The ugly truth about Ron Paul

By Michael J.W. Stickings

One of the good things about the craziness that has been, and remains, the race to be the Republican nominee for president is the fact that with each new surging anti-Romney, and with each new "frontrunner," the media have finally been required to do their jobs and look into what these leading Republicans, and indeed much of their party, are actually all about.

For example, while many of us knew full well (and had known for a long time) that Michele Bachmann was insane, her high-profile opposition to the HPV vaccine, wrapped up in her usual conspiracy-theorizing, pushed her insanity further into public view. Similarly, her (and her "cure 'em" husband's) anti-gay views revealed her to be an unabashed bigot. And because she was, for a time, the hottest Republican candidate going, the media could not help but do some probing.

The same has been true of the others, and we're seeing this now with Ron Paul, who has long been seen as a principled libertarian who speaks truth to power in the GOP (and who even has his admirers on the left) but who, while certainly a sort of libertarian, has throughout his long political career held and advanced despicable views and revealed himself to be an ugly racist. Put on the spot, Paul has responded with denials and general "no comment"s. But again, and to their credit, the media are doing what they ought to be doing and digging a little deeper than usual (in this case encouraged and cheered on by Republicans appalled with Paul and fearful of the damage he's doing to their party). And more and more ugliness is coming out:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has distanced himself from a series of controversial newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s that bore his name and included inflammatory and racially charged language.

As the newsletters burst into view, first during his 2008 presidential bid and again in recent weeks after he climbed to the front of the Republican race in Iowa, Paul has blamed the writings on ghostwriters. He said he was not aware of the "bad stuff," as he described it.

But one of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.

In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

The slim, 157-page volume was published ahead of Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party presidential bid and touches on many of the themes he continues to hammer on the stump.

Returning again and again to the of concept of "liberty," he hails the virtues of the gold standard, attacks the Federal Reserve and defends the rights of gun-owners.

But the book, re-issued in 2007 during Paul's last presidential bid with a cover photograph of an ominous SWAT Team, has so far escaped scrutiny amid the latest furor over his newsletters.

Well, now that he's doing so well in Iowa, with a strong showing expected, that scrutiny is happening. Now. And not a moment too soon.

**********

What's interesting is that Romney has, for the most part, escaped such scrutiny. Sure, his opponents have brought up his various inconsistencies and tried to focus (the media's and Republican voters') attention on Romneycare, but no one has been able to stay on top long enough to keep up a sustained attack -- in part because the pro-Romney Republican elites have been knocking them off one by one. And so we've basically spent most of our time tracking the dramatic rises and falls of these anti-Romneys while Romney himself has been able to skate by largely untarnished.

That will change if and when Romney really does solidify himself as the frontrunner and likely winner. Then, one hopes, the media will do to him what they've done to his Republican competitors (helped along by those Republican elites, of course) and what they always do to Democrats (with Republicans driving the dominant media narratives, as always).

This day in music - December 30, 1942: Frank Sinatra performs solo for the first time

By Richard K. Barry

Apparently, for the first time as a solo act, Frank Sinatra stepped out at the Paramount Theatre in New York City on this date in 1942 to throngs of screaming bobby soxers, no doubt. Follow the link if you don't know what bobby soxers were. I'm not making this up. What, you think this started with The Beatles or Elvis?

I must admit, I didn't exactly grow up listening to the music of Frank Sinatra. A bit before my time. But I like him. And love that jazz standards / Great American Songbook stuff.

My favourite of his has always been "It Was a Very Good Year," though I couldn't find a great YouTube clip, not one that was in sync anyway. I always thought this one was interesting because it was originally recorded by Bob Shane of the Kingston Trio, having been composed by Ervin Drake in 1961. In fact, I discovered one performance in which Sinatra refers to it as a folk song.

So many great songs to choose from, though.

Here's a nice version of "Fly Me To The Moon," a song written in 1954 by Bart Howard. It seems that the Apollo 10 astronauts played Sinatra's 1964 recording of the song on their lunar-orbital mission and Buzz Aldrin played it again on the Moon itself during the Apollo 11 landing. I guess we could have seen that one coming.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Great Santorum Surge of December 2011

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Don't laugh.

Well, fine, go ahead.

Done? Okay.

Last week, I wrote that Rick Santorum will be the 2012 Republican nominee for president. I wasn't being serious, of course, but there's no denying Santorum's upward momentum, at least in Iowa, where he's left Perry and Bachmann behind and is now challenging Gingrich for third. (One poll, from Rasmussen (not the most credible pollster, but still), has him ahead of Newt.) And he's revving up the attacks on those ahead of him, particularly Ron Paul. For Santorum and his supporters, it's an exciting time indeed.

Who knows? Maybe he can win the damn thing. Or come damn close.

Yes, with Newt collapsing, Santorum could well finish third in Iowa, where what matters is appealing to (and turning out) a tiny fraction of the electorate (with even the vast majority of Republicans staying home from the caucuses), but even with a bit of a boost coming from such a relatively strong showing, that would be the end of the line for him. While he has understandably focused almost exclusively on Iowa, he has little to no organization anywhere else and remains for the most part a fringe candidate even in the right-wing Republican Party. He certainly has the conservative bona fides to appeal to much of the primary-voting base, but he's just too deranged for the establishment and too unelectable for the elites. Which is why he's never been taken seriously as a possible nominee. And why in national polls he remains a distant sixth.

So why is he surging? Obviously, he's benefitting from Newt's sudden fall and from a field that is, as we keep saying, embarassingly weak. And in Iowa, where he's got a fairly big name (prominent campaign, a couple of big-time endorsements), where else at this point are conservatives, and especially the social conservatives so prevalent in that state, to turn?

So is Ron Paul a racist, or what?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If his long history of bigotry doesn't sway you, including those racist newsletters, how about the fact that white supremacists thought he was "one of us":

Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said he received Mr. Paul's controversial newsletters when they were first published about two decades ago and described how the publications were perceived by members of the white supremacist movement. Former KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana Congressman David Duke also phoned in to explain why he’s voting for Mr. Paul.

"Everybody, all of us back in the 80's and 90's, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic -- broad base of support," Mr. Black said on his broadcast yesterday.

Mr. Black is a former Klansman and member of the American Nazi Party who founded the "white nationalist" website Stormfront in 1995. He donated to Mr. Paul in 2007 and has been photographed with the candidate. Mr. Paul has vocal supporters in Stormfront's online forum. Mr. Black has repeatedly said he doesn't currently think Mr. Paul is a "white nationalist."

Mr. Paul's newsletters contained threats of a "coming race war," worries about America's "disappearing white majority" and warning [sic] against "the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS." He has since denied writing the newsletters, which appeared under his own name.

"I didn't write them, I disavow them, that's it," Mr. Paul said in a tense CNN interview.

On Monday, Mr. Black said he originally believed the newsletters were written by Mr. Paul.

"They went out under his name in the first person and most people receiving these newsletters, including me, thought he really did write them," Mr. Black said.

Ba-zoom. (Or, as they say in the tennis world: game... set... match.)

**********

Lesson for today:

Not all bigots come dancing around a burning cross wearing silly white hoods or marching down the Champs-Elysees waving swastika flags. Some of them are leading figures in the Republican Party, enjoying long and successful political careers, poised to do extremely well in Iowa (whether the GOP "mainstream" likes it or not).

**********

For more on Paul's bigotry and conspiracy-theorizing craziness, see this piece by James Kirchick (who wrote the first piece linked above) at the Times.

Robert Reich says it will be Obama-Clinton in 2012

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, my break is over. Back to politics.

Robert Reich, former Secretary or Labor under President Bill Clinton, says that the Democratic ticket in 2012 will have Hillary Clinton as the vice presidential candidate. He's quick to point out that it's based on absolutely nothing, which reminds me that, also based on absolutely nothing, I suggested many months ago that Hillary would run for the top job in 2016. Hey, why not? It's all idle speculation, though, to be fair, there is some logic to Reich's musings.

Here's his thinking:

Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that's been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Moreover, the economy won't be in superb shape in the months leading up to Election Day. Indeed, if the European debt crisis grows worse and if China's economy continues to slow, there's a better than even chance we'll be back in a recession. Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven't had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.

I think we have all heard it said that Joe Biden covets the Secretary of State gig. I'm not sure where that comes from, but we've heard it, which means a job swap could work. And no matter what Hillary Clinton says, if offered an opportunity to position herself to become President of the United States of America, she won't say no.

Robert Reich is not the kind of guy who just says stuff. I think he may have a point. Bottom line is that this will all hinge on the extent to which Obama and his team think they need the help. If this is the only way they can get themselves comfortable with their re-election chances, I see no reason to dismiss the possibility.

And now that the GOP has finally stopped fooling around with the idea of nominating the gift to Obama that would have been Newt Gingrich, it does look like Mitt Romney. And if it's Romney, it will be a race. And if it's a race, all hands will be on deck for Democrats, maybe even Mrs. Clinton's.

Could happen.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Why no blogging?

Family visiting + nasty stomach bug + catching up on movies (Margin Call: outstanding) + busy waging war on "Christ"mas = no blogging lately.

But I'll be back at it soon. Stay tuned.

-- Michael

Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

By Carl

 

So Senator Ben Nelson (nominal D from Nebraska) has decided to retire from the Senate, not seeking re-election in 2012.

 

Good riddance.

 

Look, I can live with Blue Dog Democrats, people who would under any other circumstance rightly be labeled "Republican" but for party affiliation. The Blue Dog breed is necessary in order to keep a hand in the poker game that is electoral politics in the heartland, and besides, a little dissent is a good thing. It keeps ideas refreshed by challenging their underpinnings regularly.

 

What I'm having a problem with is the strategy of how to deploy them, and Nelson is a prime example of the kind of obstructionist Democrat that we can do without.

 

For example, his vote on the Bush administration's godawful bankruptcy reform bill was a signal to debt-holders everywhere they were fucked for life. His insertion of a measure into healthcare reform guaranteeing that Federal healthcare funds would not be used for abortions was a tricky little device that ultimately had no impact on the final measure as enacted, since his "60th vote" would no longer be needed, but it flew in the face of progressive orthodoxy and cost him support in his own state of Nebraska.

 

Ironically, the measure he finally agreed to would have allowed for abortions, just not for a Federal mandate imposed on the states or for public funding thru healthcare reform. I'm not sure I oppose that too strenuously, altho I can see why iy would offend people who do.

 

The question now becomes, who in this very red state of Nebraska can the Democrats run for a seat held for decades by Democrats (the preceding Senator was Bob Kerrey.)

 

And the obvious choice to replace Nelson would be the aforementioned Kerrey.

 

So as I said, don't let the door hit you on the way out, Ben. We can get someone better.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

The Republican Party Gave Us Gifts

By Carl

 

A couple of odd items cropped up over the weekend that are like little Christmas presents...left by the cat in the litter box.

 

Item 1 -- Ron Paul "Uncomfortable" Around Gay People -- According to a former campaign aid, Eric Dondero, Ron Paul has a problem being around gay people. He doesn't want to deny them equal opportunity under the law, anymore than he wants to deny equal opportunity to blacks and Hispanics, other groups he seems uncomfortable around.

 

Look, all of us have squidgy feelings about some group or other, based on our prejudices, biases and perhaps even past experiences. We learn to set those feelings aside when confronted with a person of that group, we'd like to think. Personally, I'd like to think that this is how Ron Paul feels when he sits across the table from a minority representative.

 

I have my doubts, tho.

 

And we've all had that friend, man or woman, who spews some pretty neaderthalic sentiments about "them," and forced ourselves to swallow hard and keep quiet about it because we had some reason to. 

 

The difference here is, none of us is running for public office and if we were, the last thing we'd do is condone hatred of any sort. Here's where Dondero's defense of his boss as "not racist because he's never said a racist word" rings hollow. As was pointed out last week, Paul had ample opportunity-- opportunity he still has available-- to address the hurtful and hateful things in his newsletter. He has not.

 

And that negates all of Dondero's weak-ass defense.

 

Item 2 -- Newt Divorced His First Wife Because She Wasn't Pretty Enough -- Um, hm...you think he'd recognize that before he even got married, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that she didn't age well.

 

Hey! It happens. Look at Barbara Bush, the wife of Bush 41. It's a bit hard to believe he's actually older than she is.

 

This was, you may recall, the same Jackie who had cancer and on whose recovery bed he raised terms of the divorce (if indeed he didn't tell her at that time for the first time he wanted out.)  He then married Marrianne, and had an affair with Callista (his current wife, about whom rumour has it that she can suck the chrome off a tailpipe.)

 

Presumably, he's finally found the wife he wants to be by his side in the White House. Of course, he's blown any legitimate chance at the office with all these machinations.

 

Personally, her appearance and make up remind me of Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Y'know, Newt, marrying Jack Nicholson would have made more sense, if you ask me.

 

Sort of makes you wonder that, if Newt was somehow elected through a combination of dirty pool and evil luck, he wouldn't resign for the Presidency of some Polynesian island where the women walk around topless.

 

But I digress...

 

Meanwhile, the Republicans are in deep trouble. Here's my thought about the Iowa primary: it does not matter who wins, what matters is the turnout figure.

 

The entire Republican 2012 strategy hinges on enthusiasm. If the Republicans cannot present a candidate with enough charisma and energy to solidify the base of both economic royalists AND Teabaggers, ballgame over. Iowa is the first and most important test of that enthusiasm.  

 

My guess is they fail. Epically.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Judy Garland singing "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas"

By Richard K. Barry 

Christmas is almost over. Almost everything that's supposed to happen has happened: presents, trees, music, children, etc., etc. My wife and I had a quiet dinner for just the two of us, the family having been here earlier in the day. And so it's over for another year.

I said a few days ago that I would post my three favourite Christmas songs, and have already put up Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride" and Nat King Cole singing "The Christmas Song."

So, number one in my book is Judy Garland performing "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas." As you may know, it's from the 1944 MGM musical Meet Me in St. Louis.

It was written by Hugh Martin and Ralph Blane, and is undoubtedly one of the most performed Christmas songs each season.

I was able to catch the movie last night on the American Movie Channel and thoroughly enjoyed it. The host of the presentation cited the old story about the original lyrics being rewritten because they were deemed too depressing by Garland and the director of the film, Vincente Minnelli. They were probably right when you consider that the original words included these gems: "Have yourself a merry little Christmas, it may be your last. Next year we may all be living in the past." Yeah, thank you for that. Okay, in the context of the movie I guess it worked. But it sure wouldn't have become a Christmas classic if it remained as it was.

Anyway, beautiful song in its final version, and over the years recorded by everyone under the sun, including Kermit the Frog.

Hope you had a great Christmas, or whatever it is you celebrate, if you celebrate. And if you don't, that's fine too.

Back to politics tomorrow.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Un-Christmas 2011: Get this kid off me before he pisses on me

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sorry, I've been so busy waging war on Jesus and Santa today that I'm only now getting to the blog. It's tough out there, what with all the Christianists shoving their bullshit down our throats.

Isn't that we liberals are supposed to say?

Actually, no. There's no war on Christmas. We just happen to respect difference and diversity enough not to be a bunch of arrogant pricks when it comes to our dominant religious holidays.

And, personally, I like Christmas a lot, even if my Christmas has zero Christ in it. It's a wonderful time for my family, and the traditions I grew up with I'm now passing on to my own children.

And if I'm at "war" with anyone -- hyperbole, to be sure -- it's with the right-wing fanatics, like the morons at Fox News, who seek to impose their (usually hypocritical) moralism on everyone and who make up all this "war on Christmas" bullshit to begin with.

Anyway, enough of that. I really do wish all my friends and family, including my wonderful co-bloggers here at The Reaction and all my friends throughout the blogosphere, as well as all of you, our readers (I cannot thank you enough for visiting us, and I hope you keep coming back), a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

Be safe, and be good to one another.

**********

A few weeks ago, we posted a clip from what one of our contributors thinks is the best Christmas movie ever, Christmas Vacation. Well, my own pick for that title is Bad Santa, or rather the extended version of that hilarious movie, Badder Santa. Okay, it's not exactly the most sentimental pick. I suppose if sentiment were involved I'd go with, oh, say, Die Hard, or maybe Home Alone. But it's the funniest and best. (Sorry, the highly-overrated It's a Wonderful Life. I like Capra a lot, but not this one. I much prefer another Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie, The Shop Around the Corner. Lovely and charming. Actually, Elf is pretty funny, too. I'm watching it as I write.)

Here are a few clips. Enjoy.

A Christmas story

By Capt. Fogg 

I'd describe her as a sweet little old lady except for the nearness of our vintages, but she's barely five feet tall and fragile. We'd been talking about the Kindle e-book reader and she had asked if I'd read Bill O'Reilly's book on Lincoln. 

"Umm..." I said, stalling for time. 

I remember not long ago having shocked her, and the entire dinner table for that matter, by expressing distaste for Glenn Beck as a reliable source of information, and I really try to be polite to nice people but I went on: 

"Well, I'm not a big fan of his."

"Really?"

"Yeah, I think he tends to make things up or tell us things he gets from rumors and websites without verifying them, but I think that's true of Fox in general. I remember the first time I listened to him years ago, but maybe it was Hannity. I get them confused sometimes because I never watch Fox." 

The look of astonishment still had not faded. 

"But anyway, he was going on and on about how the PC liberals had banned Christmas lights in -- I think it was Muskegon, Michigan -- or wearing red and green clothing on Christmas -- and of course it was immediately checked by another network and it wasn't and of course it was a surprise to the mayor who had never heard of the whole thing -- and of course Fox never hinted that it had been caught in a lie."

Well here I go, I've lost another friend, I thought, but actually she was smiling.

"You know my son says the same thing about Fox: 'They make up stories, mom, don't watch them.'"

"He must be a brilliant guy if he agrees with me," I said, a bit relieved.

"He's got a Ph.D. in biochemistry."

"He sounds smart in spite of that."

"He is," said the proud mother, "but still, what I don't like is when they tell us we can't say Merry Christmas any more."

"But who ever told you that? That's what I mean. Nobody, and certainly not anyone in government has said that -- only Fox News! Merry Christmas! See, no black helicopters." 

**********

I try so hard to avoid such things. I'm much nicer in public than I am here, really, and I don't want to make people feel bad, but you know the day is only half over and I have already read in several places how those PC liberals won't let you say Merry Christmas and make you say Happy Holidays, which means you have to allow people other options, which means our Christianity is under attack and we're all victims of those PC liberals who hate Christmas. As I said, they're putting words in the mouths of their straw men and we're believing it, and it may be that the only people defending the right to celebrate whatever we want in our own way and the right not to be forced to celebrate are those damned PC liberals and their damned Bill of Rights.

So maybe Lyin' Bill and Insanity Hannity and the Fox Fiends have done their work well, or maybe the people who pull their strings are pulling other strings, I don't know, but if you want to wish me Eid Mubarak or happy Adam and Eve day (which in fact it is) or Krishna's birthday (if he has one), I'll wish you one too and I'll celebrate our secular laws that allow it and curse the bastards who equate that right with the fall of American values. 

Merry Christmas. 

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Nat King Cole sings "The Christmas Song"

By Richard K. Barry 

In keeping with my promise to list my top three favourite Christmas songs, I give you number two: "The Christmas Song."

Mel Torme

I think most people know that vocalist Mel Torme co-wrote this one. They may not know that his collaborator was Bob Wells. In any case,  the legend associated with its composition has received a fair bit of play, but I'll repeat it, briefly.

It had something to do with the fact that Torme and Wells were trying to think cool thoughts on a very hot summer day and in the process of writing down things that might remind them of a less a sweltering time, they came up with "The Christmas Song" in something like 40 minutes. Good story.

The Nat King Cole Trio first recorded it in 1946. A while later a second recording was done with strings, and redone a couple more times after that, again, with strings. Apparently, the 1961 version, the fourth recording, is the one with which most people are familiar.

A lot of artists have, of course, recorded "The Christmas Song" including Torme himself, several times in fact. The Wikipedia entry lists about a hundred who have taken a shot at it including: Bob Dylan, James Brown, Hootie and the Blowfish, The Jackson 5, and The Partridge Family. Really sorry, I'm not familiar with that last one.

It's a Christmas classic, one of the best loved. I'm partial to the Nat King Cole version, but like Torme's take as well as versions by Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby.  It's just not Christmas without those chestnuts roasting on an open fire.

Somebody went through a lot of trouble to pull together some great stills of Nat King Cole. Nice job.

 

Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride" performed by the Boston Pops

By Richard K. Barry

Leroy Anderson

Just for something to do, I thought I would post my three favourite Christmas songs leading up to the big day. Who knows if these really are my three favourites. It's a fairly arbitrary exercise when it comes right down it. A mug's game, as they say.

Maybe it's from my years in a high school band, but I have a real soft spot for light orchestral pieces, and Leroy Anderson's "Sleigh Ride" is one of my most loved, which I'll say comes in at number three for me as Christmas songs go.

Anderson finished writing it in 1948 and the orchestral version was first recorded by Arthur Fiedler and the Boston Pops Orchestra in 1949.

In 1950, lyrics for the song were written by Michael Parish. Check out the Wikipedia page for a comprehensive list of those who recorded it. I always liked Karen Carpenter's version.

Curiously, the song's original lyrics don't mention Christmas at all, though it's probably considered by most to be a Christmas song. And, if there is any doubt, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), in their annual review of Christmas music, report that "Sleigh Ride" consistently ranks in the top 10 of most performed songs written by ASCAP members during the holiday season worldwide.

Many works composed by Leroy Anderson (1908-1975) were introduced by the Boston Pops Orchestra under the direction of Arthur Fiedler. In the clip below, John Williams, who led the Orchestra from 1980 to 1993, conducts them in this rendition of "Sleigh Ride."

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Euphemism of the Day: George H.W. Bush says he's not Newt's "biggest advocate"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For what it's worth, which may not be all that much, George H.W. Bush has endorsed Romney.

(While being "careful" with Perry, because "he's our governor," even though it's widely known that the Bushes don't much care for Perry. Just ask Karl Rove. Bush also said that Perry "doesn't seem to be going anywhere; he's not surging forward," which is certainly true.)

Of Gingrich, though, Romney's chief (and really only) rival, Bush said this: "I'm not his biggest advocate."

In other words, I loathe him, I think he's nuts, he'd be a disaster of a candidate, and we'd be crazy to nominate him.

**********

More from Bush on Newt:

"I had a conflict with him at one point," Bush recalled, alluding to the crucial moment in 1990 when a recession drove him to renege on his "no new taxes" pledge. He needed a bipartisan group of party leaders, including then-House Whip Gingrich, to stand with him.

"He was there, right outside the Oval Office. I met with all the Republican leaders, all the Democratic leaders," Bush recalled. "The plan was, we were all going to walk out into the Rose Garden and announce this deal. Newt was right there. Got ready to go out in the Rose Garden, and I said, 'Where's Gingrich?' Went up to Capitol Hill. He was here a minute ago. Went up there and started lobbying against the thing.

"He told me one time later on, he said, 'This is the most difficult thing I ever had to do.' I said, 'I didn't like it much myself, Newt.'"

Is it any wonder the GOP "establishment," or the remnants of the old one at least, oppose Newt with such vehemence? It's not just that he's unelectable, it's that he has a long history of being an egomaniacally disloyal thorn in their side.

(It surely wasn't difficult for Newt to work against Bush on this or on anything else. As has always been the case, Newt is about one thing: Newt. Damn all else.)

Egypt's progress

By Ali Ezzatyar

Approaching the one-year anniversary of the Arab spring, it's very easy to forget that the events of 2011 would have been unthinkable last Christmas. Browse through the op-ed pages of every major newspaper or foreign policy journal, or the title of any of the books that were being published on the region this time last year: not a single clear, quantifiable notion that one man's self-immolation in Tunisia would light the entire region on fire. One of the earliest, and perhaps the most important, of these fires, was Egypt. I venture to say, contrary to many, that things are going fine there a year later. 

It's not ideal that the ruling military establishment remains effectively in power even now; its promises to step aside and hand rule over definitively to elected civilians are still unfulfilled. It is also clearly tragic that about 200 Egyptians have lost their lives since the stepping down of Hosni Mubarak, in continued clashes with each other and the security forces. But, almost a year after Egyptians rallied past security forces and into Tahrir square, the signs appear more positive than negative.

One big fear of mine was that, with the ouster of Mubarak, the leaderless mass movement comprising most of Egyptian society that ousted him would get complacent. That could have happened for many reasons. It could have happened because a society that is not allowed to demonstrate in mass for decades out of fear of reprisal can easily lose focus when its immediate goals are achieved. It could also happen, like it did in Iran, because an event or series of events from outside of Egypt would allow the military to consolidate its power at the behest of the people. In fact, Egyptians have demonstrated remarkable resilience and intolerance for the continued vestiges of authoritarian rule. With the help of social media, activists have continued to organize and maintain focus on the goal they espoused on the eve of their revolution. They are keeping the pressure on the military, including through democratic elections and continued reforms.

Additionally, the extreme elements of Egyptian society, notably the Islamists who were supposed to fight for an Islamic State, never showed up. I don't know if they existed, existed in such a small number, or are singing another tune post-revolution, but the reality is clear: The largest Muslim block in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, has not espoused ideas that are any less democratic than most "Western" countries. They are also being watched closely by those same Egyptians watching the military, since their inactivity in the early revolution has discredited them, and their unwillingness to confront the military head on continues to do so. This is all healthy. While the Muslim Brotherhood probably has a plurality of Egypt's support, there are probably more people who, together, could combine to make their lives very difficult when they step out of line. So, while the military has always acted as a counterbalance to the Brotherhood, a large cross-section of the Egyptian population now has the tools at its disposal to create its own counterweight, and it has done so.

Finally, while fully-fledged democracy hasn't been born overnight in Egypt, nobody can say the revolutionary project has unraveled. It is a work in progress, and it is moving forward. Continued strife, even oftentimes despotic rule by the Egyptian military, has not slowed it down. The more the military ratchets up its behavior or words the people don't like, the more people are pouring back into Tahrir square. The Egyptian blogosphere is as active as it has ever been. Everyone is under scrutiny by everyone else, and the system in place now is moderately democratic and moving in the right direction.

We can't say we are happy with Egypt as it is today, but a status quo takes years to build. Perhaps we can say, at least (and with tacit encouragement for Egyptians to continue), that we are happy with its progress, less than one year in.

Waiting for Gandhi

By Capt. Fogg

Those CNN.com Polls are hardly scientific nor do they claim to be, but when I read that 76% of participants think the payroll tax cut extension should be approved, I have to wonder at the Republican pose that insists such 'socialist' things are being stuffed down our throats by tyrannical Democrats who don't represent us as well as billionaires and multinational corporations do. Other things like medicare and Social Security and health care reform have been stuffed down our throats even though three quarters of us support them. Yes, Americans can seem like geese sometimes, but it's mostly the people eating foi gras and hating Democracy who want to run the farm.

Even my most intransigently Republican friends are risking an eternity in hell by suggesting that the GOP is deliberately sabotaging the government and the economy and the well being of our citizens for political gain and Obama's approval rating is slowly climbing as the flock of candidates chortle about sin and repealing child labor laws. So perhaps the slow shift in mood has to do with the traveling freak show from whom Republicans will be forced to choose as well as the unavoidable recognition that our definition of "smaller government" smells so much of the 19th century British colonial attitude: do nothing, have nothing done and don't allow anyone to do anything. Gandhi was able to turn it back at them. It should be easier for us. We already have the vote.

(Cross posted from Human voices)

Republican class warfare revisited: Rick Perry says he's fine with drug testing for welfare recipients

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like The Newt, Rick "is he really still running?" Perry thinks that welfare recipients should be drug-tested as a condition for receiving welfare:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday he wouldn't be opposed to welfare recipients also being drug tested, joining fellow candidate Newt Gingrich in suggesting that federal aid should be tied to substance use.

"I don't have a problem with before you get any dollars from the federal government that you're drug tested," Perry said in response to a man who suggested the idea in a question to him at a meet-and-greet in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, that drew over 80 people. Perry pointed out that as a pilot in the Air Force, he himself had been drug tested. "I don't have a problem in the world with that," he said.

That's rather different. You don't want Air Force pilots, or any pilots, taking drugs. They have responsibility over other people's lives and, in the case of military pilots, supposedly defending the country. Furthermore, there's something to be said for privacy -- for the government not intruding in the lives of private citizens (as opposed to voluntary members of the military, for example). Are Republicans not ideologically committed to reducing such intrusion? Oh, right, not when it comes to the poor or women, or when they're advancing their natinoal security authoritarianism. They're fine with the moralizing police state when it's about other people.

On the specific issue of testing welfare recipients, though, let me go back to a post I wrote back in August in response to an Ohio legislator, the odious Tim Grendell, seeking to require such testing:

I'm strongly against this -- anywhere and everywhere. It's an appalling violation of privacy and quite probably unconstitutional (even if the conservatives on the Roberts Court would applaud it). As well, it's an ideological effort, common on the right, to disadvantage (and punish) the poor. Everyone, after all, receives some form of government support. Why should only those seeking unemployment benefits be subjected to drug testing? No, I wouldn't support this either, but if you're going to test those seeking unemployment benefits, why not test everyone?

Actually, here's an idea: Mandatory drug (and alcohol) testing for all executives of companies receiving some form of government support, including corporate tax breaks. And while we're at it, how about testing for all executives of companies receiving government contracts, including military contracts?

Oh, you don't like that? You think it's mean and unfair to target corporate executives? (They're such wonderful and amazing people, after all, with not a drug or alcohol abuser among them, right?)

Then shut the fuck up and stop your class warfare.

Stop punishing those who need your help, the vast majority of whom are good and decent people who just want to be able to put food on the table (if they have a table at all), pay their bills (and maybe not sink so quickly into the quagmire of debt), and take care of their children (who deserve the opportunity to have a better life).

Let me say it again: SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP YOUR CLASS WARFARE YOU SMUG, SELF-RIGHTEOUS RIGHT-WING THUGS.

Matt Damon's leftier-than-thou rant against Obama

By Richard K. Barry and Michael J.W. Stickings

RKB:

Yeah, well, I like Matt Damon. I think he's a smart guy. I usually like his movies. I generally like his politics. But I don't think much of his "leftier-than-thou" rant about Obama's performance in the White House.

In an interview with Elle magazine, Damon had this to say:

"I've talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, 'Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.'" He then added, "You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better."

Referencing the Occupy protests, Damon said the Democrats have received a mandate from people who are "just wandering out into the streets to yell right now because they are so pissed off." He wondered aloud, "Imagine if they had a leader."

Here's a little piece of important information for you, Mr. Damon. Social movements are not the same thing as electoral politics. They can work well together to achieve spectacular results, but they are not the same thing. Movements can often send a clear and important message about what needs to happen. Politics is the art of compromise that sometimes gets some of that done. 

I understand that a lot of people don't like politics because you are always in the process of finding the votes to make good on your promises. It requires compromise and it's easy to get shut down when your opponents are able to use or even abuse the rules of the game to make your life difficult.

So, you say that Democrats have received their marching orders from Occupy protesters and all they need to do now is do it, whatever the "it" is.

Mr. Damon, you have no idea what political leadership is, how hard it is. I'll bet making movies is a lot easier. You get to write down how things come out and that's exactly what happens. Not so much in real life. But thanks for coming out.

I liked what Obama had to say about an earlier instance in which Damon criticized the president:

"I've even let down my key core constituency: Movie stars," he said. "Just the other day, Matt Damon — I love Matt Damon, love the guy — Matt Damon said he was disappointed in my performance."

Obama then threw in a zinger of his own, saying "Well, Matt, I just saw 'The Adjustment Bureau,' so... right back atcha, buddy." 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

**********

MJWS:

I like Damon a lot as well, including, for the most part, his politics. And I understand progressive frustration with President Obama as well. But come on. If you paid any attention at all during the 2008 campaign, you knew that he was something of a non-ideological centrist. Yes, there was all that talk about change, but the demands of a campaign call for exaggeration.

Now, has there been change? Well, first, he himself is change. Think about what he means, what it means to have him as president. There's a reason so many Republicans have been so virulent in their attacks on him. You think it all has to do with his policies? Not, it has more to do with him, with what he represents, namely, something other than a privileged white man occupying the highest office in the land.

And, second, what about health-care reform? Even if it wasn't as much as many of us wanted, it was a hell of a lot. Democrats had been trying for decades to reform a corrupt, unjust, and simply cruel system. Obama actually did it. Or how about the stimulus package? Is there more he could have done? Maybe. But it's hard to do a lot when you've got a Republican opposition that absolutely refuses to work with you, a conservative movement that has taken it upon itself to try to destroy you.

If you want to criticize him, go after his continuation of some of the worst elements of the Bush-Cheney national security state. Fine. I'm right with you. But to abandon him because he hasn't lived up to your inanely high and totally unreasonable expectations? That's just ridiculous.

Could he have been more ballsy? Sure. Am I disappointed with him so far? Yes, of course. But not to the point where I'll refuse to support him ever again, and not to the point where I'll never trust any politician ever again. If that's what you think, or if that's what your gut tells you, you really don't understand politics at all.

And Matt Damon, a really smart guy, should know better.

It makes me think he should stick to making generally entertaining movies (i.e., not The Adjustment Bureau) and doing his fantastic impersonation of Matthew McConaughey on Letterman.

The U.S. Navy embraces the end of DADT

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a great story for the holidays, reported by the Associated Press:

A Navy tradition caught up with the repeal of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule on Wednesday when two women sailors became the first to share the coveted "first kiss" on the dock after one of them returned from 80 days at sea.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Marissa Gaeta of Placerville, Calif., descended from the USS Oak Hill amphibious landing ship and shared a quick kiss with her partner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Citlalic Snell of Los Angeles. The crowd screamed and waved flags around them.

Both women, ages 22 and 23 respectively, are fire controlmen in the Navy. They met at training school and have been dating for two years.

Navy officials said it was the first time on record that a same-sex couple was chosen to kiss first upon a ship's return. Sailors and their loved ones bought $1 raffle tickets for the opportunity. Gaeta said she bought $50 of tickets. The Navy said the money would be used to host a Christmas party for the children of sailors.

For the record, the picture was posted on an official Navy website, so they are obviously good with it. And, apparently, this happened a year to the day after Obama signed the bill that repealed DADT.

I'd like to think I'll live long enough that this sort of thing won't stand out as extraordinary, but, until then, I'll enjoy watching progress wherever I find it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Democrats Republicans cave on payroll tax cut extension

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait... what? The Republicans caved? Not the Democrats?

Then again, this one would have been hard even for the Dems to lose. Even after caving on the spending bill to keep the government running, they didn't back down when House Republicans demanded unacceptable offsets for a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut, Senate Republicans were already on board for a two-month extension, the extremists in the House were being challenged by members of their own party, like John McCain and Scott Brown, and, in the end, House Republicans faced a simple choice: support a highly popular tax cut or oppose it. Even for this radical bunch of partisan ideologues, the demands of immediate political calculation triumphed.

And it's not just the payroll tax cut, it's unemployment insurance and reimbursement rates for Medicare physicians. Sure, it's just short-term, there will be a go-nowhere conference committee to try to work out the details of a full-year extension, and there will be many more opportunities to cave, but, for the Dems: win, win, win.

What a nice Christmas present. And what a refreshing change.

Oh... so long, John Boehner. You're the biggest loser here.

This day in music - December 22, 1958: Alvin and the Chipmunks' "The Chipmunk Song" hits #1

By Richard K. Barry

"Christmas Don't Be Late" may or may not be the better-known name for the song, but it's formally called "The Chipmunk Song." Whatever the name, for those of a certain age, this is one of the worst ear worms of all time. If you don't know what an ear worm is, it's a song or melody that you can't get out of your head, no matter how hard you try.

"The Chipmunk Song" was written by Ross Bagdasarian (a.k.a. Dave Seville) in 1958. You may recall that Dave was the name of the Chipmunks' adoptive father who, strangely enough, was a human cartoon character, while the Chipmunks were cartoon chipmunks, if you know what I mean. I'm sure there's a backstory, I just don't really care.

I assume that most people are familiar with The Chipmunks, or at least the remake. Although Bagdasarian wrote and sung the song, credit is given to The Chipmunks, a fictitious singing group consisting of Alvin, Simon, and Theodore, who are chipmunk brothers. The sound of The Chipmunks was created, as you might imagine, by speeding up the playback.

Although the song was produced as a one-off novelty number, The Chipmunks was later made into a cartoon of its own, airing from 1961 to 1962. This would have been where I was introduced to them. Although it only lasted one season on CBS, it went into syndication and lived on from there.

As for "The Chipmunk Song," it won three Grammy Awards in 1958: Best Comedy Performance, Best Children's Recording, and Best Engineering Record (non-classical).

Like I said, it's an ear worm. I apologize ahead of time for what this might do to your day.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)