More Tea Party Shenanigans

From the Huffington Post:

Security guards for Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller handcuffed and detained the editor of the online magazine "Alaska Dispatch" on Sunday while he tried to interview the Republican nominee, according to multiple reports.  The Anchorage Daily News reports that Tony Hopfinger, who founded and edits "Alaska Dispatch," was arrested by Miller's private guards at an Anchorage school. The senate hopeful was on hand as part of a town hall event.  The firm that handles Miller's security says that Hopfinger shoved a man, but Hopfinger claims that he only pushed back at a guard after the guard began pushing him.  According to an article at the website for "Alaska Dispatch," Hopfinger was warned that he would be charged with trespassing if he did not cease asking questions and leave the premises:

"Hopfinger had been trying to ask Miller questions when two or three guards told him to leave or risk being charged with trespassing.  When Hopfinger continued to try to ask questions, one of the guards put the reporter in an arm-bar and then handcuffed him.  Hopfinger was released after police arrived.  The reporter was on public property where a public event was being held at the time of the incident."

The incident occurs one week after Miller, a Tea Party favorite who stunned incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the state's Republican Primary in August, abruptly announced that he would no longer answer questions from the press. "We've drawn a line in the sand. You can ask me about background, you can ask me about personal issues, I'm not going to answer them. I'm not," he said at the time.

Miller has recently faced accusations of an ethics breach. Last week, the former mayor of Fairbanks said that Miller nearly lost his job after a 2008 incident. Miller, Murkowski and Democratic nominee Scott McAdams are currently locked in a close three-way race for the seat.

Geezz Louise, these Republican/tea partiers have a lot of nerve don't they? They are lucky Hopfinger didn't have them arrested.  They think they are the law.  So typical.  I hope Hopfinger sues Miller for false imprisonment, violating his civil rights and whatever else will hold up in court.   

WELL SAID !

Why GOP Is Not the Answer

Mitchell Bard said it well on his blog today over at Huffington Post:

"As the partisan cable networks breathlessly discuss what will happen in the midterm elections in November, there is much talk about how Americans are angry and, as a result, the Republicans are set for major gains in Congress. But the connection between these two assertions -- Americans' dissatisfaction and GOP success -- strikes me as incredibly lazy, both by the media and the voters. 

Nowhere is this disconnect more clear than in the financial regulation battle, which finally concluded with a bill passing the Senate yesterday.

Americans have every right to be angry. Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months (hopefully, it's finally been contained). Islamic extremists seek to kill Americans. We have such a muddy immigration situation, that, no matter which side of the ideological fence you sit on (pun intended), you can't be happy with the way things currently operate.

But the main point of anger is the economy. The official unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent (with millions more not counted because they've given up on looking for a job). People are concerned about their ability to pay their bills and see an unfair system that rewards Wall Street's reckless risks while punishing middle class workers.

But if Americans want to assess blame for these woes, and if they want to choose who should help get us out of these messes, they have an obligation in a democracy to make an effort to really look at the issues before making a decision. And the media, likewise, has an obligation to sort through these complicated issues more carefully.

If the Republican campaign message for 2010 was something like, "Yes, we know that we caused all these problems in the Bush years, but we've learned our lesson, and now we are offering these new ideas to fix things in the future," I would understand (if not agree with) the equating of the problems with Republican gains. But that's not what the Republicans are offering. Rather, the GOP campaign message for 2010 is essentially the same message as the Bush years, only more militant (and more wacky, thanks to the Angle-Paul tea party influence). Their pitch is built around deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and less government, the very things that got us into this mess in the first place.

The Republican congressional record for the Obama years consists of opposing any initiative the president offered (in an effort to make him look ineffectual), even if he proposed something the GOP itself had supported earlier, and to offer as solutions the same tired policies from the Bush years (tax cuts, even if they add to the deficit, as Sen. Jon Kyl suggested). That shouldn't be a winning election argument. But with incendiary rhetoric and right-wing-propaganda-machine-fueled lies taking center stage, the focus for the midterms hasn't been on the facts (how we got here and what the two parties have offered since). 

In fact, the Republicans have been at the heart of the causes of these problems, and they have offered little other than the same policies as solutions.

Which brings us back to financial regulation, an issue directly tied to the current economic problems. We did not magically morph from prosperity to recession. Rather, the current recession and massive job loss began with the near collapse of the financial system in 2008. Wall Street played a win-lose game (they won no matter what, but we all lost) with risky financial instruments. The housing market collapsed under the weight of subprime mortgages. So the deregulation trumpeted by Republicans caused this mess, and yet the party still touts deregulation. 

Certainly, Americans should be angry. And it would seem obvious that action was needed. Nevertheless, all but three Republicans in the Senate didn't think so. Given a choice of standing with the banks or the American people, the Republicans announced their allegiance loud and clear: It is the party of the financial institutions. 

So what is the Republican solution to our economic woes? Based on the actions of their leaders, it seems to be to blame the victims, cut taxes and protect the banks. Not only have Republicans opposed extending unemployment benefits, they have tried to blame the unemployed for their plight, particularly cruel since it was their policies that put them out of work in the first place. Arthur Delaney pointed out two examples in HuffPost last week: Sen. John Kyl said unemployment benefits provide a disincentive for the unemployed to seek work, and Sen. Judd Gregg claimed that unemployment insurance encourages the unemployed to stay out of work. (Again, Kyl won't support adding to the deficit for unemployment insurance, but he is fine with doing so for tax cuts for the wealthy.) 

Republicans have used increasing government debt as a pro-GOP argument. Generally, it is, of course, better for the government not to run large deficits. But the Republican argument ignores history and is overly simplistic. After all, Bill Clinton handed a surplus to George W. Bush, who proceeded to leave Obama with a gaping deficit. Republicans were happy to run up debt in the 2000s on tax cuts for the rich and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which were paid for. But now that the tens of millions of Americans face unemployment, these same GOP leaders complain about the deficit and say we can't afford any programs to help. How is it that we could afford to spend when it was for tax cuts (and still can, according to Kyl), but not to help those hurt by the Republican-policy-induced recession? 

Two polls released on Tuesday showed that Americans care more about unemployment than the deficit. Which party is more concerned with each of those issues? So why should the anger translate to GOP votes? It shouldn't. 

In general, Republican policies precipitated the recession, and the party's solutions are to offer more of the same. And when it came to deciding who to stand up for, the Republicans attacked the unemployed and stood with the banks. Americans' anger is legitimate, but directing that anger by giving power back to the GOP is misplaced. The connection makes no sense. 

(You could run the same arguments for the oil disaster, immigration and terrorism, showing the Republican culpability and the lack of new solutions offered by the GOP to address the problems.)

I harbor no illusions that Obama and the Democratic Congress are above critique. But I'm saddened that there seems to be no recognition that most of the messes we find ourselves in were created, by and large, by the policies instituted by Bush and his Republican allies in Congress, and that the Republicans are offering those very same policies as the solution in the current campaign. It seems to me handing the reins back to the people who created the problems in the first place (and, more importantly, are only offering more of the same) is a horrible way to respond to the challenges. I'm further saddened that GOP strategy of obstructing and lying, putting rhetoric in front of facts, seems to be working.

You would think that with an oil disaster ravaging his state's already hurting economy, Sen. David Vitter would have better things to do than vote against financial reform and endorse bogus "birther" lawsuits against the president. But this is the essence of the Republican party in 2010."

Thank you, Mr. Bard.

Outrageous Republican Statements 4/29/2010: Microchip 'em!

Dr. Pat BertrocheI, who is running for an Iowa Republican Congressional seat, told an audience regarding illegal immigrants: "I think we should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going.  I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"

Teach Your Children

In 1991, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren across the nation.  The speech  was intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students'  as well as parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face."  The White house  sent letters to schools across the nation encouraging the schools to allow students to listen to the speech.  The Education Department arranged for live television and radio coverage.  Washington Post, October 2, 2001. 

Simon Maloy at Media Matters points out that George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website for teachers to use to help their students understand the "freedom timeline" for the Iraq war and encouraged them to "explore the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney."

In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed schoolchildren in a speech that was broadcast live and rerun by C-Span.  The Instructional Television Network fed the program to schools nationwide on three different days.  At one point in the broadcast,  Reagan used the occasion to speak in favor of his tax cuts. 

Following the tradition, President Obama will give a speech to American schoolchildren on the first day of school, in which he will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their own learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."  U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

So why, pray tell, did Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, lash out at President Obama for his plans to give a speech to the nation's school children about the importance of working hard in school?  Why would he accuse the president of trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda?"  Why would he call  President Obama's planned speech an  "an invasive abuse of power?"  Why all this coming from Mr. Greer, who, himself, went into classrooms and talked about Republican values?  Why are conservative Republicans all over the country condemning and spouting off conspiracy theories about the speech, which they haven't even read?

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress astutely concluded, "Probably the biggest moral of the story is that the contemporary conservative movement is run by crazy people with no scruples, who’ll turn anything into a pretext to level wild accusations. "

For this to to cause so much hysteria from the right, I can't help but conclude that if Obama was a white male president, the reaction would not be so hateful and venomous.  In fact, there would be no opposition.  This is a pure and very sad case of racism.  These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president.  They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children.

It  sickens me.

More Republican fear-mongering

A New York reader called my attention to a very funny posting at the Wonkette regarding the most recent Republican dirty tricks campaign to convince the public that the Obama White House is compiling an Enemies List of those spreading disinformation about the health insurance reform:

(T)his notion of the “enemies list” has become the hot new well-funded wingnut con-job from Republican operatives over the last 24 hours. * * * This stems from the Democrats’ recent pushback against the anti-health care reform movement’s operation to (a) shout violent nonsense at town hall meetings and (b) spread lies to America’s old people about how the government will first “take over their Medicare” and then murder each of them, for pleasure, well before that first sniffle becomes a full-blown cold or pancreatic cancer.

Emphasis added.

Seriously, these Republican dirty tricks operatives are dishonest, desperate, dangerous people. They are paid by the health insurance industry to stop President Obama's efforts to reform health care/health insurance. The facts do not support their position (which is simply, "no"). So, as they always do, the Republicans started cooking up lies and embarked on a campaign of disinformation and fearmongering. They will stop at nothing.