Blaming Obama

To blame Obama for the economy is a cheap political trick. Voters, whether out of apathy or frustration with the slow recovery of the U.S. economy, allowed Republicans to seize control of the House of Representatives in 2010. Back then Republicans were running on jobs, and that must have appealed to enough voters to put Republicans back in charge of the nation's fiscal health. Since then, the House has been focused on their own pet projects, such as defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood, while pursuing an agenda to make Obama a one-term President. They are banking on the hope that low-information voters will blame Obama for all the nation's economic ills and elect a Republican executive in 2012.

Article 1 Section 7 of the United States Constitution is clear that "all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." This is high-school civics 101.

Obama has been trying to negotiate with House Republicans, but Republicans refuse to compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, they insist that the President cut programs that benefit the most vulnerable and inflict pain on the majority of us. Their political strategy lies in the hope that voters will blame Obama for the economy in 2012.

Why would they want to rebuild the economy before 2012? For them, it's all about winning, and if the economy is doing well come election time Obama, an incumbent, has a good chance of re-election.

The hypocrisy of Republicans is outrageous. Some of the very same Republicans who are opposing raising the debt ceiling voted 19 times during the Bush presidency to do just that. Past Republican presidents have run up the deficit by lowering taxes for the wealthiest without finding ways to pay for them, and waging political wars that will ultimately bankrupt the country.

There are legitimate arguments for reining in the nation's debt, and Obama is not opposed to sane fiscal policy. I would hope that he would end our seemingly endless wars and rebuild a green economy. Subsidizing cheap oil means that it's economically viable to ship Northwest lumber to China to be made into sushi chopsticks for pennies an hour to be shipped back to the U.S. consumer. Domestic job creation depends on a serious discussion of our national priorities instead of the petty politics of Republican vs. Democrat.

Raising the debt ceiling should not be lumped into budget priorities. The U.S. has never defaulted on it's debt so it's hard to know the true consequences from studying history. Republicans are set on ruining the U.S. credit rating and destroying the country's fiscal health if their demands for cutting away at the social safety net fabric is not met.

Frustration with current politics is completely understandable. Washington is in gridlock while politicians engage in election year politics. In general, the media -- what should be the Fourth Estate -- cares little about educating voters and much more about having a high ratings horse race. And understandably, voters would rather not be bothered because we have lives outside of having to be politically savvy and actively involved. I have the feeling that most people would just hope that the people they elect are the grown-ups in the room.

Instead of statesmanship, we have a blame game. Obama is not to blame here. The POTUS can show strong leadership and encourage negotiation, but the House of Representatives is ultimately responsible for the country's fiscal health. And therein lies the rub: Republicans are beholden to the wealthy, corporate base that funds their elections.

Zap Republicans

If you've been paying attention to the debt ceiling debate you probably already know that Republicans want the government to default on it's debt unless Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and services that benefit the middle, working and poor classes are cut.

Republicans will not budge on raising taxes on the wealthiest and closing corporate and individual tax loopholes. As usual, they claim raising taxes on the wealthiest will kill jobs. We have had 30 years of supply side economics, aka "trickle down," and it hasn't worked. We've had ten years of Republican tax cuts on the wealthiest, and while corporate profits and income disparity are at their highest levels, we continue to lose jobs. Obviously, Republican ideology is the failure.

Republicans don't care about the economy or jobs. Eric Cantor is short selling in hopes of a default. And Republicans will not accept any deal that raises taxes on the wealthiest, or even closing a tax loophole that benefits private jet owners. Republican Orin Hatch says the poor should do more to shrink the debt, not the rich.

There is a class warfare going on here, and it's being waged by the very ones who cry out class warfare whenever shared responsibility is asked from them. It's clear who the real welfare queens are and it's Republicans and their lobbyists.

I wonder what would happen if the millions of us spent the next few weeks tying up the phone, fax and e-mail communications of the GOP with the message: Pay your share!? Can we disrupt the GOP so much that they can't raise funds or communicate? Can we get them to listen?

Attn. Democratic leaders: How to deliver on hope (and keep your jobs in November)

I've been unemployed since July 2009. I've been writing cover letters and sending out resumes, connecting with recruiters, updating my tech skills, and researching my career options. My unemployment benefits may end soon, and even if I am not counted in the unemployment statistics, I am not giving up.

Lately Republicans have been filibustering extension of unemployment benefits. They are far removed from the reality on Main Street. Krugman offers sobering perspective on how austerity will prolong the recession. I follow the news daily -- as I'm applying for jobs I listen in to CNN -- and I empathize with others struggling to find a job. Perhaps Republicans wish for mass suffering in hopes they'll win big in November. It's a cynical political strategy, to say the least.

Personally, it is easy to slip into depression. It's depressing to think about the number and severity of problems the country faces. It's depressing to think about the continuous flow of oil in The Gulf, and how much worse the environmental and economic disaster will be at the height of hurricane season. The jobs report today was bad. The stock market has dropped to last October levels. The state of our nation looks grim indeed.

I have a recommendation for Democratic leadership: Vote against further funding The Afghanistan War. It's an unpopular war, and you can easily argue that our national security is better served by creating jobs, repairing our infrastructure, preventing future BP spills, and investing in a green economy. Be vocal about representating the concerns of ordinary voters.

By vetoing war spending, an unwinnable war will end sooner than later. Republicans will probably shriek in protest, but they will no longer be able to argue for austerity cuts since Democrats can boast about the billions saved by ending an unwinnable war. Furthermore, the military could be redeployed domestically to inspect the safety of hundred of miles of oil pipeline, the safety of offshore rigs, the safety of infrastructure -- the electric grid, sewers, bridges, dams, and levees.

Everyday I witness ordinary people addressing problems with innovative solutions. Preaching austerity while wasting billions of dollars on war with Afghanistan is not only hypocritical but out of touch. Democratic leadership should take note of the national mood and refocus on domestic policy.

Anti-Gay Evangelicals Attempt To Distance Themselves From Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill They Inspired

Ten months ago, three American evangelicals trooped off to Uganda and, using the power of their words, helped convince officials there to create the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, that would make it illegal -- and punishable by death -- to be gay. If you hang in long enough while reading today's New York Times article on the matter, the reporter eventually gets around to naming them!

The three Americans who spoke at the conference -- Scott Lively, a missionary who has written several books against homosexuality, including "7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child"; Caleb Lee Brundidge, a self-described former gay man who leads "healing seminars"; and Don Schmierer, a board member of Exodus International, whose mission is "mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality" -- are now trying to distance themselves from the bill.

At this point, that's sort of like the Velvet Underground attempting to distance themselves from "rock music."
But for his part, Don Schmierer says he feels "duped," and that he had "no idea some Ugandans were contemplating the death penalty for homosexuality" and that "some of the nicest people I have ever met are gay people."
Yes, surprise, surprise: you go off to Uganda to talk about how "the gay movement is an evil institution" and how they have an agenda of "defeat[ing] the marriage-based society" and somehow, people take this to mean that homosexuals should be killed or something. How terrible that things like this get misconstrued. Right, Scott Lively, who said this on his website?

On the positive side, my host and ministry partner in Kampala, Stephen Langa, was overjoyed with the results of our efforts and predicted confidently that the coming weeks would see significant improvement in the moral climate of the nation, and a massive increase in pro-family activism in every social sphere. He said that a respected observer of society in Kampala had told him that our campaign was like a nuclear bomb against the "gay" agenda in Uganda. I pray that this, and the predictions, are true.

Today's Times article mentions the "nuclear bomb" comparison, but leaves out the perhaps important part where Lively "prays" that his campaign is like a massive explosion that kills tens of thousands of people in a disintegrating rain of atomic fire.
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

via huffingtonpost.com

I doubt that this "distancing" has anything to do with concern about the plight of sexual minorities in Africa. It is more likely that these right wing extremists are aware that they could lose money and end up in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Posted via web from Erik Kurtz - stream of consciousness

The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family' : NPR

And some of the, really the core rhetoric of The Family is this idea that most of us misread the New Testament, that Christ's message - the bottom line of Christ's message wasn't really about love or mercy or justice or forgiveness. It was about power. So Doug Coe, the leader of the group, tries to illustrate this, for instance, by saying, sort of posing a puzzle: name three men in the 20th century who best understood that message of The New Testament. And most people are going to say someone like Martin Luther King, or Bonhoeffer; or maybe they're more conservative, they're going to say Billy Graham. And Coe likes to give in answer: Hitler, Stalin and Mao, which just makes your jaw drop. And he will say - he's quick to say these are evil men, but they understood power. And that message recurs again, and again, and again in The Family.

via npr.org

Rachel Maddow has been covering The Family's political influence, but I had somehow missed this NPR interview with Mr. Sharlet who went undercover to report on the The Family.

Posted via web from Erik Kurtz - stream of consciousness

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Is Rasmussen Reports Biased?

If you're running a news organization and you tend to cite Rasmussen's polls disproportionately, it probably means that you are biased -- it does not necessarily mean that Rasmussen is biased.

via fivethirtyeight.com

Shorter version: Rasmussen frames their questions with a conservative perspective. Faux News cites Rasmussen because it's more favorable to its Republican agenda than other polls.

Posted via web from Erik Kurtz - stream of consciousness

Because discrimination is more important to him than anything else

Archbishop Wuerl is having a hissy fit. If voters approve gay marriage he will end the Catholic Churches social services in D.C. Since opposing gay marriage matters more to him than doing any sort of good in the world, I hope that he loses all public funding and becomes irrelevant. 

The Acorn Scandal

The is ACORN's purpose: "ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."

A couple of filmmakers encouraged a couple ACORN employees to act unprofessionally for the camera and then used the lapse of professional judgement to tarnish the organization. This is obviously a political smear campaign.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis has twenty years experience in community organization, and no doubt has done a great deal more good than her opponents. The organization has the following campaigns: Foreclosures, Gulf Coast Recovery, Immigration, Living Wage, Paid Sick Days, Voter Engagement. I think most people see the benefit of such an organization on their side, yet the smear has been successful.

The Authoritarians

This is a necessary read for anyone concerned about the future of our democracy.

Anti-Obama protest orchestrated by Freedomworks

In a nutshell, Freedomworks is chaired by Dick Armey, who ushered in the Republican Revolution of the 1990s. Firedoglake exposes the corporate financing behind this PAC.

Basically you have a PAC exploiting people's fears by appealing to their racism, to oppose policy that would be in their best interest.

The polarized political landscape

Obviously the right wing in this country today is scared; they waved the flag all through the atrocities of the Bush Administration, but now all of a sudden for them government is bad. Health care means death camps, socialism, blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and since the President is black he's not an American citizen.

Sometimes I wonder if all it's about is hurting brown people. Hurting gay people. Hurting people different than them because that's what bigots do. They divide the country with hate so they can be smug in their righteousness.

They want Obama to fail. They listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, they parade in the streets with angry signs, and they see Obama as the enemy. They don't want to admit failure of their crazy ideologies, or admit that people are suffering as a result of 8 years of Bush who took a 5 trillion surplus and turned it into giveaways to the war corporations while demanding "people better be careful what they say."

Yes, government can be bad as we saw during the Bush Administration. The cooler heads among us prevailed and elected someone who would represent the interests of the country and not allow 9/11, torture or future Katrinas to happen in our country again.

These very people who now point their finger at Obama and accuse him of lying, should be called out for what they are ... shameless hypocrits. And total douchebags.