Sarah Palin Says "Jump," Republican Leadership Says "How High"

Today, Sarah Palin, the blogger from Alaska, will speak at a Right to Life event in Wisconsin. Running true to form, no press will be allowed, and to add to the bizarreness of the event, according to Mike Tate, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman, no one entering the venue will be allowed to bring in a cell phone, camera, laptop, or any kind of recording device. Think she might be worried some of her insightful comments might make it out onto the intertubes?

Earlier in the week it was reported that she was asking $100,000 for an appearance in Iowa, a claim that her aides denied and it was later reported that she was asking only $75,000 and three first-class airline tickets. There is no doubt that she is seriously considering a run for the presidential nomination in 2012, especially after inserting herself into the NY-23 campaign and attempting to insert herself into the Virginia and New Jersey Republican campaigns (they declined, although they allow her to record robo-calls, minus any identifiers which unfortunately, run afoul of campaign law).

It is apparent that the GOP rather than move to the center in an effort to win back seats, has decided that ideological purity is the answer and so is investing its energy into tea parties and other extremist activities. Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was in her glory as the GOP leadership joined her on the Capital steps, for the first time giving institutional approval to her - and by extension - Fox News's more radical and extreme astroturfing ideas.

What is fascinating about this endeavor by the GOP is that less than 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Republican. Fox News and the fringe of the Republican Party in the form of Michele Bachmann inflame the extremists and most radical libertarians - the ones that boo the Republican leadership at town hall meetings as often as the Democratic - and when faced with endorsing a moderate Republican (Scozzafava) or a wacko Conservative Party candidate (Hoffman) in New York, they choose Hoffman. Even losing a seat in Congress for the first time since before the Civil War is still a win in their eyes as they have removed someone from the party who is not pure enough to represent them. To them, it isn't about winning elections (and thus gaining seats), it's about shaping the ideology of the party and thus shaping the ideology of the country as a whole, forgetting that is just ain't gonna happen.

They know they cannot win elections without independents, but party purity is more important than winning elections. Isn't that what political parties are all about? Weird.

It doesn't matter who is in power. It doesn't matter what laws they write. It doesn't matter who has the money. There will always be liberals and progressives and libertarians. There will also always be wackos and extremists and people balancing on the edge who when riled up, will take up their guns and their bombs and use them and won't care if the government who riled them is Republican or Democratic.

I digress. In the past year since losing her bid to become vice president, Sarah Palin has snubbed the Republican Party more often than not. She has engaged where she should have ignored, and ignored when she should have engaged. When she should have taken the high road and acted like a politician and demonstrated that thick skin she claimed to have, she threatened lawsuits. At this point, I was going to say that when she was mistreated, but couldn't think of any examples. So, moving on.

Sarah Palin has never felt it necessary to fulfill her obligations, keep her promises, or apply laws and ethical rules to herself. For some reason, she retains a great following. She remains very popular in some circles and is able to attract large crowds. What she seems unable to do is recognize that those large crowds aren't big enough to elect her dogcatcher. She doesn't seem to understand that were she to run again for City Council in Wasilla, she would most likely lose. Her book hasn't even been released yet, but is available for purchase for less than ten dollars and in some places, less than five if you order a magazine. Most people would take this as a clue and begin to wonder if they should re-examine their career path. Sarah Palin's dictionary seems to be missing self-reflection or self-awareness.

It is apparent that Sarah Palin believes that she can chart her own course and that she does not think she needs the Republican Party. It is true that she has a niche that she appeals to and will likely retain their votes no matter what truths Levi reveals. It is apparent that the Republican Party, at least this week, is following Sarah Palin (and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) rather than the reverse, but at some point, they will have to start reading the polls.

In a recent CNN poll, Sarah Palin's favorability rating was at 42% and her unfavorability rating was 15 points higher than Mike Huckabee's which is saying something. Seventy percent of Americans and 50% of Republicans do not think she is qualified to be president, and from where I sit, nothing she is doing is going to change that in the next two years.

We progressives and Democrats shouldn't sit back and stop worrying though. Obama and the Democratic Party won because of grassroots support and the turnout of young people, none of which showed up this week. Off year elections typically don't get much notice, but neither do the mid-terms even though they are as important to the President as the general election. Right now, astroturfed or not, the Tea Baggers are energized and truly hate Obama and the Democratic Party. Lies or not, they believe what they hear on Fox News. They won't listen to reason and don't want to be confused with the facts. To most of them, it is a holy war which makes it scarier than ever.

If grassroots is what won in 2008, it is also what will win in 2010 and 2012, and regardless of how unpopular the Republican Party is at this time, groundswells - even if generated by hate - have a habit of growing.

Sarah Palin isn't going away unless some one of the remaining ethics charges filed against her or -gates is actually found to have merit, and accompanied by enough evidence to force her to face criminal charges. In the meantime, for all who tell me to get over it, she's no threat, I think she is. The numbers may be small, but in NY-23, when she said "jump," the entire Republican leadership said "how high." That deserves our attention.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

So Now NY-23 Doesn't Matter? Sarah Palin's Balancing Act Ahead

We certainly live in interesting times. Off-year elections typically generate as much interest as a limp teabag, and that is apparently what we've got in upstate New York. However, the day after excitement is almost as high as that leading up to the election. At least for us political junkie types.

Interesting side note (h/t Media Matters) that updates a comment in my last post. It seems that Adam Nagourney of the New York Times reported on Monday that a loss in NY-23 would be disastrous for the Republican Party (despite the fact that Doug Hoffman, the challenger ran on the Conservative Party ticket) and will highlight the deep divisions in the party. Today, NY-23 is not even on the radar as he exclaims that the Republican wins will energize the party and set the stage for fund-raising, attracting candidates, and whipping up the base.The significance of a loss in 23, now? Not so much.

The greater implications, in my opinion, are to Sarah Palin. Her behavior is clearly that of someone who is planning to make a run for president in 2012, although someone who either has very poor advisors, or more likely, someone who knows it all and refuses to listen to those advisors (you just cannot ask people to pay to hear you speak in Iowa, a state you must win if you want to win the primaries).

Palin's decision to support Hoffman in NY-23 and her victory in running Scozzafava out of the race energized the Tea Bagger fringe of an already weakened party. Not quite 20% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans at this time, and Sarah Palin has clearly decided to chart her own course. By refusing to attend Republican events over the past year, and now supporting Hoffman, it is clear that Palin believes that she can either re-form the Republican Party or form her own.

Interestingly, in demanding purity - as defined by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - Republican leaders who had been supporting Scozzafava immediately threw their support behind Hoffman as soon as Palin and Fox News did rather than suffer the media backlash that would most certainly have occurred. Republicans planning to run in 2012, particularly Pawlenty, who was the most surprising because of his previous moderation, almost shoved each other out of the way to jump on that bandwagon.

Rather than widen the umbrella and try to appeal to a wider base, the Republican Party is following the wacky GOPhers on Fox News and the blogger from Alaska. This may win them local elections, but no one can win the presidency without independents, and regardless of how Obama does or does not do on the major issues, it is unlikely that independents are going to vote for the Tea Bag candidate.

It will be interesting to watch Sarah Palin balance on that fine line as she tries to hang on to her Republican supporters as she moves further and further into the wacko extremist right.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Upset in NY-23 is a Referendum on Sarah Palin

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin should be so proud. A small upstate New York district, the 23rd, which has gone Republican for the past 120 years tonight voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who had dropped out over the weekend, had thrown her support behind Mr. Owens, but still received 5% of the vote. Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin, et al, was the odds on favorite until late in the evening and ultimately conceded defeat. All the big time names Hoffman had behind him couldn't get him elected.

It seems that the residents of NY-23 don't appreciate out of towners coming in and telling them who to vote for, especially as the person they are being told to vote for 1) does not live in their district, and 2) knows little about the local issues of concern to them (and has said that he is more concerned with the larger, values issues in any case, to paraphrase).When he appeared for an interview at the local paper, Hoffman whined that he should have been given the questions in advance. Huh? Since when? Regardless, they had been in the editorial in that morning's paper if he had bothered to read it. How many politicians running for office do you know who don't read the opinion page of the papers in the districts they're running in? Well, one, now.

Republicans may have won big in Virginia and New Jersey, but a sweep? A referendum on Obama? I don't think so. Do I think the Democrats and in particular Obama need to do some serious thinking about the implications for 2010? Absolutely.

But if this is a referendum, it is a referendum on Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, not the Obama Administration.

All we've heard was how NY-23 was a microcosm of the Tea Party movement, the change that the country wanted. Sarah Palin said jump, and the Republican Party said "How high?" I watched the Twitter streams this afternoon and evening, and when it became clear that Hoffman was trailing, I started to see that "Oh, 23 is incidental." Or, "It's just a small, unimportant district." Right.

As I liked to say about W, you can say it as often as you'd like, it still doesn't make it true.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon,.
k

Republicans Put Security at Risk

Rep. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman threw hissy fits, saying they would shut down the House & the Senate if their amendment to stop release of the torture photos didn't pass. This amendment was originally attached to the war spending supplemental. (They have since tried to attach it to everything going by - fortunately so far without success). Now Republicans are refusing to pass the supplemental because it includes cash for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) .

The White House wants the funds for the IMF included to honor its pledge to foreign leaders - in part because the US is partially responsible for the world-wide economic downturn. The Republican leadership does not want to support the IMF, saying that this money will only support state sponsored terrorism.

Yesterday, in a letter sent to Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and Rep. John Boehner, Secretarys Clinton and Gates, and National Security Advisor James Jones asked that they support this bill on the grounds of national security. Saying:

"With adequate funding, the IMF will strengthen our national security by mitigating the national security crisis and inhibiting the growth of terrorist networks. We ask you for your support for this critical contribution to the IMF and the supplemental appropriations bill."

Gates is a Republican, his reasoning (and that of Clinton and Jones) makes sense. It will be pretty difficult for the Republican leadership to come up with another reason to deny passage - although I will be curious to see what they come up with.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Race to the Bottom

What a bunch of white men (and one white woman) are saying about Judge Sotomayor.



The oppressed class, gender, or race cannot be accused of the "ism" that has been perpetrated on them. It is a fallacy and a way for the (in this case) racist to continue being a racist. By accusing Judge Sotomayor of being a racist, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et. al., continue to inject race into the discussion and in fact make race the discussion and avoid any substantive conversation or having to back up any of their claims.

Fortunately, they are making a terrible mistake and (finally) the Republican leadership is beginning to realize that enough is enough. Today, John Cornyn, Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, "I think it's terrible... This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."

Perhaps others will begin to listen to Senator Cornyn. Or, as is more usual, we will hear Senator Cornyn begin to take that back in about 1-2 days or face attacks by Rush.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Why Not Move Detainees to U.S?

Why can't we move Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S? The Republicans have mounted an amazing campaign claiming that we will not be safe if these terrorists currently incarcerated at Guantanamo are moved to U.S. prisons. Never mind that they would be moved to supermax prisons. Never mind that any prisoners actually released would be released to their home countries, not to the U.S. Never mind that none of this will happen anytime soon, but will happen after careful deliberation and due process (an admittedly foreign concept for Guantanamo detainees) to ensure that the most dangerous prisoners are appropriately handled.



The most recent reason why we can't have these terrorists in American prisons? Conservative pundits and blogs cite an incident that took place in 2000 involving a Muslim terrorist. This article about Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, in custody for the two embassy bombings in 1998, details his attack on a prison guard. On Nov. 1, 2000, while incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan, Salim's attack left the guard blinded and partially paralyzed. This example is used to explain how violent jihadists are because of their background. That because of the kind of training they receive, because they are on a holy mission, they are more dangerous, more brutal, and more willing to risk their own lives and thus, too dangerous for U.S. prisons.

This is one incident. More detainees at Guantanamo have been injured in custody than have their guards. In fact, we have an obligation beyond ending "enhanced interrogation" to remove these men fromGuantanamo. Everyday these men experience cruel and unusual punishment that exceeds stress positions and the other techniques listed in the OLC memos. The Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams at Guantanamo as detailed here are more brutal than one man with a homemade shiv could ever be.

The U.S. is more than capable of containing violent prisoners and doing it ethically and legally. Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, and others are in custody. Bundy, Dahmer, and other serial killers too numerous to mention are either incarcerated or were executed and all were at least as dangerous as some of the men in Guantanamo. Many of the men in Guantanamo have actually done nothing wrong and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of the paranoia of Bush and Cheney, and the inability of the system they attempted to put in place to deal with errors, these men are still there.

Why are the Republicans so afraid of bringing these men into American prisons? Why has the Democratic leadership knuckled under and begun singing that song? We have the highest unemployment rate ever. Prisons are experiencing reductions in size, prisoners are being given early release because of over-crowding. Guards are being let go, prisons are reducing units, and some supermax prisons stand empty. Closing Guantanamo and bringing the detainees here would add jobs to the corrections system without creating any additional danger. In fact, by closing Guantanamo, a symbol of the abuse of prisoners, it would enhance our image in the world and enhance our image with potential al Qaeda recruits, thus reducing one factor leading to the reason young men join al Qaeda.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

WaPo Facilitates Push Polling, Again.

Well. Can't get the American people off the subject of torture? Build a strawman. Instead of discussing whether or not Bush/Cheney were correct in their tactics, argue about who knew what, when (specifically, Speaker Pelosi). Don't like the results of the polls that say most of the American people want prosecution of those who tortured and those who approved the torture? Change the polls.

Resurgent Republic who I don't want to link to, just add the dot com yourself, has established itself as a new player in the Washington polling game. Building on the success of push polling in the 2000 election cycle, they are a group of hardcore Republicans including Hayley Barbour, Mary Matalin, and others, who seek to reframe the torture debate by returning to the use of 'enhanced interrogation' and once again providing stenography services to the mainstream media. Chris Cilliza at the Washington Post The Fix disappointingly wrote extensively of these latest poll results - claiming 53% overall felt such tactics were justified compared to 34% - without bothering to discuss the actual poll itself.

Remember, poll results are useless unless you know 1) who was polled, 2) how many were polled, and 3) the questions asked.

Consider this question.

"Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means."

"Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11."

The first part includes the word torture. The question uses inflammatory, negative terms - undermine, hurt, endanger troops, and then goes on to tell us that they 'yield little or not useful information.'

The second part does not use the word torture. It uses words that are not inflammatory but uses words meant to make us feel good - exceptional, protect, justified, innocent, and then appeals to our emotions by referencing the lives lost on 9/11.

This is called push-polling. You are presented with 2 choices - good or bad, right or wrong that appeal to your emotions. The question is framed so that there is only one possible "right" answer if you are not a monster. Neither address the issue at hand, that being: various elected officials including Dick Cheney have acknowledged that the used of torture, sometimes called enhanced interrogation to make us feel better about it, was used. Do you believe that investigations should occur into who is responsible? Or, something along those lines.

The group at Resurgent Republican are long-term Washington insiders, experienced campaigners and experienced pollsters. They know how to write a poll to get the results they want, knowing full well that people tend to follow the polls. People don't like to take a stand on their own. If they think most of the country believes in something, they are more likely to believe that as well. If they've been uncertain, a well-designed push-poll will push them write over the edge. The above question is one used in the poll Cilliza cites and is the least toxic.

A 'good' polling question is a simple statement, usually based on something in the news that the subject is likely to know about, and is written in a way that does not appeal to the subject's emotions. Loaded words are never used in a properly prepared poll unless - as in Cheney's use of enhanced interrogation - you have a pre-determined result to achieve and must design a poll to elicit the answers that you seek.

The media, again, is not doing its job when it simply reports the results of a poll like this without questioning the methodology. The only information Cilliza included in his article is that the poll included "critically independent" voters. But how many people were polled? Where were they from? How were they selected? What stratification process (if any) was used? Remember - percentages are meaningless numbers if you don't know how large a sample was used. Sixty percent of 5 people is still 3.

Once again, the mainstream media perpetuating the serial stupidity of our fellow citizens as they swallow unquestioningly what the Republican Party wants fed to them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Continuing Serial Stupidity of the Republican Party

Where does the Republican Party find these people? The Minority Leader (Boehner R-OH) in the Washington Post now says that Speaker Pelosi should provide proof that the CIA lied to her or apologize. Hello?!?!

How about the CIA provide proof that they did in fact brief Speaker Pelosi and Senator Graham (D-FL) when and how they say they did? The CIA has already admitted that they were 'mistaken' about 3 of the 4 briefings they claim to have given Graham about 'enhanced interrogation' practices which you can read about here. Why is it so difficult to believe they are mistaken about Speaker Pelosi? She has asked that CIA produce the briefings to support their claim.

Boehner says that lying to Congress is a crime, so of course CIA would never do that and if Pelosi is going to say that they did, then she should produce her evidence so that the Justice Department can proceed with prosecutions. Uh huh.

Let's see. CIA refuses to release briefing notes. Republicans campaigning - hard - to stop any investigation into enhanced interrogation practices; who set up the program, when, how, and what was discovered through these procedures. But, they are also demanding that President Obama continue unquestioned the intelligence policies and programs established during the Bush Administration.

Speaker Pelosi is asking for release of the CIA briefing notes. As is Senator Graham. Speaker Pelosi is suggesting a Truth Commission. Speaker Pelosi is supportive of Senator Leahy's investigations into the truth of what happened during these 'enhanced interrogation' programs.

Hmmm. Difficult decision. One asking for investigation, the other for continued stonewalling, but hey, by the way, lying to Congress is a crime so you better say you're sorry. Again, another incidence of the serial stupidity of the Republican Party.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Newt Squares Off Against Pelosi - And Loses

Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich, who left his position as Speaker of the House (in disgrace) 10 years ago said of Speaker Pelosi:

"I think she has lied to the House, and I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry...I think this is a big deal. I don't think the Speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters."

Continuing in honorable Newtish fashion:

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest, and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."

"She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

Newt goes on to say:

"Speaker Pelosi's the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses. The fact is she either didn't do her job, or she did do her job and she's now afraid to tell the truth.”

The only two defenses? Really? What about maybe the CIA didn't do their job? Or maybe the White House didn't do theirs? And truly, why would we want to listen to what ex-Speaker Gingrich has to say on the subject of current-Speaker Pelosi? Remember Newt's "Contract with America?" Neither do I.

Newt left in disgrace. What he thinks is irrelevant regardless of what the Republican Party and Fox News would like the agenda to be. And consider. Speaker Pelosi is asking for a Truth Commission. She is asking for the CIA to release the briefing reports to prove whether they or she is telling the truth. Newt and everyone else on the Republican side wants no investigation of torture. They are trying to muddy the waters by demanding investigations of tangential issues such as this. Why is that do you suppose?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Serial Stupidity of Congressional Republicans

Wow. These Congresspeople are really on a roll. It’s hard to keep up with their serial idiocy. My mama always told me not to call people names, and to never, ever, call people an idiot. But really. What can I do? Yesterday, they tried to get Hillary to answer a non-question with a yes or a no. Don’t these people have a Freshman Congressperson 101 class? Basic Committee Skills? Simple Interview Skills? Don’t they understand the difference between an open and a closed question? You can’t ask an open ended question and then demand a yes or no answer. Well, yes you can. But you only succeed in making yourself look really stupid.

Rep. Joe Barton (R) Texas at a meeting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, asked Dr. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, where Alaska got its oil and gas. The little smirk and phrasing used were a clear signal that this was a set-up of some sort. The ‘expert’ (Mr. Barton) was going to ‘get’ Dr. Chu. And the fact that he posted this video clip with the heading “Where Does Oil Come From? Question Leaves Energy Secretary Puzzled” tells us that he he did. He thinks.

Check this out.

What an idiot. And I don’t mean Dr. Chu, who by the way, has a Nobel Prize, and was clearly not puzzled or confused. What he was, was trying not to fall out of his chair laughing while answering another stupid question from a Congressman trying to play “gotcha” politics and make himself look good and gather campaign clips (which by the way, I hope his opponent has bookmarked for the next campaign!).

See? I can’t help myself. If they’re going to get together and plan ways to make themselves look like idiots in committee, then post the video on YouTube, what can I do? Rep. Joe Barton, another Serial Idiot.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.