We Are The Losers

Everyone wants to conjecture about who won or lost the last Republican debate. I cannot tell you who the winner is, but I can sure tell you who the losers are; we are the losers! That is right, we the people are being had! It is not the government that is the problem. The problem is the Republican Party. What we saw on the stage last night was a con job pure and simple!

As Robert Borosage wrote in his Oct 29, 2015 Campaign For America's Future article, “The Republican Debate: Bring In The Clowns:”

“These Republicans – other than Jeb – have learned to appeal to the populist temper of the times. They are most compelling as they detail the decline of the middle class, the rise of the 1 percent, the stagnation of incomes. They rail about our corrupted politics, about crony capitalism, big corporations using big government to crush the little guy. They condemn loopholes and tax lawyers. Cruz pledges that under his tax plan “hedge fund millionaires” will pay the same rate as their secretaries (not mentioning that they will pocket an obscene tax break in the process). When talking about little guy, these folks sound like Bernie Sanders protégés; they feel the Bern.

Of course, their answer to all this is to savage government. Big government (not counting the military) is the root of all evil. Their tax plans (and imperial fantasies) would require elimination of virtually every function of government, while doling out huge tax breaks to the richest Americans. Their regulatory rollbacks would free up the banks, the drug companies, the corporate behemoths, insuring epidemics of fraud and abuse. And with the exception of Huckabee and Trump, they seem intent on cutting Social Security and Medicare, adding to our looming retirement crisis.” Also see Wealth Gap 101 in this blog under the label of “important.”

Social Security And Entitlements: As you may have noticed I frequently call the Republican Party the party of fear and loathing. When it comes to scare tactics they do not confine themselves to phony issues like Benghazi. In fact their favorite bogey men are the dreaded entitlement programs, meaning the earned benefits programs you have been paying into. And they lie like rugs about those programs. Social Security is not in danger of going broke! Every economist who has looked at this will tell you there is a very easy fix for any shortfall. Why should someone earning forty or fifty thousand dollars a year pay taxes on the full amount of his earnings while someone earning a million dollars a year pays taxes on only one quarter of his earnings? It does not make any sense. Simply raise the ceiling on the earnings taxed and the problem is solved.

So why are the Republicans trying to scare the hell out of people who are not old enough to collect Social Security by telling them that Social Security will not be there for them when they are old enough to qualify for it? Jeb Bush's brother George gave us the answer to that question when he tried to privatize Social Security. Privatization is what this villainization of Government and entitlements is all about. The Republicans want to throw your retirement funds to the Wall Street wolves. They do not care if you starve because your retirement fund fell victim to one of Goldman Sachs' “shitty deals” or you fell victim to another Madoff or Keating. In fact, they want to serve the Greedy Old Plutocrats by removing any regulations that might protect you from such “shitty deals.” As long as the brokers, bankers, and investment firms are well paid the Republicans will trumpet the success of free enterprise! This is all about making billionairs trillionaires. Why else would Paul Ryan try to turn Medicare into a private voucher system?

Taxes and Trade: I am not just making this up. Fact check it. A flat tax of ten percent or fifteen percent is a huge tax break for the rich and a tax increase for people on the lower end of the earning scale, and it will greatly increase the Federal Deficit. What so many Republican candidates advocating such a flat tax should tell you is that the Republican Party's panic over the deficit is both absurd and disingenuous. They are obviously more than willing to increase the deficit to give tax breaks to the rich. With the exception of Donald Trump no Republican mentioned the one deficit that is a problem. What I am talking about is the trade deficit! If you have a trade surplus your ability to pay your debts is self evident. That is not true if you have a trade deficit. And if that trade deficit is increasing it will not be long before your creditors will react to the risk by raising the interest rate on what you borrow, thereby increasing the amount you must pay on the debt!

The only Republican who told the truth was Ohio Governor John Kasich when he began the debate by saying: “We are on the verge, perhaps, of picking someone who cannot do this job. I’ve watched to see people say that we should dismantle Medicare and Medicaid and leave the senior citizens out – out in the – in the cold. I’ve heard them talk about deporting 10 or 11 [million ]– people here from this country out of this country, splitting families. I’ve heard about tax schemes that don’t add up, that put our kids in – in a deeper hole than they are today.”

We deserve better than this! We must vote for better than this – not just in the Presidential elections but in the state and midterm elections as well!

Back to Salem

It is fitting that Hillary Clinton should be hauled before the Benghazi committee so close to Halloween because this alleged hearing has all the credibility of the Salem Witch trials. There is no way that anyone who watched Hillary Clinton being grilled for eleven hours by gougey Gowdy, et al. can doubt that Kevin McCarthy was telling the truth when he said the Republicans are holding the Benghazi hearings for the purpose of driving down Hillary Clinton's favorability ratings.

The Republicans are trying to justify this farce by saying they discovered new information from Hillary's emails. I find that very interesting since there were no new discoveries revealed during the eleven hours of her testimony. Ah, but the Republicans never let go of any allegation! “It's the emails!” they shout. “Hillary Clinton has to be hiding something truly nefarious in those emails! She is a Clinton, you know?”

So emails became the star of the show regardless of the fact that emails were not the favored means of communication for Hillary Clinton or the rest of the State Department. “Oh look at this big stack of emails form 2011 about Benghazi, and this little stack of emails from 2012 about Benghazi. Does that mean you lost interest in Benghazi in 2012?” This was actually one of the absurd lines of questioning!

In particular the Republicans focused in on emails to and from Sidney Blumenthal, even though he was not a part of the State Department. But what the hell do facts have to do with anything? Hillary passed some of Blumenthal's comments about Benghazi on to members of her staff and others, and that was enough for Republicans to characterize Blumenthal as Hillary's advisor on Benghazi. One of the reasons Mr. Gowdy was so eager to embrace the notion of Mr. Blumenthal being Hillary's advisor is because of Mr. Blumenthal's vitriolic criticism of some members of Obama's cabinet. As a prosecutor Mr. Gowdy knows how prejudicial that criticism is as evidence, but fairness is not what Mr. Gowdy was after. I might add here that Republicans seem to have a hard time understanding friendship. Just because you do not correct something a friend says in private does not mean you agree with him. One GOP idiot even asked asked why a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, should have Hillary's home phone number and address while a colleague, Ambassador Stevens, did not.

I think the biggest problem with the hearings, however, is that few people could watch them and even fewer did watch them. What this means is that most of the people who are interested (and there are too few who are) will depend on what the lame stream media chooses to report. I have already been subjected to how absurd that is by KTLA this morning. Those dumb asses were actually characterizing as a new revelation an email from Hillary in which she said terrorists attacked the complex at Benghazi. The confusion over what was being reported to Hillary and others directly after the attack is well documented and has been discussed ad nauseam. The reports were contradictory and this email added nothing new! My point is that what happened at Hillary's hearing is less important than what people think happened. So keep a close eye on the lazy slugs of the lame stream media who know that dramatic sound bites will allow them to sell more beer than complex facts will!

What A Difference

The Republicans have gone from the clown shows of 2011-12 to the shabby shows of 2015. Their debates, and I am using the term very loosely, have degenerated into contests to see “who can out bark the barker” to emerge as top dog. They cannot argue or discuss policies because all of them are pandering to people who do not think the government should do anything. So each prospective Republican candidate seems to be saying: “I am the one who really shares your anger. I will make the nasty realities go away and give the rest of the world the finger for you.”

As I said in a previous post (“Robert Borosage On the Bern”): “People who respond favorably to the bellicose Trump- eting of the faux elephant- have only this vague notion that they should be fighting mad at something or someone; they are not bright enough to figure out what or who they should be fighting or why! ...Bernie Sanders' followers, on the other hand, have New Dealer expectations; they are actually demanding a government that will work for them again.”

My point being that as Donald Trump has turned the Republican Primary into a bully roaring contest, Bernie Sanders has turned the Democratic primary into a progressive or liberal policy contest. I think it was Hillary Clinton who said during the debate that it was time for a “new New Deal.” I might add here that Bernie's popularity has obviously pushed Hillary farther to the left, and that is a good thing!

So who won the first Democratic Debate? The Democratic Party did. I say this because I believe a majority of the people of this nation really want a government that will work for them to solve problems such as the great disparity in wealth between the top 1 or 2 percent and everyone else. As far as individual candidates are concerned, I do not think there was a clear winner. But here is my assessment:

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were clearly the stars of the show, and neither of them was upstaged. Martin O'Malley needed a spectacular performance to command attention. To use a baseball analogy, he hit a lot of singles but did not drive in any runs. While that ain't bad, it won't get him into the all star game. I think Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb also fell short of what they needed to do to move up to the big game.

Lame stream drama. Debates over policies and qualifications are interesting, even visceral in many instances, but they tend to draw a wonky group rather than an excited crowd. So it was only natural for moderator, Anderson Cooper, to crank up the drama by using some of the crap the Republicans use to rile up their nihilistic base. Thus we had the inevitable questions about Benghazi, Hillary's e-mails, and, horror of all horrors, “Bernie's socialism.”

As with Hillary's overall performance, her defense regarding Benghazi and her e-mails was very competent and workman like. It was, however, Bernie Sander's defense of Hillary Clinton that had the crowd cheering.

"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," Sanders said. "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America." Sanders then went on to tell us what is really important. “We have 27 million people living in poverty,” he said. “We have massive wealth and inequality. It's cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people want to know about whether they'll have a democracy or an oligarchy.”

What pundits would define as a tough question elicited a well deserved slap down by Hillary, by Bernie, and by the audience. Nothing could define the difference between Democrats and Republicans better than Bernie's comments and the reaction to them. The Republicans are trying to sell fear and anti government loathing. The Democrats are trying to sell real policies to deal with real problems. In this regard I think the drama Anderson Cooper got was not at all what he expected. Ah, but there was still the dreaded bogey man called socialism!

When Bernie was asked if he was a capitalist, he said: "Do I not consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't."

When Hillary challenged him on his socialistic views Bernie said he was not against the small businesses in this country. The way Bernie defines Democratic Socialism is not much different than Hillary's definition of a new New Deal. Bernie favors stronger reforms than Hillary does, and he is generally more combative in regard to bringing about those reforms. But the differences between Hillary and Bernie are not great enough to make Bernie's supporters stay home if Hillary wins the nomination. Hopefully Hillary's supporters will support Bernie if he is nominated.

A question I have is whether Bernie won over any African American or Hispanic voters. I think he did well in answering questions from Black Lives Matter, but so did Hillary.

No, I Really Mean Lunatics!

Recently some Republican friends (amazingly I do still have some friends who are Republicans) have challenged my description of right wing extremists as lunatics. I stand by my description! I know that mental health care professionals are critical of terms like insanity and lunatic, but I am not going to argue the semantics. Those terms, though often misused, are a short hand way of saying something is not right in the head, and we judge whether that is true by the symptoms the lunatics or insane people present. Some of those symptoms are: irrational and obsessive fear, an inability to accept reality, and (the Republicans favorite) doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

In regard to irrational and obsessive fear let me toss out a few names: Joseph McCarthy, The John Birch Society, The Tea Party, Cliven Bundy, and Governor Gregg Abbott of Texas. Why Gregg Abbott? Because Abbott did something no rational governor would do; he ordered the Texas National Guard to keep an eye on federal troops because he was afraid the federal government was going to take over Texas by declaring martial law! See my posts: “Paranoid Style of American Politics” and “Paranoia Texas Style.”

In regard to the inability to accept reality and doing the same things over and over while expecting different results the evidence is overwhelming. The latest example of the inability of the lunatic right wing of the Republican Party to accept reality can be seen in the forced resignation of John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

DailyKos' in an article entitled “The Dark Truth Of John Boehner's Resignation,” discussed the contempt the right wing has for John Boehner because of his inability to do the impossible.

DailyKos said that: “when forced to explain this supposed 'contempt' [for Speaker Boener], numerous Republicans (even presidential candidates) list not only Boehner's (non-existent) failure to stop Obamacare, but also his supposed enabling of Obamacare.  As Mike Huckabee explained, 'When people sent [Republicans] here, they didn't send them to give the president more power on Obamacare[.]' Think about that: after total legislative obstruction, a government shut-down, more than 50 votes to repeal Obamacare, an ensuing presidential election, two Supreme Court lawsuits, and other pending litigation - - Republicans are livid with the belief that John Boehner has worked with the President to strengthen Obamacare.

No sane political observer could think that.  So, what gives?  As Jonathan Chait explains, we are witnessing a sort of collective Republican denial where they cannot accept that they are not the ruling party, not the 'deciders' (to use a former president's phrase)[.]”

The inability of the extreme right wing to accept reality, its inability to work within the limitations of its political power, and its inability and/or unwillingness to recognize the best interests of this country and to put those interests ahead of its own interests are causing the Republican Party to repeatedly commit acts that are actually harmful not just to our present government but to the very form of our government. Our democracy, like every other democracy, depends on a balance achieved through compromise.

DailyKos demonstrated how unyielding and harmful the Republican Party has become by presenting Steve Benen's “useful summary of the growing history of the Republican's hostage governing:"

"* April 2011: House Republicans threaten a government shutdown unless Democrats accept GOP demands on spending cuts.

* July 2011: Republicans create the first-ever debt-ceiling crisis, threatening to default on the nation’s debts unless Democrats accept GOP demands on spending cuts.

* September 2011: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* April 2012: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* December 2012: Republicans spend months refusing to negotiate in the lead up to the so-called “fiscal cliff.”

* January 2013: Republicans raise the specter of another debt-ceiling crisis.

* September 2013: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* October 2013: Republicans actually shut down the government.

* February 2014: Republicans raise the specter of another debt-ceiling crisis.

* December 2014: Republicans threaten another shutdown.

* February 2015: Republicans threaten a Department of Homeland Security shutdown.

* September 2015: Republicans threaten another shutdown [over Planned Parenthood]."

Talk about doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.  My only argument with DailyKos is that I would not describe these demented acts as “hostage governing.” Instead I would characterize them as shameful acts of extortionist politics. As I have said in other posts, the Republicans seem to think their actions will not set dangerous precedents that can come back to bite them! I guess they believe Armageddon is just around the corner and there will be no tomorrow. That kind of thinking also seems like insanity to me.

Didn't Say It! Didn't Mean It!

If you are catching hell for what you said, deny saying it or say you did not mean it that way. Forget about the plain meaning of the words; words are open to interpretation, are they not? This sort of denial and obfuscation is particularly important when the gaff you committed reveals something unsavory about you and/or your party. Just ask Representative Kevin McCarthy, who is now trying to cough the Benghazi bone out of his throat.

As Greg Sargent reported in the Washington Post, Kevin McCarthy went on Fox News last night to clean up his comments about Benghazi and failed miserably.

“This committee was set up for one sole purpose, to find the truth on behalf of families for four dead Americans,” McCarthy told Bret Baier. “Now, I did not imply in any way that that work is political, of course it is not. Look at the way they have carried themselves out,” McCarthy said.

Of course he did not “imply” that the Benghazi hearings were politically motivated; there was nothing that subtle about his comment.  He clearly said the hearings were held to discredit Hillary Clinton! There is no other way to interpret it (See my previous post “Witch Hunts And Inquisitions”). While I do not think anyone who heard McCarthy's comment will believe his denial, I will understand if some generous soul commiserates with him for being confused by his own words. After all, a man who says “untrustable” obviously has trouble with the English language!

Some people will defend McCarthy's comments about the Benghazi hearings, others will deny them, but no one will forget them. The problem with the truth is that you cannot successfully hide it after it has been exposed.

Witch Hunts and Inquisitions

When a political party has no viable policies or proposals all it has left to sell is fear and loathing. And how do you stir up fear and loathing? You do it with witch hunts and inquisitions!

Can You Benghazi?

In his Sept 30, 2015 article, “Kevin McCarthy's Truthful Gaffe About Benghazi” E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote:

“Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a 'strategy to fight and win.'

He explained:'Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.'”

In Making this stunning admission Representative Kevin McCarty added to the infamy a Senator named Joe attached to the McCarthy surname. I say “stunning admission” only in that it was unbelievably foolish for a high ranking Republican to actually say this out loud and in public! It is rather fitting, however, for a guy named McCarthy to confirm what everyone who was paying the slightest attention already knew about the Benghazi inquisition. Grand inquisitor Issa ruined his credibility during Benghazi hearings, and grand inquisitor Gowdy (or is that gougey) is well on his way to doing the same thing.

Can You Say Planned Parenthood Hearings? 

Alright, lets take a deceptively edited film that was surreptitiously shot (or is that shat) by an unscrupulous anti-abortion group, add some outrageous accusations and lies to it, and start another grand inquisition based on the deceptions. Go ahead, Carly Failurina and her ilk will praise it; they will never question it - at least not in public. And make sure that the witnesses you call find it almost impossible to answer what are supposed to be questions about it because you are constantly interrupting them, usually with absurd accusations. Here are just a few examples of how the alleged planned parenthood hearings are being conducted by the Republican inquisitors.

As Kimberly Truong wrote in Mashable:

During the testimony of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, Representative Chaffetz (R. Utah) “...presented a slide claiming that Planned Parenthood's money spent on breast exams has been reduced, while money spent on abortions increased.

Though he claimed that the slide came straight from Planned Parenthood's annual reports, Richards' lawyers told her otherwise, after she said she'd never seen the slide.

'My lawyers just informed me that the source of this information is Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. I would check your source,' she said.”

I might add here that the chart was as deceptive as one would expect given its source.

In the following exchange between Ms Richards and grand inquisitor Gowdy, Esq., Mr. Gowdy makes us all wonder what the hell he was taught in law school!

"'I appreciate the way you like to frame the issue — that you're the reasonable one and those of us who have a contrary position are not reasonable,' Gowdy said. 'That's exactly the last answer you gave.'

When Richards argued that he was twisting her words, Gowdy interjected: 'It's not always what you say, just sometimes what you mean,' seeming to wink his right eye at her."

If someone had said that to a witness Mr. Gowdy was representing and he did not start hurling objection such as “badgering the witness, misrepresenting the evidence, and assuming facts not in evidence,” he would be guilty of legal incompetence or malpractice. How the hell did he know what she meant? Is he the Amazing Kreskin?

*Update: Discussion and Correction of Chaffetz Chart.