Red State Progressive

The Myth of the Rational Voter

2012-06-03T14:15:00.001-05:00

To the degree that the U.S. economy will be the primary issue in the 2012 presidential election, it seems clear that President Obama is in serious trouble. The corporate media has been telling us for some time how unlikely it is for an incumbent president to earn re-election with a high unemployment rate, and history appears to support this statement. If a majority of Americans believe that the economy is not improving quickly enough (or actually getting worse), Mittens Romney wins the election. Perhaps this is a sobering conclusion, especially for Obama loyalists, but it seems inescapable.

One argument that Obama supporters will make is that the economy has been improving and that trends are moving in the right direction even though there have been some months with small reversals. The data will support this interpretation. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this argument will be experienced as sufficiently persuasive by most voters. If the economy doesn't feel significantly better (and it doesn't), most are not going to be persuaded by slick graphs.

Another argument that Obama supporters will make is that Romney will be far worse for the economy and that electing him would reverse the little progress that has been made. I find this one far more persuasive because Romney is advocating a return to the Bush era economic policies that led to the financial collapse in the first place. Thus, there is good reason to believe that things would get worse under his leadership. The downside is that many voters are not willing to look this far ahead. They will conclude that Obama hasn't done enough and that it is time to try someone else.

But what if the economy doesn't end up being the central issue at all? What if voters are every bit as irrational in how they vote this time than they've been in past elections? What if voters are going to vote for the person they like best, regardless of policies?

The notion of the irrational voter opens another door to those who want to defeat Romney. They might decide to go after Romney's character and make the case that he is unfit to be president for non-economic reasons. He is an elitist bully, so thoroughly out of touch with the world inhabited by ordinary working Americans that he cannot possibly govern effectively. Not only is he a devout Mormon, but his opposition to the separation of church and state raises serious questions about how his faith might influence his policies. He is a shameless panderer, willing to change his positions on any issue to suit his audience. Nobody really knows what he believes. Sure he's pro-business, but he's pro-business at the expense of those of us who have to work for a living.

Regardless of what you or I may think about President Obama, keeping Mittens Romney out of the White House seems like a worthwhile endeavor. The question is how best to accomplish it given the current state of the economy.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Does Wisconsin Want to Be More Like Mississippi?

2012-06-01T08:31:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday, many progressives will be watching Wisconsin closely as the state votes on whether to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R). This election is widely considered to be the most important one we will see before the presidential election. It is also being viewed as a likely indicator of the outcome of our presidential election in November.

Despite Walker's lead in the polls, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been accused of failing to provide sufficient funds to Mayor Tom Barrett in his run to unseat Walker. While discouraging, this does lend support to the idea that this election may be predictive of the presidential election. President Obama is almost certain to be outspent by Mittens Romney. Perhaps Wisconsin will be the first test of the Democratic Party's plan to meet Koch money, voter fraud, intimidation, and assorted dirty tricks with grassroots organizing.

Regardless of the presidential implications, I really hope Barrett somehow manages to defeat Walker. Walker has already proven that he's unfit for office, and the Republican war on labor needs to end before it causes any more damage. Here in Mississippi, labor was stripped of much of its power long ago. Public education in our state shows the effects of denying public employee unions the right to engage in collective bargaining. Our teachers are underpaid relative to those in the southeast region, resulting in some of the best leaving for better jobs in other states.

Before Wisconsin voters go to the polls on Tuesday, I hope they will give some thought to whether they want their state to be more or less like Mississippi.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Memorial Day Reflections

2012-05-28T06:58:00.000-05:00

Regardless of how Memorial Day started, it ought to be about more than solemn shows of faux patriotism. Memorial Day should be a time to reflect on the high price our nation has paid to pursue empire. It should be an occasion for us to question our love of war and think about its human costs. Perhaps the best way to honor those who have given their lives for us is to decide that no more will be sent to die in our name. And Memorial Day should also be a time for us to reflect on who we are as a nation.

Kevin Gosztola (Firedoglake) writes:

Mourning the loss of loved ones, honoring those who are deployed in an unending global war, and convincing one’s self of the glory and sacrifice of those loved ones’ involvement in conflict is part of a war culture that appears in advertising, movies and television, at sporting events, and in the mecca of war memorials, Washington, DC. Support rituals ensure a faction of people does not grow in its ability to oppose and obstruct US government war policies.

I do not think we have to jump from our present embrace of war to complete isolationism. Those are not the only options here. We could instead move toward a foreign policy in which war really is the last resort. All but the neocons pay lip service to this idea now, but it is quite clear that we have not taken it seriously for a long time. By shifting our foreign policy, we might be able to afford to do some nation building here in America. And wouldn't that be a great way to honor those who have died during military service?

Memorial Day must also be a time to reflect on who we are and what our choices say about us. We have paid a high price for our failure to heed Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex. While it may be too late to undo all the damage we have caused, it is not to late to change course.

We have not only been too warlike, we have permitted torture. Those responsible for these policies and their implementation are war criminals, and yet, they have escaped accountability because we allowed them to do so.

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship (Salon) write:

Facing the truth is hard to do, especially the truth about ourselves. So Americans have been sorely pressed to come to terms with the fact that after 9/11 our government began to torture people, and did so in defiance of domestic and international law. Most of us haven’t come to terms with what that meant, or means today, but we must reckon with torture, the torture done in our name, allegedly for our safety.

We have stood idly by while our civil liberties have been curtailed. Quick to complain about threats to Internet privacy, we continue to allow TSA agents to grope innocent airline passengers while looking the other way on racial profiling, warrantless wiretapping, and a host of other abuses.

We can do better. We can honor those who sacrificed so much for us by making sure that their sacrifice is not squandered.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Romney Offers Nothing New On Economy

2012-05-26T12:58:00.001-05:00

Conventional wisdom says that the primary issue of the 2012 presidential election will be the economy. Polls agree, with most of those surveyed answering that the economy is the most important issue to them as the election nears.

Most of us have been echoing the same refrain for some time now: unless the economy improves significantly between now and the election, President Obama is in trouble. And we aren't talking about small improvements in numbers; we are talking about improvements large enough to change perceptions. Without such improvements, voters are likely to be angry enough to vote for change. This means incumbents are going to have a hard time.

Because many voters seem to vote based primarily on emotion, it may matter little that Mittens Romney offers no new economic plans but merely seeks to return to the failed trickle-down policies and lax regulation that led to the economic meltdown in the first place. He'll be seen as a viable alternative simply because he is not Obama.

Those voters not blinded by emotion will see Romney's call for a return to Bush era policies laughably absurd. The question is whether there are enough of them to make a difference.

Of course, it would be a mistake to focus too much on the presidency when it comes to something as complex as the economy. There is only so much a president can do without Congress. Those who are concerned about the economy and the U.S. debt should be preparing to vote out the members of Congress who oppose any attempt to increase revenue. That seems every bit as important as the presidential race.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Propaganda Against U.S. Citizens Could Soon Be Legal

2012-05-24T05:56:00.001-05:00

There is a bi-partisan effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to legalize the use of propaganda by the government against U.S. citizens. An amendment to the defense authorization bill recently approved by the House has been authored by Rep. Thornberry (R-TX) and Rep. Smith (D-WA) to do just that.

I am old enough to remember that U.S. politicians used to criticize the former Soviet Union for using propaganda on their own citizens. We used to hear quite a bit about how wrong this was; now it appears to be a goal to which some of our elected officials are aspiring.

Here is how jobsanger recently described the goal of this legislation:

It is legal for the government of this country to spread propaganda (lies) in other countries -- it's immoral and unethical, but legal. But it is not legal for the government to do the same thing to American citizens in this country. That is prevented by two laws -- the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. These laws make it illegal for the U.S. government to intentionally propagandize (outrageously lie to) its own citizens. Thornberry wants to change that.

It is difficult to imagine how we Americans could maintain even the pretense of democracy if this were to pass the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

We Want Jobs But Not Enough to Give Up Outsourcing

2012-05-20T08:59:00.001-05:00

How does a country thrive without a strong manufacturing base? Simple. We outsource that sort of work to China. As the U.S. economy has become increasingly dependent on consumerism, we have been doing more and more outsourcing.

Outsourcing has a big advantage for a consumer culture in that it allows our corporations to maximize profits and minimize prices. How individual companies balance this profit to price ratio varies greatly. Consider Walmart and Apple as illustrative examples.

Of course, outsourcing also means that we our losing jobs to overseas competition. In a shaky economy, this is often perceived as a problem. We look at our unemployment rate and wonder why we are shipping jobs overseas. But we have been so well-trained as consumers that we are generally unwilling to face the price increases we are told would accompany moving jobs back home.

Couldn't our iPads and iPhones be made in the U.S. instead of China? Perhaps, but that would probably mean prices would increase. And if Apple is to be believed, we'd also have to expect that quality would decrease. Apple has repeatedly made the case that they cannot find the sort of workforce they would need to base those operations in the U.S.

We want jobs, but I'm not sure we want to face the implications of trying to reclaim our manufacturing base. And since most states have refused to adequately fund public education, we are going to have an increasingly difficult time competing even outside the manufacturing sector.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Obama Cannot Be Off Limits to Criticism From Left

2012-05-17T13:32:00.001-05:00

Remember when George W. Bush was president? Of course you do! Those were trying times for most progressives, weren't they? We generally did not care for Bush, and we weren't shy about saying so.

Do you remember how frustrating it was when conservatives demonized us for criticizing Bush? Remember how you felt when some of them argued that anyone who criticized the president was un-American, traitorous, or actively harming America in some way? You were not any of these things; you were criticizing Bush because you cared about America and wanted it to be as good as you knew it could be. It was frustrating that they couldn't see this.

Unfortunately, I am seeing many Democrats engaging in similar behavior when it comes to criticisms of President Obama. No, they aren't exactly accusing critics of being un-American or anything quite so extreme. But they are attacking Obama's critics and accusing them of making things worse with their criticism. And they are perfectly willing to take aim at we progressives who dare to criticize Obama. In fact, we seem to be their preferred target much of the time.

Democrats may be happier with President Obama than Republicans are with Mittens Romney, but that does not mean Obama should not face criticism from the left when they are deserved. If we have learned anything from history, it should be that groupthink is dangerous. We need critics even of popular leaders; it could be argued that we need critics especially of popular leaders.

I'd also like to point out that by attacking our fellow progressives for criticizing Obama, we are essentially demanding that they act more like Republicans. We are asking them to get in line and keep their opinions to themselves. Since when is this a progressive value?

Some of Obama's policies are unacceptable. We would not be so quiet about the same policies coming from a Republican leader, and they are every bit as unacceptable under a Democratic leader. Ignoring Obama's many failings is a serious mistake, as is attacking those who refuse to do so.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Is America a Christian Nation?

2012-05-16T07:21:00.001-05:00

The following is from a press release distributed by the Center for Inquiry:

A powerful lineup of scholars and thinkers attempt to answer, once and for all, a question that has been central to our era’s bruising culture wars: Is America a Christian nation? Not surprisingly, the evidence for the affirmative is wanting.

Gettysburg College philosophy professor Kerry Walters explains that “none of the founders . . . used conventional Christian language when writing or speaking about God,” and instead favored more abstract, deistic rhetoric, never hinting in any personal correspondences of any kind of devotion to Christianity.

Journalist Susan Jacoby notes the lack of references to Jesus Christ in any of the founders’ documents and hones in on a more central issue: “The question is not whether the United States is a Christian nation. It is whether church authorities adhering to a deeply conservative brand of Christianity . . . get to use taxpayer money to further their parochial agenda.”

Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State reminds us that even at the time of the nation’s founding, the Constitution did not satisfy those who wished for the United States to be an explicitly Christian dominion. “Ministers of the founding period knew that the Constitution didn’t declare the United States officially Christian,” writes Boston, “and they were mad about it.” (Available in print edition only.)

All this appears in the June/July edition of Free Inquiry, as well as contributions from luminaries such as the Hoover Institution’s Tibor R. Machan, University of Montana philosophy professor David K. Clark, Iowa State University religious studies professor Hector Avalos, and Council for Secular Humanism Executive Director Tom Flynn, and much more.

# # # Free Inquiry is a bimonthly magazine featuring thoughtful and provocative commentary from such leading political and social commentators as Richard Dawkins, Arthur Caplan, Wendy Kaminer, and Nat Hentoff. Launched in 1980, Free Inquiry has a paid circulation of approximately 34,000 worldwide. The Free Inquiry website is at www.secularhumanism.org/fi/.

The Council for Secular Humanism—housed at the Center for Inquiry—is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization promoting rational inquiry, secular values, and positive human development through the advancement of secular humanism. The Council, publisher of the bimonthly journal Free Inquiry, has a website at www.secularhumanism.org.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization based in Amherst, New York; it is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

The American Oligarchy

2012-05-14T12:18:00.001-05:00

I think it is fair to say that I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the modern Democratic Party in recent years. When I express this in conversation, I am often accused of being a Republican (hardly) or somehow helping them win. Evidently, the "lesser of two evils" position has become so thoroughly ingrained in the mind of many Democratic voters that they are unable or unwilling to look beyond it. I find this unfortunate, even dangerous, because I have also become convinced that our two-party system has failed and that will not allow the sort of change we desperately need.

There are powerful arguments for doing whatever is necessary to keep Mittens Romney out of office. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and he clearly supports economic policies that will simply make this problem worse.

And yet, as I find myself starting to think along these lines (i.e., that I should just swallow my disgust and vote for Obama solely to keep Mittens out of power), the voice at the periphery of my consciousness is becoming louder. "You are being played," it keeps saying.

The country that was once about "we the people" is no more. This is a terrible thought, but I cannot escape it any longer. We have ceded control to the corporations, killing all but the illusion of democracy. We have made populism a dirty word by turning it into something our politicians feign to gain office and then drop the moment they are elected. By pursuing wealth and empire, we have ended up with oligarchy.

As much as I would like to believe otherwise, today's Democratic Party does not appear to be the answer. Sure, they are better at feigning populism during campaigns than most Republicans, and a few of their policy positions are somewhat more desirable. I cannot deny that. But they have also embraced Wall Street, creating even more resistance to meaningful change.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Bush Officials Guilty of War Crimes Says Malaysian Tribunal

2012-05-13T07:29:00.001-05:00

As noted yesterday, former President George W. Bush and seven others in his administration were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in a Malaysian war crimes tribunal. According to the New Straits Times (Malaysia), the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal was unanimous in their verdict and ordered reparations to the victims of the Bush administration's torture program.

The evidence heard by the tribunal included testimony from former detainees in both Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, who described the methods of torture used against them by U.S. personnel.

The eight U.S. officials found guilty of torture under Article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter include:

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Alberto Gonzales
David Addington
William Haynes II
Jay Bybee
John Yoo

According to the tribunal, U.S. officials knew that they were violating the 1984 Torture Convention and the Geneva Conventions but did not intervene to prevent the violations.

So what, if anything, happens next? According to the New Straits Times, the tribunal will submit their findings to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. The names of those found guilty will then be entered into the Register of War Criminals maintained by the War Crimes Commission.

"The International Criminal Court seems to be subservient to the big powers and does not seem to have the capacity or the willingness to charge the leaders of big powers who are responsible for torture, invasion of an independent country, destruction in war and for the killings of so many people," said Dr Mahathir, who is the Perdana Leadership Foundation honorary president.

I believe that the efforts of this tribunal highlight the need for the U.S. to prosecute Bush and his cronies for war crimes and shine a light on the inexcusable decision by the Obama administration to shield Bush from prosecution.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Malaysian Tribunal Finds Bush Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity

2012-05-12T20:24:00.001-05:00

Press TV is reporting today that former President George W. Bush and seven others in his administration, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in a symbolic Malaysian war crimes tribunal. It is nice to know that someone out there has not forgotten about the war crimes committed in our name.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Bullying Incident Relevant to Romney Narrative

2012-05-12T08:19:00.001-05:00

When I first read the now infamous Washington Post article describing how Mittens Romney bullied a gay classmate in high school, I'll admit having mixed feelings. Yes, it sounded terribly cruel and was certainly a despicable act on Romney's part. No doubt about that. But I also remembered many of the incredibly stupid things I did in my youth. I'd hate to be judged for them now, so many years later. It would hardly seem fair since I am no longer the person I was in high school. Then again, I am not running for president and asking an entire country to trust me. I get it now. I understand why this is such a big deal and while it may end up having an impact in the 2012 election. And I'm far more disgusted with Romney now than before.

I first heard about the incident on the TV news. At the time, it did not register that Romney was 17-18 at the time. Now that I know this, I simply do not believe that he doesn't remember the incident. Unless he was black-out drunk at the time (unlikely), he should remember it. How do you tackle a classmate, hold him down, and cut his hair, all because you didn't like the style of his hair? Everyone else involved in the incident remembered it. According to ABC News:

“It’s a haunting memory. I think it was for everybody that spoke up about it … because when you see somebody who is simply different taken down that way and is terrified and you see that look in their eye you never forget it. And that was what we all walked away with,” said Phillip Maxwell, who is now an attorney and still considers Romney an old friend.

But really, his claim not to recall the incident isn't what bothers me the most about it.

Romney has claimed that he and his high school friends would not have cared - or even noticed - if another classmate was gay. Of the incident he claims not to recall, he has said that he is positive it had nothing to do with questions about the classmate's sexual orientation. Even though this sounds absurd on its face, this also is not what bothers me most about the whole thing.

After five of his former classmates described the incident he claims not to recall, Romney "apologized." You'll have to judge for yourself if this deserves to be called an apology:

I’m not going to be too concerned about their piece they talk about the fact that I played a lot of pranks in high school and they describe some that well you just say to yourself, back in high school well I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended obviously I apologize but overall high school years were a long time ago.

Even for the sort of non-apology apologies we are used to getting from politicians, this seems inadequate. It infuriates me that the corporate media is reporting this statement as an apology. But again, this is not what bothers me most about the story.

So what does bother me most about this story? I heard the radio interview with Kilmeade and Friends during which Romney laughed while talking about the incident he claims not to remember. If you haven't heard it yet, I'm embedding it here.

Not only was there no hint of real remorse during the interview, but it sounded to me like he still found it funny. Perhaps Mittens is worse than just being out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans; perhaps he's got a cruel streak.

The reason this story has the potential to be so toxic for Romney is that it fits into the narrative about him. This is the guy who has done everything in his power to avoid paying his fair share of taxes, the guy who strapped his dog to the roof of his car, the guy who has embraced Paul Ryan's budget while insisting that corporations are people, and the guy who shamelessly tries to take credit for the successful policies of his opponent.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Obama Finally Decides to Support Marriage Equality

2012-05-10T06:00:00.001-05:00

President Obama now has the distinction of being the first sitting U.S. president to express support of legal same-sex marriage. Good for him! This is a historic moment, and even though one could argue that simply announcing his support does not change any laws, it is certainly an important step in the right direction. It will almost certainly give his re-election a much needed boost, and it sends a signal to those of us who support equality that the president is finally with us on this issue.

We can certainly scratch our heads and wonder what took the president so long to get to this point, a position that has been so obvious to so many for so long. We can speculate about his motives and wonder whether he waited for the most recent polls, assorted Republican blunders, or reactions to Biden's "trial balloon." There will be ample time for all of that. For now, I just want to acknowledge that this was a valuable statement that will bring joy to many.

Lev at Library Grape summed up my feelings well with the following:

I continue to think that the energy spent getting him here could have been more profitably deployed elsewhere–the practical impact of this is zero–but it’s still a big deal, and it feels good.

Even if the impact is largely symbolic, it certainly does feel good. Now I'd like to see the statement of support translate into meaningful action. That is, I'd like to see Obama roll up his sleeves and fight for real equality.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

A Haitian Perspective on Obama

2012-05-09T14:13:00.001-05:00

Having the perspective of an outsider is often invaluable in understanding the nature of something to which we are too close. In one of the more thought-provoking pieces I've read on the 2012 presidential election yet, Haitian-born Ezili Dantò writes:

Obama’s betrayal of core justice values, cuddling Wall Street instead of making it accountable, just to get re-elected cannot sufficiently be offset by general fear of the Republican’s Supreme Court nominations. We must speak truth to power, live without fear. And the Supreme Court has presided over a judiciary that disproportionately favors the wealthy, puts more Black men into the prison system than anywhere else in the world for nonviolent crimes such as being addicted to “inhaling.”

Many progressives argue that Obama should be re-elected, if for no other reason, because of what Mittens might do the the Supreme Court. To that argument, Elizi writes of the court:

They have simply become an arm of the global corporatocracy, giving more human rights to corporations than to human beings. Supreme Court appointments are simply not a sufficiently important issue to vote Democrat.

I wish I could say that Ezili is wrong, but I can't. The difference between today's conservative, corporate-owned Democratic Party and the Republican Party is beginning to seem trivial.

The old dog – “vote-for-the-lesser-of-the-two-evils” argument no longer has traction – won’t hunt. People, of all ethnicities, are tired of dealing with evil. Period.

If being a “pragmatist” or a “realist” means choosing only amongst evil, count us OUT.

H/T to Black Agenda Report

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Time for Obama to Support Same-Sex Marriage

2012-05-08T20:26:00.001-05:00

It really is kind of sad to see President Obama still hasn't come around on the issue of same-sex marriage. Polls show that most in his party support it, as do most Independents. And yet, he's holding out due to bad advice from his handlers or a personal conviction that is difficult to distinguish from…well…bigotry.

I can't help thinking that announcing his support for same-sex marriage would provide a boost to his re-election efforts. He'd lose few votes, and I suspect he'd gain considerably in the form of voter enthusiasm. By supporting this civil rights issue, he'd not only be on the right side of history but he'd re-kindle some of the enthusiasm he has squandered through poor negotiation, repeated capitulation, and an obsession with bipartisanship.

The cost of same-sex marriage is low; the benefits of promoting civil rights are many. Obama needs to lead on this issue.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Energy Independence

2012-05-06T09:41:00.001-05:00

Beginning with the Carter administration, every American president has correctly identified our dependence on foreign oil as a matter of national security. And beginning with Carter, every American president has pledged to end our dependence on foreign oil. Promises aside, we've made little progress.

It is easy to blame the politicians and those who own them, but much of the fault rests with us. We have been unwilling to give up some of the less important aspects of what we think it means to be an American. We maintain an atmosphere where taking real steps toward energy independence would be political suicide because some of the necessary changes would make us unhappy.

We would never elect a politician who dares to tell us the truth. We are not interested in shared sacrifice, and we are certainly not interested in changing our American way of life. Our politicians understand this perfectly well.

I'm not sure I can think of anything that makes me feel more pessimistic about political system than the fact that our oil companies are continuing to receive government subsidies even as they post record profits. And meanwhile, we still aren't serious about alternative energy.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

The Republican War on Women is a Compelling Narrative

2012-04-29T08:59:00.001-05:00

When 31 male Republican senators vote against the Violence Against Women Act, it becomes more difficult for them to claim that the war on women of which they are accused is made up by Democrats. This is a perfect example of a policy decision that fuels the narrative that the Republican Party has declared war on American women.

Is the Republican Party at war with American women? It certainly looks like it when one examines their policies. Here's how Jobsanger recently put it:

They oppose the right of a woman to control her own body. They oppose giving women equal pay in the workplace. They oppose free and easy access to contraception for women. They oppose healthcare reform (Obamacare) which outlaws higher insurance premiums for women. They want to defund Planned Parenthood (which provided need health care for poor women). And they want to slash social programs (where the majority of participants are single women with children).

Any one of these policy positions looks bad in isolation. When combined with each other, they look downright despicable. This is precisely the sort of narrative that could do real damage to the Republican Party in the 2012 elections.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

President Obama Explaining Importance of Separation of Church and State

2012-04-23T05:23:00.001-05:00

President Obama has been less than perfect when it comes to separation of church and state, but he did a great job of explaining why the secular nature of the American democracy is so vital during this speech from 2006.

You can find the full transcript here.

I wonder if the evangelical fundamentalist Christians who are so powerful in the Republican Party are going to rethink church-state separation now that they are looking at the prospect of having a Mormon in the White House?

H/T to Religion Poisons

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

If the Economy is the Issue, What Do Republicans Have to Offer?

2012-04-16T06:52:00.001-05:00

Mittens Romney and his supporters are determined to make the slowly improving U.S. economy their central issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. They want us to believe that Mittens would be better for our economy than President Obama. And yet, Mittens does not seem to have any new ideas whatsoever. Worse yet, his plan appears to involve returning to the conservative economic policies that led to our economic problems.

I understand that the American electorate is angry, but I hope that this will not blind them to the absurdity of returning to failed economic policies just as things are beginning to improve.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Writing the Narrative of the 2012 Presidential Election

2012-04-11T06:05:00.001-05:00

With Santorum's departure from the race and Mittens' nomination inevitable, now is the time for us to begin writing the narrative of the 2012 presidential election. Us? Yep, why leave it to the corporate-owned pundits and spin doctors? Is this election going to be about returning America to the conservative economic policies that caused the collapse of our economy or choosing progress? Is this contest going to be between an obscenely wealthy person who has proven himself to be out of touch with the American people and a flawed centrist who is at least trying to move the country forward?

I believe we are rapidly approaching the point where we need to start solidifying the many negative stories about Mittens into a coherent narrative that will doom his candidacy. I cannot seriously consider myself a fan of Obama, but I do know that we cannot afford a Mittens presidency.

We have seen the effects of Republicans in power since the 2010 mid-terms, and we know the damage they are determined to do (e.g., making it harder to vote, waging a war on women, opposing reality-based science education, dismantling unions). In addition to holding the White House, it is essential that we make some real gains in both houses of Congress.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Can We Stop Talking About Santorum Now?

2012-04-07T08:49:00.001-05:00

It has been clear to most of us that Mittens Romney would be the Republican nominee for some time now. Despite the efforts of many political pundits to make the Republican primary more interesting by making it seem like someone else might have a real chance, serious observers knew Romney would win at least since January. Fortunately, the Obama campaign was among these serious observers and did not end up splitting their attention between multiple candidates. They are ready for Mittens.

Can we stop talking about Rick Santorum now? I believe it is time to let him sink back into relative obscurity. He may well win a few more Southern states, but he's not going to derail Mittens. He's not a serious threat.

The lesson of the Santorum campaign will be that a campaign based on rabid anti-gay bigotry does not work outside the South. Perhaps this is worth some discussion at some point, but I think Santorum's time in the spotlight can end now.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Who Will Romney Select as VP?

2012-04-05T05:25:00.001-05:00

The series of tubes we call the Internet has been buzzing with speculation over who Mittens will select as his VP. I'm of the opinion that it will have to be someone who is truly popular among Christian evangelicals and who can help Mittens win the South.

With the widespread hatred of President Obama among conservative voters, I don't think it is a question of whether those who vote will vote for Mittens. It is more about who can help drive voter turnout. Enthusiasm for Mittens is so low that the Republican Party will have to demonize Obama to the point that voters are motivated by fear and hatred, make sure Mittens selects a VP who conservative voters will come out to support, or both.

What's your guess? Who are some of the likeliest choices for Mittens?

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Identifying Obama's Flaws Does Not Require Lying

2012-03-28T05:46:00.001-05:00

I was recently treated to a fascinating diatribe against President Obama by a Facebook friend. The "friend" in question was someone I went to high school with a long time ago and have had no contact since. In fact, I barely remember him.

Across a series of over 20 posts to his wall, this individual outlined his negative feelings toward Obama. Three things struck me about their content. First, they contained no real substance. Second, each and every one was a Fox "News" talking point. And third, all were lies.

As far as I'm concerned, there is plenty to dislike about President Obama's policies. If you are conservative, he is not conservative enough for you and has undoubtedly made decisions with which you disagree. If you are liberal, he is not liberal enough for you and has undoubtedly made decisions with which you will disagree. One does not need to make up or promote lies in order to criticize the president. There is plenty to dislike right here in the real world.

The rants of my "friend" consisted primarily of questions about Obama's citizenship (i.e., birtherism), religion, socialism, etc. Many were delivered in the all-caps style of writing so characteristic of nut jobs. But again, what I found most striking was that none of them contained even a kernel of truth.

In the end, I had to conclude that this individual was poorly informed and likely had no idea what Obama's policies are. If he had this sort of information, his complaints would have had real substance. Instead, he simply revealed himself to be a moron. Without substance and facts, there was no reason to give his opinions any credibility. And yes, I unfriended him once the posts turned blatantly racist.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

Obama is Still a Muslim in Mississippi

2012-03-23T14:52:00.001-05:00

According to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted just before Mississippi's Republican primary, approximately 52% of Mississippi Republicans believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Even stranger, only 12% identified him as a Christian.

I suppose it is not exactly newsworthy that many Mississippians are horribly uninformed, but I do find it striking that a majority still cling to this particular belief. It makes me wonder what other absurd things they believe.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive

How Much Damage Can One Politician Do?

2012-03-22T04:59:00.002-05:00

When it comes to the U.S. Congress, it is easy to dismiss the actions of one member as trivial, irrelevant, or ineffective. I have tended to think that a single member, no matter how crazy he or she may be, cannot possibly have that much influence on legislation. That sort of influence would require success in persuading others to go along with one's crazy ideas. I am starting to fear this might be a mistake on my part.

RightWingWatch has some information on Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that makes me think I've seriously underestimated how much harm one politician can do. And even if Inhofe hasn't had a ton of influence on other members of Congress, his distorted biblically-based views on the environment have undoubtedly affected some voters.

Here's my question: why do we tolerate this sort of thing from an elected official? Shouldn't someone like this be facing all the time, money, and effort the reality-based and progressive communities can muster in opposition? I know we cannot afford to tackle every single case of destructive idiocy, but it seems that someone like Sen. Inhofe is in that rare category that getting him out of office should be a priority. Maybe we just have too many priorities.

Subscribe to Red State Progressive