact of their own internal inconsistencies. Inconsistencies between what they say and what they do, sometimes between what they say and other things they say, and all to often, between what they believe and what instead is real.
Do you favor going into debt instead of paying for what you get? Do you prefer perpetually maintaining your debts as opposed to paying them off?
Conservatives paint themselves as deficit hawks who hate spending. The problem is, they primarily act this way only when the other party is in power, or when it comes to programs they do not support. However, they consistently spend more and tax less, a policy push that was prominent under Reagan and skyrocketed under Bush 43—a policy which is a certainty to create deficits. The Bush years are absolute proof: given a budget surplus, they incurred massive spending increases and revenue decreases, leaving the nation $5 trillion more in debt than when Bush arrived, and the yearly deficit at the level of $1 trillion per year and rising fast.
Conservatives say that they hate debt—but only when a Democrat is in the White House. When they hold the presidency, debt is not important, or is even useful. Nowadays you will hear many Republicans say that they were against the deficits racked up by Bush, were against the pork and uncontrolled spending by fellow Republicans, and spoke out against it. Funny how we never heard them during the years they claimed to be speaking out, nor did any of their words sway their fellow conservatives one bit.
In the end, despite what conservatives say, what they do is more important—and what they do is to borrow and spend, in ever more massive amounts.
As for perpetually maintaining that debt, remember that when we were just beginning to get budget surpluses and so could pay off our national debt, conservatives argued that a surplus meant taxes were higher than they needed to be, and therefore we should cut taxes. In short, never pay down the debt you have accrued.
Do you support only the parts of the Constitution you find appealing?
This should be self-evident. Total dismissal of the Ninth Amendment, disparagement of the fourth through eighth, and the virtual enshrinement of their specific interpretation of the second. The ninth is dismissed because it grants the right to personal privacy, a right that conservatives do not wish to be recognized. William Rehnquist himself defined a strict constructionist as someone who will “generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs.” And the Second Amendment, clearly an outdated “historical document” if there ever was one, obviously refers to militia and not personal ownership (although personal rights to keep and bear arms are, ironically, guaranteed under the Ninth Amendment).
I could go on—in particular in regards to how the First Amendment is considered—but I think the point is clear.
Do you believe that people who have more should support society less?
Do I even have to explain this? Recent events make this painfully clear.
Should people with certain talents and background be treated better than others beyond basic remuneration?
This is a bit tougher, as it overlaps universally accepted areas of meritocracy, and what one might define “better treatment” to mean. However, the question is not posed to mean whether you agree or disagree about people getting a better salary if their talents or efforts justify it; I think everyone agrees that this should be the case, no matter what the nutballs on Fox & Friends seem to think.
What I mean in this question regards what could be called a “level playing field.” If your background is that of a poor family, should your education, at the very least K-12, be less than that of someone from a wealthy family? Should your baseline health care be significantly worse? Should the opportunities you are presented—not what you do with them, but just the doors that are opened for you—be less? Should people of equal talent be forced to work harder and perform better in order to receive equal benefit?
If you are a conservative, this is what your stand on the policies generally says. Wealthy families get to have a first-rate education while poor families get crap; people who cannot afford private insurance deserve to die alone and cold in the street; people with connections deserve them, no matter how much they hinge on accidents of birth or other forms of discrimination; and women, minorities, gays, and other groups discriminated against deserve no “special rights” to protection that white males do not need because they are not even remotely set back by such discrimination. Again, you may mouth approval of equal treatment, but when it comes to what you will actually approve and support, reality differs greatly with the platitudes.
Do you believe it is the role of society to tell people what they can and cannot do in their private matters?
For all of the right-wing talk about individual liberty and freedom, and how conservatives just want to be left alone, this sentiment only applies to them when it is something that they want to do, like owning guns and not paying taxes. When it comes to anything else, including things that do no harm to anybody, they make every effort to push their way into the lives of others and tell them what to do.
Their views on sexuality allow them to tell you who you can have sex with, how, and whether or not you are allowed to wed. Their beliefs on when life begins allows them to dictate whether you can have an abortion or even take a day-after pill. Their ideas about the value of life allow them to tell you that you have to suffer horribly for months or years with an incurable illness which has robbed you of any meaningful existence, destroying your family and your own dignity as you go, as they decide whether you have the right to put a merciful end to your life. Their values of what drugs are dangerous allows them to drink and smoke as much as they want, but allows them to tell you that you’ll go to jail for smoking marijuana.
But if they begin to stockpile military grade weapons with no safeguards in their house next to where your kids play, you have no right to tell them anything, no matter what the threat to your children’s safety.
Do you agree with the idea that everyone in society should fend for themselves, as opposed to everyone supporting each other?
Again, recent events make this painfully clear.
Do you favor waiting for something bad to happen and paying greatly for it over paying a lower but immediate cost for preparation and prevention?
Again, there is a void between what is said and perhaps believed, and what comes to pass. If it is an imaginary threat of nuclear war, you will feel your answer to this is “no,” but in practice, it has led to paying greatly rather than otherwise.
When it comes to providing a quality education, maintaining strong infrastructure, deploying preventative medicine, and a host of other wise and profitable long-term investments, the answer is a definitive, “Hell yes we shouldn’t pay for that stuff!” “Let the private sector do all the work,” you’ll say, and they won’t, and we’ll pay the price.
In general, conservatives are all too often short-sighted in such matters, preferring immediate gratification in the short run rather than building vital foundations in the long run.
If you feel that a man is guilty, but cannot prove it, would you punish him even though it means there is a chance you are punishing an innocent man?
This is another of the fuzzy ones, as “proof” is often conflated with guilty verdicts. This refers in part to those who would feel it better to be safe than sorry, and/or to convict on faith rather than fact. In a larger sense, this question is intended to refer to the death penalty as well as recent “national security” policies which ensnare innocents in a panicked rush for security or justice, and the fact that conservatives usually seem to prefer to sacrifice the archetypal innocent man lest, not one hundred, but even one guilty man go free.
If treatment for a crime works better than punishment, would you favor punishment instead of treatment anyway?
Again, do I really need to go in to this. Not just recent events, but the events of the past half century make this one rather clear-cut. Conservatives see treatment as coddling, as unnecessary spending (again a reference to pound-foolish avoidance of prevention), a dodge for people to milk the system, or simply as a way for liberals to avoid blaming people for their own actions. Any and all of these are easier than actually recognizing what has been proven again and again, as it would then lead to the next step of actually acting on it.
Do you respect people more for being effective than for being honest?
Then why did you vote for Mitt Romney? Not the best example though; he was neither effective nor honest.
This question actually came out of the debacle of the Bush administration and the recent decades where conservatives prefer lying bastards who can get the job done over honest people who do what is right instead of what is popular. I have heard more than one conservative state a direct preference for the former over the latter, and certainly conservative behavior in general bears this out.
Do you believe that true patriotism means never criticizing your own country even when it is clearly wrong, or denying that it ever commits a wrong?
Once more, need I even explain? Conservatives hate any American who suggests America has done wrong (except when it’s about Democrats they happen to despise). Bombing Hiroshima, going to war in Vietnam and Iraq, covert meddling in politics in the Middle East and Central America, the genocide of American aboriginals, so forth and so on. The entire swagger about “American Exceptionalism” and “Apology Tours” make their stand on this clear.
Could you support the statement “America is better than everyone else in the world” over the statement “America is as good as anyone else in the world ”?
This is an extension of the point above. Again, it should be obvious.
Do you believe that your leaders should be average Joes instead of intelligent people who excel at their work?
There are some fascinating contradictions here. First, they sneer at those they call “elites,” a term which should indicate actual intellect and capability. What they mean, of course, is the definition wherein the “elite” are “a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth or political power.” Does that describe Obama? Biden? Clinton? Carter? Mondale? Dukakis? Kerry maybe, but most Democrats? Nope.
How about Romney? McCain? Bush? Recent GOP candidates and presidents have not just been elites, they have been extreme elites.
Conservatives claim to detest “elitists,” and yet they vote for them over and over again. Mitt Romney was the epitome of an elitist, both Bushes were elites (the first literally and the second by association), and even Reagan was a rich movie actor—if he were liberal, they’d use his Hollywood connections to vilify him as elitist. In contrast, Obama, Clinton, and Carter all had very humble roots. You’d have to go all the way back to Kennedy to find an elected Democratic president who could be called an “elitist.”
Here we see an interesting contrast: GOP candidates tend to be far more rich, entitled, and elitist, but Republican voters always claim they want the man they vote for to be an ordinary person they’d feel comfortable having a beer with.
In a more specific sense, conservatives paint those they call elite as people who think they know better than anyone else. That, however, describes pretty much everyone, including themselves. Nevertheless, conservatives usually loathe the idea of highly intelligent, capable leaders.
Would you rather hear news that makes you feel good rather than the truth? Do you feel confident that you are always right on important issues?
Do I even need to mention Fox News? Not that this is the entirety of the extent that conservatives feel this way, but it stands as an exceptionally clear example of it. Regarding faith as more important than reason and facts is another. Self-doubt is hardly endemic among right-wingers.
Finally, there is one last question, not in the list, which would really nail you down as a conservative:
Will you, upon reading this list of questions, ignore it, dismiss it, argue not the list but rather set up straw men, or attack only the least persuasive point within the list, instead of either answering each point honestly and in detail with reasonable logic and cited basis in fact, or, heaven forbid, regarding this list seriously to reflect on your values?
Or, instead of that, I might just as easily have asked, “Did you quit reading long before you got to this question?”
The question is coming up: what if Obama wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote? In particular, how would conservatives react?
It’s easy to predict of course. Remember, they had no problem at all with Bush being elected despite losing the popular vote and winning Florida by just a few hundred votes despite the illicit felon’s list and the botched-ballot voting in Miami-Dade, both of which leave zero doubt that Florida intended to elect Gore, that Gore would have been the winner had actual intention of voting, not the bungled outcome, been respected. Not only were they OK with that, they were adamantly, even aggressively resolved to make sure it stuck, and suggested that anyone who disputed it was a whining partisan crybaby.
So, naturally, they would, if grudgingly, accept Obama, right?
Of course, you know the answer to that.
They would either completely forget about 2000, or else would use it as a reason to claim Obama didn’t win the election—on the basis of liberals protesting Bush’s election legitimacy. They would equate the Florida scandal with imagined widespread voter fraud, having primed right-wing America into believing that there must be millions of stolen Democratic votes, imagining the current “fraud” to be far worse than anything in Florida—thus erasing any doubts about Bush’s election while assuring themselves that Obama cheated and stole the vote.
Despite, of course, the fact that such theft is virtually non-existent. No matter that the fraud went completely the other way, with who knows how many Democrats discouraged, intimidated, suppressed, or outright blocked from voting this year. No matter that Republicans, controlling more state houses in key areas, gerrymandered the crap out of their states. No matter that early voting has been curtailed or shut down wherever possible to depress Democratic turnout, even while attempts were made to expand early voting for Republican counties. No matter than non-English ballots were distributed with the wrong election date. No matter that even states ordered to cease Voter ID suppression tactics still put up billboards using taxpayer money, in particular in Spanish, telling voters that IDs were still required, while other billboards threaten low-income and minority voters with jail should they dare to vote. Even non-partisan evaluations of how Hurricane Sandy depressed votes in the solidly left-leaning Northeast will be explained away or dismissed.
Above and beyond all of that, many will simply cry foul over the simple fact that he didn’t get enough votes. Despite the fact that back in 2000, many claimed Bush even had a mandate (including, most prominently, Bush himself), and the right wing went along with that—none of that will matter, none of it will register.
If Obama gets elected while losing the popular vote, the vast majority on the conservative side will instantly begin railing about illegitimacy and how he’s not the “real” president. The myth of “voter fraud” will become a legend, a rallying cry. I would not be too surprised if calls for impeachment were to arise and be picked up by some sitting Republicans in Congress, or if there were major surges in calls for more “voter fraud prevention” laws, amid a host of conspiracy theories and renewed calls for secession of the South.
The same people who admonished protesters in 2000 on the principle of maintaining the legitimacy of the process and unifying the country would easily tear that process to shreds and the country asunder—if it’s not their guy who gets rallied around.
The U.S.’s credit rating has been downgraded, with S&P citing political infighting and poor debt handling. Most significantly, this would not have happened if the Republicans had not taken the U.S. economy hostage, taking us intentionally to the very brink in a manner that assured it would end like this.
Once again, let us not forget who brought us here. Ten years ago, we were in surplus territory. Despite claims by Tea Partiers and conservatives in general that this is all the fault of Obama and the Dems, it was the Bush tax cuts, the two massive wars, the general mismanagement and the Great Recession which brought us to this point. And as weak as Obama and the Dems have been, it has been the Republicans who have been the primary force which continues to take us in the wrong direction.
They will undoubtedly react by becoming even more recalcitrant and hostile. The idiots.
Not that the downgrade is fully reasonable. But it has happened, and conservatives brought us here.
If the American people react to this by electing any more Republicans into office, they are the worst idiots imaginable. Seriously.
And no, I am not returning to blogging full-time. I noted that I would return occasionally when the mood hit me–it simply happened that a story like this broke the day after I said I’d be stopping. Figures.
I just want to bring up a little bit of history here. Back in 2000, when we were looking at surpluses, Republicans hated the idea. They were nearly apoplectic at the thought of government taking in more than it spent within a limited time frame. They used the catchphrase, “It’s your money,” as if the people were being robbed or something. It was as if the debt did not exist, and did not need to be paid off, so if the government had a surplus, that meant that taxes were too high.
Clinton and Gore proposed paying off the debt (by 2013!), extending the solvency of Social Security, and even establishing a reserve in case emergency funds were needed. Yes, the economic downturn at the turn of the century would have muted this, but had Gore been in office, the economy would have been much better. No huge tax cuts for the wealthy, no Iraq War, and, even if 9/11 had gotten past the counter-terrorism structure that Bush disassembled, the war in Afghanistan would have been shorter and far less costly. We might have maintained surpluses and actually gotten some debt reduction (though we probably would not have paid off the whole debt by 2013, especially with Republicans whining about surpluses and pushing for tax cuts); we certainly would have had a far healthier economy, back in 2001 and later on as well, no question about that whatsoever.
Republicans rejected the idea of paying off debts. They wanted to erase the surplus with tax cuts–which they did, and then some. Then 9/11 hit, and they added the burden of two massively expensive land wars in Asia. Over the years, they piled on more tax cuts, more unpaid-for entitlements, and precisely the kind of wasteful pork-barrel spending they always accused Democrats of, even worse than the Democrats actually carried out themselves. They drove the economy into a deep ditch, and then tried to pile all the blame on the next Democrat who took office, as if nothing untoward had happened in the previous eight years and the debt crisis had somehow how magically materialized the moment Obama stepped into the Oval Office.
Amazing how history can hinge on even the smallest of things. There is one graphic designer somewhere in Florida who slapped together the butterfly ballot for Palm Beach County for the 2000 elections. Had that person not made a simple design error, Gore would not have lost thousands of votes to Buchanan (and to Gore-Buchanan cross-votes), and the course of American history would have been changed to an astonishing extent.
And to think that in the 2000 elections, people bemoaned the idea that there was little or no difference between Gore and Bush.
On his radio show recently, Ed Schultz used a term to describe right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham which was completely unacceptable. He has been rightly suspended without pay.
Here is his on-air apology:
While I may not like him for what he said recently and his behavior at other times in the past, I have to respect him for this public statement.
He did not use excuses, he did not equivocate, he did not try to say that he did not really say what he said, and he did not turn the apology into a lead-in for further attack. I don’t think I have seen a single “apology” by a right-wing pundit or politician in similar situations who did not try to slip in at least one (though more often all) of these prevarications.
Instead, Schultz took full responsibility–another concept unrecognized on the right, where people seem to think “taking responsibility” means just saying that you do and getting credit for being a stand-up guy while not actually paying any penalty for it. Schultz is taking the suspension without pay, and says he deserves it.
Republicans in New Hampshire are trying to pass a new anti-union law, claiming that weakening the unions would draw more businesses into the state.
The current right-wing drive to crush any pro-left entity aside, this brings to mind the fact that businesses get great deals by playing state against state. Just as they play workers against each other to the workers’ disadvantage, they shake down the states for billions with these coy “I’ll settle in your state only if you give me even bigger benefits than the next state” game.
If only the states were to form some sort of, oh, I don’t know, union, so they could join forces and gain from the advantage.
But that’s probably just crazy talk.
A recent Salon article on “Trig Thutherism”:
Trig Truthers have fixated on any number of details about Sarah Palin’s pregnancy. Sullivan, for example, thinks it was irresponsible that, shortly before she went into labor, Palin got on a plane from Texas, where she had been speaking at a conference, and flew to Alaska.
But whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point. The most important tenet of Trig Trutherism, of course, is that Palin simply was not pregnant before Trig was born.
Whoa. “Whether Palin acted irresponsibly is beside the point”? Where did that come from? As far as I am concerned, it is the only point–that, during a special-needs pregnancy, after her water broke, she gave a political speech, took plane flights with a layover, and then trekked to a hometown hospital before giving birth. That quite simply makes no sense whatsoever. The writer of this article focused purely on whether or not Palin was the one to give birth. Frankly, that’s beside the point. The primary point is that, if we take Palin at her word, she acted with reckless irresponsibility. She’s either an idiot or a liar–or, possibly, both. The tale of Trig’s birth is emblematic of this.
Of course, since the whole Trig thing has so much baggage (personal lives are off-limit, don’t focus on children, people identify this as a loony conspiracy-theory kind of thing), it’s less than optimal to use this as a rallying point to show how Palin should never be allowed within a hundred miles of the presidency.
Fortunately, there is such a wealth of solid, factual evidence of this aside from the Trig story, this does not present a problem. The sheer number of lies, scandals, acts of irresponsibility, and fantastically stupid claims make for easy picking. From her claim that she fought the “Bridge to Nowhere” to her fictional “death panels” of the ACA, from Troopergate to resigning halfway through her term as governor so she could become a reality TV star and Fox News commentator, there’s virtually no end to reasons to question her capacity to serve in any position of responsibility.
Hell, just the idea that she persistently claimed that Alaska’s proximity to the farthest reaches of Russia magically endowed her with foreign policy credentials is enough for me. As for irresponsibility, the trend she set for politicians in elections to deny press access and communicate only through thoroughly biased sources is a huge one. I find myself wanting to go on (“In what way, Charlie?”), but the point should be clear–there is no end to the reasons why Palin should never be trusted by anyone. Just as well to leave the whole Trig mess behind. Indeed, focusing on the one thing Palin can most easily defend herself on only gives her strength and credence.
Shutdown or no shutdown, it’s pretty damned clear which side wants one, which side has been pushing for one and still is. A Tea Party rally in D.C. was populated with signs urging a shutdown, while the crowd chanted, “Shut ‘er down! Shut ‘er down!” All this while trying to blame it on the Democrats. CNN called this “mixed signals,” as if there were no unified game plan here.
The Wisconsin election for the state’s supreme court chief justice brought out the crowds, tripling participation from the last such election. David Prosser, claiming to be a non-partisan independent who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, is endorsed by Sarah Palin, and goes around the state addressing right-wing organizations, was in fact rather easily identified as a conservative who would rule in favor of governor Walker. Before this whole union issue, Prosser was expected to win hands-down. Having won 55% in the general primary, with his challenger, assistant attorney general JoAnne Kloppenburg getting only 25%, Prosser was still expected to win easily. However, Kloppenburg, labeled as an inexperienced extremist in the millions of dollars of of out-of-state, Tea-party-funded advertising, surged way beyond her primary numbers as Prosser faded–so that now it is a virtual tie, with Kloppenburg ahead by only about two hundred votes. Even if Prosser winds up winning in a recount, this will be a hard slap in the face for state Republicans, who lost most of the other races outright.
Glenn Beck is leaving Fox News. Who will we buy gold from now?
The new GOP plan to private Medicare and gut Medicaid will save $5.8 trillion in the next ten years, we are told. Except that the numbers they predict for economic growth and unemployment due to their miraculous plan are so ludicrous that they are almost literally laughable. We’re talking Magic Pony numbers here. Rep. Paul Ryan claims that his budget will create gazillions of jobs, bringing unemployment down to 2.8%, a number so far-fetched that even conservatives are shaking their heads. The “$5.8 trillion” he claims he will save is just as fictional, with $1.4 trillion coming from scrapping Obama’s Health Care Reform, which is strange, as the CBO said Obama’s plan would save almost exactly that much over the next 20 years. And his plan to “save” Medicare would only end up costing seniors more. Just like the GOP’s alternative to the Democrats’ health care reform, Republicans are claiming Democrats will send us to the poorhouse while GOP alternatives will bring cause money to fall from rainbows. Too bad the Congressional Budget Office disagrees. All the time.
Hmm. Some of the major blogs seem to be agreeing with what I wrote two days ago.
How the right wing is maintaining it’s all-out assault on labor is mystifying to me, in that labor is, essentially, what almost every American person who goes to work actually does. Somehow, people have started believing that labor only represents and benefits a selected few, people who are incompetent leeches who do little of value while receiving fat paychecks and exorbitant benefits packages.
That definition better describes corporate executives, not working stiffs. And yet conservatives have convinced a huge swath of laborers that “labor” describes only specific workers who are causing all their woes, and that the corporate fat cats are the ones who need protecting. “Labor” is people who work for a living. Not just teachers, not just union members. It’s anyone who works for a wage.
Labor laws which make sure your employer can’t abuse you, must pay you a minimum wage, must provide a safe workplace–these are what the labor movement, and yes, even those evil unions, have given us.
And yet somehow people are being led to believe that the laws that keep workers safe and free from abuse are actually damaging and destroying jobs because of how stifling and repressive they are, and that laws which guarantee a basic living wage are bad for the worker because in some nebulous and non-demonstrable way they cause jobs to be lost.
We know that conservatives have been doing this for quite some time, but now they have broken free from the constraints that previously held them in place. It is in part due to the rather notable swing to the right the country has taken, and the pathetic attempt by the left to stay relevant by swinging almost as much to the right. It is in part due to the drive to redefine almost everything in conservative terms, a movement propelled by Gingrich in the 1990′s and sustained by the non-stop conservative campaign in the media via the preponderance of conservative commentators and the juggernaut which is Fox News. It was given false legitimacy during the Bush administration, where all manner of illegalities could be committed and were rarely investigated or punished, to the point where people just take such things for granted now and don’t even blink when they see news about them. And now it has been given new fire by this nebulous Tea Party movement, which, like most conservative movements, is a small minority, and yet commands almost irresistible influence.
So we see the Republicans in Wisconsin coming up with a transparent lie that the budget is being busted by teachers unions, and so they unilaterally strip educators of their collective bargaining rights, a ploy being attempted in many Republican-held legislatures across the country. In its wake, we see the path littered with individual acts of malfeasance, from the Republican Party’s attempt to intimidate a professor for speaking out by demanding access to his emails, to an out-of-state Republican seriously proposing a “false flag” operation, where someone pretending to be in labor would make an assassination attempt against the Republican governor so as to stir public animosity against their opponents. All while Fox News heavily tilted coverage and faked their own news of union violence.
The governor of Maine, in an act far less serious but just as indicative of anti-union sentiment, actually had a mural depicting laborers removed from the lobby of the Labor Department for the state. Why? Because it wasn’t pro-business enough. Yes, god forbid the labor department be about labor instead of business. Have you ever heard a Democrat complaining that the Department of Commerce was too pro-business? Seriously?
It doesn’t matter if you are not a union member. Unions and labor movements are why you have a halfway decent job–and if you don’t have a halfway decent job, the lack of labor protection is probably why. Labor movements are why you’re not being paid a dollar an hour to work in unsafe conditions with your employer having all the power and you having none. People take these conditions for granted, assume that they cannot regress or that if they can, it has nothing to do with labor organizations. And they will probably continue to believe so even as their work conditions continue to degrade to the point where they will feel it necessary to do something about it.
And even then, they will probably lack the will to start anything resembling a union, because unions are bad. Everyone knows that.
About a week ago, Sachi and I visited the offices of the firm that built our house. We saw videos showing the engineering technologies to protect against quake damage. The two I recall specifically are wall panels that protect against structure collapse, and structural posts which keep the building from separating from its foundations.
An article from the New York Times says that Japan’s strict building codes probably saved a lot of lives:
In Japan, where earthquakes are far more common than they are in the United States, the building codes have long been much more stringent on specific matters like how much a building may sway during a quake. …
Japan has gone much further than the United States in outfitting new buildings with advanced devices called base isolation pads and energy dissipation units to dampen the ground’s shaking during an earthquake.
The isolation devices are essentially giant rubber-and-steel pads that are installed at the very bottom of the excavation for a building, which then simply sits on top of the pads. The dissipation units are built into a building’s structural skeleton. They are hydraulic cylinders that elongate and contract as the building sways, sapping the motion of energy. …
New apartment and office developments in Japan flaunt their seismic resistance as a marketing technique, a fact that has accelerated the use of the latest technologies, said Ronald O. Hamburger, a structural engineer in the civil engineering society and Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, a San Francisco engineering firm.
Later today, I’ll be driving over to the new house to check it out, but I will be very surprised if it shows any damage.
I would, however, like to make a small political point here. The building codes and other rules that saved so many lives? That’s what you call “government regulation.” The purpose of which is not to stifle or dominate, but to protect and safeguard. In this case, it kept people from dying as much. In other cases, it safeguards against damage done by people and corporations. Regulation, far more often than not, is a good thing.
Moderator: OK, let’s ask our vice-presidential candidates what they will be doing a few years from now should they not win the election.
Senator: Well, I intend to continue to serve in the Senate, focusing on my post in the Committee on Foreign Relations, working with the opposition to improve our standing in the world.
Moderator: And you, governor?
Governor: Oh, if I lose then I’m just gonna quit as governor mid-term, so I can, you know, concentrate on book deals, giving commentary for Fox News–and oh yeah, I’m gonna have my own reality TV show! As for interviews, I’m gonna only let Fox–the friendlier people on Fox that is–interview me, because I just can’t stand that lamestream media and their “Gotcha” journalism. For the most part, though, I’ll stay in politics using Facebook and Twitter, establishing my credentials so I can become a kingmaker in the midterms, and possibly a presidential candidate in the next election.
Moderator: [Pause] Are you fucking kidding me?
In all likelihood, we’ll see happen what people like Nate Silver project, and the Republicans will win the House by 30 or so seats, while the Democrats hang on to the Senate by perhaps two seats.
But just as a thought experiment, what would happen if Democrats do better than expected? What if the Democrats are energized by recent events? What if independents feel turned off by the publicity generated by the crazy Tea Partiers? What if people in states like Alaska and Nevada step up to the polls and ask, “Am I really going to vote for an idiot like this just because I’m not fond of the other guy? What if the minority vote is stronger than expected because of anti-immigrant, anti-minority sentiments on the right? What if the polling guesses about ”likely“ voters (as opposed to just ”registered“ voters) is off? What if Democratic turnout is being underestimated because pollsters still favor land-line over cell phone respondents, and did not correct for it enough? Or what if just fate throws a curve ball?
Like I said, I don’t expect all that to happen, I fully expect to be disappointed and glum after this is over. But, what would the reaction from the right wing be if Democrats managed to hold on to control of the House and held more Senate seats than expected?
So far, not one, but two Republican candidates have openly stated that they would favor violent overthrow of the government if elections were lost by Republicans. Already Fox and other conservative outlets are drumming away at the message that minorities are planning to commit massive voter fraud, despite no actual evidence existing to that effect.
Remember, back in 2008, people expected Obama to win, and he did. But since then, half of all Republicans have come to believe that ACORN rigged the election for Obama through voter fraud, despite the fact that it was patently impossible for them to do so.
As I explained a year ago, in order for this to have happened, Obama would have to have stolen 935,000 votes minimum. This was the total of votes in the states with the closest margins that would have to have gone to McCain to win him the election. But it’s not just a matter of pure numbers–these 935,000 would have to have been precisely targeted in exactly the right states in exactly the right amounts. Realistically, ACORN would have to have stolen millions to get this effect, or else be gifted with a time machine and godlike accuracy.
ACORN, however, only registered 900,000 voters in only 21 states–meaning that even if every voter ACORN registered were fake, and every state necessary for Obama to win were covered by ACORN, and the fake votes were distributed just right, ACORN would still have been 35,000 votes shy.
In short, there was no mechanism for Obama to steal the election–not even close. It simply just couldn’t have happened. And sorry, but a couple of New Black Panther guys standing outside a single polling place in Philadelphia which was mostly a minority station anyway did not account for all the other votes. And yet, not only do 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election, a full 73% believe he did not win legitimately.
Republicans don’t need a workable, real-world mechanism to believe in voter fraud. They just need an tissue-thin excuse.
This is unlike Democrats, who in 2000 did not just have a mechanism, they had a smoking gun. There is no dispute that Katherine Harris disenfranchised tens of thousands of legitimate voters–mostly Democrats–with the ”felons list“ which was constructed not just of felons, but anyone with a similar name to a felon, which would disproportionately target black voters in the state. By any count, far more voters were illegitimately removed from the voter lists than were necessary to throw the election for Bush. And if that’s not enough, 2100 spoiled Republican absentee ballot requests were illegally altered by Republican party workers in Seminole County. In short, there is no question that voter fraud in 2000 won the election for Bush–it could not have done otherwise. We forget this because the courts and the public essentially dropped any action due to the chaos it would have caused–but it did happen. The facts are out in the clear, there is no conspiracy theory required. It just happened.
The 2004 vote was a different deal–the conspiracy theorists insist that Ohio was stolen, but there was no smoking gun. As a result, most Democrats will not say Bush stole that election–but those who do at least have a valid mechanism to explain it. Diebold voting machines of the time were demonstrably open to tampering, the president of the company had openly stated that he would do whatever was necessary to win the election for Bush in Ohio–the single state which swung the election–and analysis of voting data is suspicious to say the least. Nothing can be proved, but at least it was conceivably possible that it could have been done. And yet you will not find 73% or even 52% of Democrats who will say they think Bush stole that election. I would guess that not even 10% remember the issue at all.
A majority of Republicans, on the other hand, seem capable in believing astonishingly impossible conspiracy theories, without any facts or evidence to back them up–just hints and innuendo and a few smear campaigns with carefully edited videos not even directly related, and presto–most Republicans buy a story which is demonstrably false.
So back to the present. What would happen if the Dems, against all expectations, actually won today? Not just lost smaller, but actually held control of both houses?
Obviously, there would be no armed rebellion. I think we all know that whole line is just BS to tickle the extremists. But if 52% of Republicans believe Obama stole his election when the polls predicted he would win, and the story saying he stole it is idiotically thin, how many Republicans would believe the already-circulating stories of voter fraud should the Democratic candidates beat the predictions? And more importantly, how would they react?
Fortunately and/or unfortunately, we will most likely never find out. But it’s a disturbing thought.
One thing though: whatever you think the outcome will be–vote. I sent my absentee ballot off a while ago. Don’t give any excuses. And yes, that includes Geoff and Jon and SteveTV and everyone else. This much is not a partisan conviction. Not voting is plain stupid.
Of course, voting Republican is stupid, too. That much is a partisan conviction. But also one with a pretty solid mechanism behind it.
Let me see if I have this straight. A number of people in conservative circles are suggesting privatizing retirement savings and doing away with social security, and similarly getting rid of Medicare and other public health care initiatives. They wish to lower taxes for the wealthy, already at historic lows; deregulate businesses and finance; do away with the minimum wage and unemployment insurance; and to fight against unions while leaving the door open to shipping jobs to poor countries with few if any labor laws. All in the name of liberty and freedom and the individual.
They wish to do away with the public version of social security, leaving only private retirement plans which could leave millions broken when the markets tumble (as they have a tendency to do), with the sentiment of “tough for them.”
They wish to do away with Medicare, and health care in general, and leave the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to do and charge whatever they wish, leaving tens of millions either uninsured or just as bad while paying for it. Caveat emptor and all that.
They wish to lower tax rates on the wealthy and on corporations, already capable of evading the nominal tax rates, to levels well below the historical average, even doing away with some taxes altogether, and erase most regulations that keep these people from being excessively predatory on the poor and the weak. Because a person with wealth always gains more wealth by the sweat of his brow, not by taking advantage of others before whom he can dangle the carrot and always get more than he gives. No, their money is always earned fair and square, with no help from anyone else, and asking for them to give back to the society they earned it in is, well, socialist and evil.
They wish to discourage or otherwise break up unions, discard the minimum wage, and do away with unemployment insurance. Because if your job went overseas to someone who will work for a dollar a day and your family is starving, then it’s your own damn fault for being so stupid for not being a successful, self-made businessman, and you should expect to receive no handouts and no help.
These are all pretty much the policy ideas coming from various areas of the right wing these days, especially from Tea Party candidates and groups.
Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like a horrific world they wish to create. Might as well just take the next step at the same time and strike child labor laws, set up debtors’ prisons, and maybe even officially bring back indentured servitude and the road that leads to. After all, if you can’t make your way, what right do you have for any favors from the government?
Leave it to Stewart & Colbert to use zany comedy to Do The Right Thing. Beck promised a rally to restore “Honor” (something right-wingers seem stuck on doing over and over again) but seemed to fall just a teensy bit short, as “honor” is nothing more than a buzzword for these people. The Comedy Channel duo, on the other hand, promise to restore sanity, and you know they’re going to do their job a hundred times better.
After a lengthy, persistent Internet campaign started by users of the site Reddit that raised over $200,000 for charity, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have relented. They will host opposing rallies on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. on October 30.
The announcement started last night on The Daily Show, when Stewart announced his Rally to Restore Sanity, a call to the nation to “take it down a notch for America.” The name, of course, mocks Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally — so naturally, Stewart compared his choice of date to Beck’s choice of the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
“Now you’re probably saying to yourself, October 30, 2010, that rings a bell … the 36th anniversary of George Forman [sic] and Muhammad Ali’s Rumble in the Jungle in Zaire! Yes! But that’s not why the date is significant. I’ll tell you the significance of October 30th. You see, The Daily Show’s actually already going to be in Washington doing shows.”
As his segment drew to a close, Stewart provided some sample protest signs for the realistic, sane ralliers to carry. They included, “I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler.”
But naturally, Stephen Colbert wasn’t going to take that lying down. On The Colbert Report, he lashed out against Stewart’s call for reason, noting that “reason is just one letter away from treason.” So to counteract Stewart, he announced his own rally, “to fight Jon Stewart’s creeping reasonableness, [and] to restore truthiness.”
Colbert’s rally, The March to Keep Fear Alive, will also occur on October 30 in Washington. Colbert, naturally, used fearmongering to get people to attend. “People should definitely book their hotel rooms now,” he said, “or their children might turn gay.”
I just love it. The “Rally to Restore Sanity” vs. “The March to Keep Fear Alive.” Perfect counterpoints. There are reports that they have indeed reserved public spaces; if it is in fact for real, there could be a huge turnout for this. [Having now watched the show, I can't believe it's not real; Stewart was insistent.]
What would be so great, just a perfect cap to all of this, would be if they had way bigger crowds. I mean, way bigger, so big that Fox could not possibly deny Whose Crowd Was Bigger, as they seem to really get off on that kind of thing. I wish I could go–my diaper is all ready to go–but I don’t know if the Friday evening flight from Tokyo would get me there in time.
And gee whiz, what’s that with the timing? Three days before the midterm elections? What a coincidence!
You know, my only hope in all of this is that the polls are in fact wrong, that there’s a dynamic being missed here. That too many Tea Party radicals are getting too much attention; that the polls are not counting “registered voters” in their prediction of Republican landslides; that Dems bunch up their pantyhose and actually push the Tax Break for People Who Are Not Rich and force Republicans to either vote for it or vote against it, either one being a good thing for Democrats. That Obama will be as effective on the campaign trail as he was two years ago. That the sane moderates, even the ones who say they don’t like the Democrats, will, when faced with a voting machine, wake up, come to their senses, realize the insanity they face, and do what they did in 1992–vote the way they know is the only reasonable way.
I’d like to hear reactions to this.
The mosque controversy is a struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dim-witted and the progressive. But we’re not the reckless radicals they wish for. No, liberals span the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotyping, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church, your grocery store–that’s us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, U.S. Presidents, and movie stars.
But the screeching hyperbole leveled at liberals has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful on both sides they have forgotten that we are first Americans. I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge, than another step and another… however many it takes to get back to the place where we are all Americans. Different…different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible.
This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop, because so much more connects us than that which divides us because tragedy has been, and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an ax for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event like 9/11 occurs, a group is chosen for blame. Right now, it’s American Muslims. Why? Because their story needs a villain. They want someone to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.
The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all to often bloom on fresh graves. I remember a better day, where no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do. But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary passage of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims.
Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn’t be brought to you by sponsors. That’s pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. And Muslims are being cast as the villain. That is not their role in American society, and they should not be forced to play it.
Our mission should be to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the First Amendment. We cannot, we must not let tragedy lay waste to the most rare, and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Reactions? –Though if you have a pat answer, hold back and give others a chance to express themselves thoughtfully.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years…
There’s a push from right-wingers to repeal the 17th, along with some other amendments as well, not to mention some new amendments they want added. Curious, as the right wing has also been busy of late bashing Obama, Kagan, and Thurgood Marshall for saying that the Constitution, when written, was an “imperfect document.” Strange that they wish to tinker so with perfection.
In any case, I was curious as to why they 17th was a sore point with them. What’s wrong with the people electing senators directly? Well, according to the groups who want this, if the people elect senators directly, that means that the individual has less power. The only way to empower the individual is to take away their right to vote for a senator and put it into the hands of the state legislature. That makes sens–wait, huh? What?
Well, they do seem to have a point: they say that since public elections are driven by money, that means that senators don’t really listen to individuals from their state, and instead give their full time and attention to corporations who fund their elections. OK, fair enough, as far as it goes–but I don’t really see it as being that big a difference.
First, you have the illusion of a state legislator or a congressman paying more attention to you simply because they have smaller constituencies and they must be elected more often. But do they really pay any more attention to you than they do their financial backers, or does it just seem that way?
Second, the link between you and your senator through your legislator would still be removed. Your local legislators would have their own agendas, no doubt, and if they truly controlled the senators, they would be just as wont to abuse the power as anyone else. Not to mention that there would still be plenty of chances for others to get in the way. And that leads to the third objection to the change: money follows power. Instead of dealing out the money men, the money men would simply move to sway state legislators instead of senators directly, and you’d be back at square one.
No, there’s only one way to attack corruption of this kind, and that’s to directly address the issue of money and elections. Two things need to be changed–more descriptively, two obscenities must be erased from the law books. First, the concept that a corporation is an individual and has the same rights as one. The individual rights of a corporation rest in the rights of the people who make it up; the corporation itself is a legal fiction to serve an economic purpose. Giving corporations personhood creates super-powerful “individuals” whose psychological makeup is, by nature, that of a sociopath. The fact that they control large amounts of money and thus power in our government is at the heart of what is what is most wrong with us today.
The second obscenity is the concept that money equals free speech. No it doesn’t. If money equals free speech, then we live in a plutocracy. And that’s the current legal status. If money is free speech, then anyone who makes more money instantly has more power, which goes against the very idea of a republic which practices the principles of democracy:
Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
In theory, a republic could be consistent with a plutocracy, but that’s not what we were brought up to believe. Maybe democracy has always been a fiction to placate us, but if we’re even going to pretend, then we must hold that the idea of money being equal to speech is poison to what we believe in.
What we need to do is to change politics in two ways, and they have to be doozies. The first is to limit the way elections are funded. The only money that should be allowed in an election must come from individual citizens and nowhere else. And each citizen may contribute no more than $20 to any one election (including their own–no personal fortunes) or specific issue. Why $20? Because more than that and the money of one individual starts to outweigh the money of others who cannot afford it. Either that, or do away with contributions altogether and make elections funded completely by the federal government. Whichever the case, the idea is to prevent large donations from making their way to politicians and thus corrupting the system.
The second way is the real game changer: political advertisements. This is where “speech” really comes into it. And this may require an amendment to that holiest of amendments, the First Amendment itself. Like it or not, political advertising sways elections, and those advertisements are bought with money. It must be made so that public advertisements which impact elections, either on issues or candidates, must be regulated. Not forbidden, but limited to those funded by the people directly. Each advertisement can only be funded by individuals giving no more than $20 each. Remember above, I mentioned the $20 limit applying not just to candidates but to issues as well; this is what I was talking about.
What’s more, the ads can only be paid for by groups that specifically assemble for the purpose of representing such issues or candidates; you can’t have unions or organizations assembled for any other purpose doing it, else you have people who gave money for something else suddenly finding their money spent on something they disagree with.
Again, either this, or nothing–no ads at all, and we assert the right to use the public airwaves, allowing politicians to make speeches, give presentations, and have debates for specified blocks of time. This does not obliterate free speech–in fact, many countries do it. In Japan, where I live, that’s how it’s done–no campaign commercials. Other countries limit advertising as well. It may go against the grain of free and unfettered speech, but it is the only way to remove the worst of poisons from the system.
Is this a curtailing of free speech? In a way, yes–but in a very fundamental way, no. Because free speech is not supposed to be about rich people having more say or a louder say than anyone else–it is supposed to be about all people having the right to say whatever they want, whenever or wherever they want. But the central principle of that is that everyone is equal, and money playing a part destroys that essential equality. The system I describe above would not prevent anyone from speaking freely–it would only prevent a few from drowning out the rest simply because they have more money than others.
We’ll never get around money buying power. Rich people will still own and control newspapers and media networks, and there are other ways to use money to influence the people as well. But just because money will always have a say doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do our damnedest to limit what influence it does have.
So, Republicans have been going on and on about how the Deepwater Horizon disaster is Obama’s fault, calling it “Obama’s Katrina” and “Obama’s 9/11” and so on. They have been carping at every element of his reaction, real or imagined.
But to appreciate the situation better, ask this question: how would the situation have been different if it had happened 4 years ago, during the Bush administration? What would Bush have done differently? Even more to the point, 4 years ago, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress as well.
There would probably be zero difference in actually dealing with the spill; Bush, at that point, would not have dawdled like he did with Katrina, not again. Not that he would have in the first place–he let New Orleans drown because he didn’t really see them as a constituency, not really. But an oil issue? That’s something he would not hesitate to recognize. No, as much as it resonates that Bush screwed everything up, the actual technical response to the spill would probably be the same–the good and the bad. Someone correct me if I’m wrong here.
No, the main difference would be in how the political response. If Congress had hearings, they certainly would have been much more forgiving and tolerant of BP than Congress is today; they might even had tried to make them closed-door, or otherwise shield BP from too much bad exposure. And do you really believe that Bush would have pressured BP to make $20 billion available? Nope. The U.S. taxpayer would be footing the whole bill, you betcha. Barton’s apology to BP would be closer to the federal government’s approach in general, instead of now being the pariah’s view.
Helps to put things in perspective.
46 USC 55113 – Use of foreign documented oil spill response vessels
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an oil spill response vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country may operate in waters of the United States on an emergency and temporary basis, for the purpose of recovering, transporting, and unloading in a United States port oil discharged as a result of an oil spill in or near those waters, if
(1) an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels documented under the laws of the United States cannot be engaged to recover oil from an oil spill in or near those waters in a timely manner, as determined by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for a discharge or threat of a discharge of oil; and
(2) the foreign country has by its laws accorded to vessels of the United States the same privileges accorded to vessels of the foreign country under this section.