The Democrat Deal 2.0

The Deal has been Occupied!!

2011-10-17T10:15:00.000-04:00


spoiled hippy kid occupiers from Vermont. photo credit: Ed Needham

The Democrat Deal will be on a temporary hiatus as Managing Editor, Ed Needham, has joined Occupy Wall Street's public relations/communications working group full-time as of early October.

the 99%.
too big to fail.

The Deal will be back, stronger than ever, following the revolution.


word, lou. photo credit: Ed Needham

@ #occupythishulahoop photo credit: Ed Needham

the Deal's demand! photo credit: Ed Needham

Lioness in the Senate: Why Elizabeth Warren will Win. ("its the trust, stupid")

2011-09-16T16:30:00.012-04:00

photo courtesy AP

Before Elizabeth Warren announced her Senate campaign, she was within 9 points of Scott Brown. Granted, polling has it's limitations, especially this far out. Still, it carries some sobering gravity for the Brown campaign and reflects a coming together of dynamics for the widely-respected, consumer advocate.

Many political observers have edged towards stating the race is hers to lose. We aren't hedging our bets, she will beat Scott Brown. Here's why:

This is no Coakley campaign. Warren has likely shaken more hands, stood on more chairs in more living rooms, raised more money, energized more people within the first month of her campaign than the former MA Attorney General did in her whole campaign. While Coakley's campaign was aloof, entitled and frequently lacked the presence of the candidate; Warren's candidacy is happening at the grassroots level, both warm and electric, and above all, sincere. Brown will have no choice but to try to paint Warren as a brie-eating, liberal, harvard professor but it is too late. Warren has aggressively been able to define herself simply and effectively. The day she announced she wasn't in a hotel ballroom, she was shaking hands at a subway station all morning. Brown's moves to label her as an elitist will noticeably smack of the disingenuous and hurt his standing in the public eye more than help.

This is not 2010. While the Tea Party core is as energized as ever, the movement's size and influence has markedly deflated (inside and outside of the GOP) as dissatisfaction with Congress has grown. There is also no shortage of evidence that disfavor within the Tea Party ranks for Mr. Brown has grown as well. The sitting senator will still be able to amass considerable funds, but the "boots on the ground" organizing, knocking on doors, getting out the vote, will be fewer in number and less energized despite being a presidential election cycle. He was able to get out his vote in an off-year election with poor overall voter turnout in 2010. In 2012, Obama is expected to take the state with 60% of the popular votes. The question isn't how many Obama voters will vote for Warren? The question is how many more votes will Warren get over Obama? Sure, he's popular in the state, but he's not Warren popular. The hardcore Dems who get out the vote have quite publicly loss favor with the Presidents lack of leadership on the principles he ran on in 2008. Alternately, these same activists see the steel-jawed champion in Warren as fully on board, if not with each agenda item, but with steady, aggressive leadership on a good number of them.

Warren will beat Brown at his own game. Candidate Brown was able to come off as a likable, trustworthy, populist. The candidate you would have a beer with. Next to Warren, Brown comes off slick, staged and no longer an outsider but with a record in the Senate that will do him no favors. Warren spent the past two years making a name for herself as an effective consumer advocate for the rights of middle class in economics and finance. She set up a watchdog agency for Wall Street against the best efforts of the ridiculously well-funded lobbying groups. She couldn't get Congressional approval to lead it. Why? Because she speaks truth to power. Always. And many didn't want to hear, or want you to hear, what she had to say.

Which leads us to trust. Money, compelling bio's, party regulars, media teams, economic plans - both candidates will have in spades. But trust is the rarest of commodities in politics. It is campaign gold, it is campaign platinum. And Ms. Warren exudes a natural sincerity and hefts a personal record of grit and dedication that makes her one of the most trusted public figures in America. You can take that to the bank. Or Senate Chamber, rather.

Ms. Warren Speaking standing on top of a chair at a packed house gathering in Pittsfield, MA on August 19th, one of 12 in three days. Before she announced her candidacy.

A few local citizens reflected on the evening in Pittsfield:

If Elizabeth Warren’s appearance in Pittsfield last night was anything like her appearance in Framingham on Thursday, then she was simply spectacular. Her Thursday evening appearance in Framingham turned out to be quite an event. She was unabashedly liberal and she knew how to defend that liberalism effectively. You could actually feel the electricity and energy in the room. She was able to tell a story and relate to her audience. Every person there knew they were watching an impressive and dynamic figure who, if elected, would surely become an immediate leader in the Senate. There were persons in the room who were already committed to other candidates, many of whom are of unusually high caliber, but after listening to Elizabeth Warren, those who previously supported other candidates knew that she was the Democrat to beat. And, whether they stick with their candidate or not, they know that this was someone of substance who could defeat Scott Brown. I have not felt such electricity and excitement for any candidate for any office for a very, very long time.
mel-warshaw

I have never attended such a crowded house party. All the elements are in place – biography, command of the issues, experience pushing back against a stubborn Congress. She says she’ll keep speaking out regardless of whether or not she runs or is elected, but she’ll have a much better platform IMO as a Senator than as an academic.
christopher

c/o BlueMassGroup.com

The deal isn't done, though, folks. The fact that the race is hers to lose means just that. She needs to keep up the unenviable pace. Stay consistent on her message. Keep the high road. Go door to door. Get to those church suppers. And make sure her team is lined up behind her, maintains focus and works as hard as she does.

Sure, it's not a lock. But we're still going to call it. And we are going to do EVERYTHING at The Deal to help assure the outcome. (And we never write in all caps so it should be obvious that we are quite serious.)

We need a lioness in the Senate. And so do you.

The Deal with Warren Buffett being a Socialist.

2011-08-15T14:17:00.002-04:00

He's not, by the way. But it does get your attention.

Which is why, today, Warren Buffett is the champion of tax equity.

The world's most famous capitalist made clear the argument that continuing the lion's share of Bush(néeObama) tax cuts is both unjust and poor tax policy in an opinion piece in The New York Times.

Much the same argument is made every day on Capitol Hill, in the media, and at kitchen tables across the country. But when you are the world's most famous capitalist making the argument, it has a potent resonance.

Thank you, Mr. Buffett.

Kelly Blair

Stop Codling the Super Rich
by Warren E. Buffett
c/o NYT

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

For the original article, go here.

Andrew Sullivan revisits the Deal with Christianists.

2011-08-14T20:11:00.000-04:00

In May of 2006, Andrew Sullivan coined the term and concept of "christianist" in his Time Magazine article "My Problem with Christianism." (read it here.)

Since then, it has been a topic he has revisited in his own column, The Dish.

Since The Democrat Deal started in February of 2010, we have written extensively on the subject, frequently bringing Mr. Sullivan's lucid observations with us into the fray.

With Rick Perry's entrance into the GOP fray, yesterday, The Dish catches us up to speed.

The Deal would only venture to add that while the Christianist movement has had an impact on the whole of the country, the only "takeover" accorded it is within the ranks of the Tea Party-controlled GOP. This political marriage (with the Tea Party/Christianists forming the male figure and the rest of the GOP playing the subservient wife) is, at best, a rocky one. The Tea Party is feuding among it's own. The GOP is increasingly transparent in it's declining valuation of the radical right. The upcoming election is already being seen as one where losses are expected among it's ranks.

But - there is still plenty of political fuel to be fired. For that, there is no one better than the Gov. of Texas. It is an obvious career choice. Rick Perry should be able to suck all the air out of Bachmann and Palin while sweeping the floor with Romney, succeeding whether he wins or loses. (take it easy, he will surely lose the general, should he get there.)

Perry will, undoubtedly, succeed at increasing his own number of zealots, sheep, and career options for a former Gov of Texas. It is a tough job to follow. Ask anyone.

The Christianist Takeover
by Andrew Sullivan
c/o The Dish

It now appears to be complete. When I wrote "The Conservative Soul," David Brooks was underwhelmed by its core argument: that an accelerating shift was taking place in American conservatism that was transforming the small government secular temperament into a fundamentalist religious mindset that sought its refuge not in doubting humankind's capacity for good, but in believing in God's ability to heal all things, including politics.

David argued that the religious and fundamentalist shift in the GOP was over-rated, and that there was no conflict between evangelicalism and mainstream American values.

As any number of historians, sociologists and pollsters can tell you, the evangelical Protestants who now exercise a major influence on the Republican Party are an infinitely diverse and contradictory group, and their relationship to these hyperpartisans is extremely ambivalent.

Well, a few years later, examine the candidacies of the two front-runners for the GOP. One launched his campaign in a revival meeting calling for God to solve our economic problems (having previously led mass prayers for the end of the Texas drought); the other emerges entirely out of Dominionist theology and built her entire career in the Christianist world of home-schooling, and anti-gay demonization. One reason Mitt Romney is not a shoo-in? Sectarianism, and his own previous deviations from binding orthodoxy. And it is this fundamentalist mindset - in which nothing doctrinal can be questioned, and the real world must be bent to the shape of a rigid theo-ideology - that defines these two candidates.

Hence Bachmann's belief that the entire deficit can be ended in short shrift solely by massive cuts in spending. This "spending alone" principle cannot be compromised, since taxation in and of itself is a way in which the liberal elites control people's lives. It doesn't matter what economists say about the consequence of wilful default or of austerity too sharply imposed. It only matters what God says. And God is bound up with a radical American theology in which slavery was more benign than the Great Society, and that the Founders were abolitionists. That American theology creates the justification for the use of American military power across the globe, especially in protecting and advancing Greater Israel, Bachmann's and Perry's fundamentalist cause of causes.

This is what this party now is: a religious movement clothed in anti-government radicalism. It has nothing to do with the conservative temperament, conservative political thought or conservative ideas. It is hostile to most existing institutions, especially government, contemptuous of the courts, and seized of an ideology as rigid as any far-left liberalism, as utopian as any wide-eyed socialist, as fanatical as anything the left spawned in the 1960s.

And it has hijacked an entire political party; and recently held to ransom an entire country. I knew it would get worse before it gets better. But this bad?

[Yes, Mr. Sullivan "this bad." The phoenix must burn to ash before it can take to the skies. ed.]

For the original article, go here.

What's the deal with democrat zietgiest? The incomparible Ms. Dowd knows das Geschäft.

2011-08-10T13:43:00.001-04:00

"He doesn’t like the bully pulpit, just the professor’s lectern," states our friend and colleague at the NYT, as usual, simply, cogently, putting context to a dominant perplexing national conundrum. In stark contrast to the candidate Obama many of us (myself, very much included) were pied pipers and delighted to be part of such an exciting, promising moment in our national history.

Three years later, little remains of either the enthusiasm or promise. The only "change" President Obama has materialized is the change in his direction and our expectations. The Chicago pol who referred to himself as a "fierce advocate" during he campaign has yet to show a hint of either fierceness or advocacy. What his increasingly hard-pressed cheerleaders like Plouffe and Axelrod point to as crowing achievements to his administration are most often times the President has stepped out of the way and not been an impediment to legislation (though not beyond accepting credit, post-facto, i.e. healthcare "reform" and repealing of DADT and DOMA.) Another great example and defining metaphor to his leadership (or lack, thereof), can be found surrounding those infamous robber-baron Bush (née Obama) era tax cuts Candidate Obama aggressively built a consensus and candidacy around. Since taking office, he has, without a sideways glance, voted to extend these cuts amidst intense economic argument against such action and, then, seamlessly extoll their inherent injustice on the perpetual campaign for re-election.

Ahh, the capacity of the political animal. But is Obama truly a political animal? Not in a Clinton, "against all odds and challenges who sucks the air out of any room he enters" kind of way. Not in the Johnson, hard-assed "comin' up to the hill to cajoll or strong-arm members to his view" kind of way. And Certainly not in the FDR "we are better than our obstacles, here's our historic plans to deal with historic challenges" kind of way.

Obama has a perfectly brilliant American narrative, to be sure. Political strategists wait their whole career for such an engaging backdrop to a campaign. Yet, his lack of application, his reluctance to expend his (once) political capital, his absence in any significant consensus-building or public initiative leadership to date cannot but highlight the fact that this compelling human narrative may be little more than that - a narrative that captures our collective imagination, our "hope," but does not then translate into any evidence for the capacity to manifest "change" or even produce the most meager of "back-stops" against a Congress where the culture of intransigency has sunk to parody as the Teabag tail wags the GOP dog.

To the realists of the left, this dynamic has been dismally clear for some time. To all but the most ardent and centrist of the president's flock, the maintenance of denial is visibly crumbling day by day.
For Plouffe and Axelrod, this isn't an issue. Primarily, because it is one they cannot effect. They cannot pull Candidate Obama out of the closet and replace the defining national political disappointment of a generation with the hopeful and uplifting Chicagoan of pre-2009. All his advisor's need to do (in their relatively public opinion) is wait for the coming Perry/Romney battle where Perry holds the odds to carry the primary but also provide the face to the final heydays of a tea-party that will burn itself down from the inside by the general, allowing for four more years of the more moderate republican Obama administration.

The question of import now is - since the candidate of "yes, we can," is the president of "but, we won't try," where do we stand as a party and a country? More importantly, where do we go from here? What, and for whom, must we fight for?

Ms. Dowd, illuminates, c/o NYT:

Withholder in Chief
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: August 9, 2011

Even the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair is not enough to sweeten the mood.

Three years ago, Barack Obama’s unlikely presidential dream was given wings by rapturous Iowans — young, old and in-between — who saw in the fresh-faced, silky-voiced black senator a chance to leap past the bellicose, rancorous Bush years into a modern, competitive future where we once more had luster in the world.

“We are choosing hope over fear,” Senator Obama told a delirious crowd of 3,000 here the night he won the Iowa caucuses.

But fear has garroted hope, as America reels from the latest humiliating blows on the economy and in Afghanistan. The politician who came across as a redeemer in 2008 is now in need of redemption himself.

Faced with a country keening for reassurance and reinvention, Obama seems at a loss. Regarding his political skills, he turns out to be the odd case of a pragmatist who can’t learn from his mistakes and adapt.

Many of his Democratic supporters here, who once waited hours in line just to catch a glimpse of The One, are disillusioned.

“We just wish he’d be more of a fighter,” said one influential Democrat with a grimace. Another agreed: “You can’t blame him for everything. I just wish he would come across more forceful at times, but that is not the dude’s style. Detached hurts you when things are sour. You need some of Clinton’s ‘I feel your pain’ compassion.”

The president has been so spectacularly unable to fill the leadership void in Washington that the high-spirited Michele Bachmann feels free to purloin Obama’s old mantra.

“The power behind our campaign is hope and a future,” she chirped to a sparse crowd Monday in Atlantic, Iowa. “That’s all I believe in.” That and making America safe for old-fashioned light bulbs and not those weird curly ones.

Obama’s response on Monday to Friday’s Standard & Poor’s downgrade and to the 22 Navy Seal commandos and 8 other soldiers killed by a Taliban rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan was once more too little, too late. It was just like his belated, ineffectual response on the BP oil spill and his reaction to the would-be Christmas Day bomber; it took him three days on vacation in Hawaii to speak about the terrorist incident when the country was scared about national security, and then he spent the next week callously shuttling from the podium to the golf course.

Bachmann has been riding around Iowa in her bus, with Elvis music and her name emblazoned 25 times on the outside, mocking Obama for going to Camp David last weekend and burrowing in, while the country was roiling.

His inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is strange. If the American servicemen had died on a Monday, he wouldn’t have waited until Wednesday to talk about it. He doesn’t like the bully pulpit, just the professor’s lectern.

After failing to interrupt his Camp David weekend to buck up the country on one of its worst days in history, he tacked on his condolences for the soldiers’ families to his economic pep talk, in what had to be the most inept oratorical segue of his presidency.

He long ago should have gone out into the country to talk to Americans in person and come up with a concrete plan that people could print out from the White House Web site and study. Hasn’t he learned how dangerous it is to delegate to Congress? His withholding and reactive nature has made him seem strangely irrelevant in Washington, trapped by his own temperament. He doesn’t lead, and he doesn’t understand why we don’t feel led.

Speaking from the State Dining Room of the White House, he advised America it was still “a triple-A country” like some cerebral soccer coach urging the kids to win one for the London Interbank Offered Rate.

With traders hearing nothing new, just boilerplate about “common sense and compromise” on deficit reduction, the Dow Jones industrial average, which had already fallen 410 points, fell 20 more points while the president was talking around 2 o’clock. By the 4 p.m. close, the Dow was 634 points lower.
Obama has spent a lifetime creating his persona — superior, wise, above all parties and interests, all-seeing, calm, unflappable.

But as Drew Westen, a liberal psychology professor at Emory University wrote in The Times on Sunday, puzzling about what has happened to his former hero’s passion, the president never identifies the villains who cause our epic problems.

It’s unclear, Westen wrote, whether that reflects his aversion to conflict or a fear of offending donors, or both.

Obama’s assumption that you can rise above ascribing villainous motives has caused him to waste huge chunks of his first term seeking bipartisanship from Republicans who were playing him for a dupe. And it has led to Americans regarding the nation’s capital as a place of all villains and no heroes.

for the orginal article go here.

The Deal with Russ Feingold's new advocacy arm of Progressives United (Run, Russ, Run)

2011-08-01T22:58:00.002-04:00

Our favorite potential candidate to run against the President in the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary continues to do the peoples' work. And do so very effectively. What we like most about this new advocacy group is the way the former Senator from Wisconsin is going to manage the reporting. This type of organization, a 501(c)(4), can spend and raise an unlimited amounts of money and do so without disclosing the identities of the individuals and/or organizations who donate. This is not the Russ way. He will walk the talk. The tight disclosure standards he has put in place will set contribution limits and allow for public access to the identities of all funds raised and spent.

Transparency of money in politics. There's a concept.

The following article comes to us c/o The Huffington Post. It closes by stating Feingold and his people will be deciding on whether to run for the open WI Senate seat left by Sen. Herb Kohl by the end of the Labor Day weekend holiday.

The Democrat Deal was made aware earlier this month that this is not precisely case. The former Senator was a great Senator and would undoubtedly serve with equal distinction if re-elected. However, there are different dynamics afoot.

Democrats are more and more vocal about their displeasure with the Presidents performance. The recent sell-out to the Tea Party controlled Congress is a palpable case in point. It is no longer just the progressives and party activists who are clamoring for an alternative to the President in the 2012 Democratic Primary. Presently, the majority of all Democrats want a primary challenger. Among the field of viable men and women who could step into history and reclaim the Democrat Party and reclaim America for working families and the middle class, - one name has been gathering the most buzz: Russ Feingold.

To the people of Wisconsin, we agree, Russ would be a stellar choice for the Senate. But we ask you, for the sake of our country, help us send your prodigal son to the White House. It is time for a democrat in the White House, it is time for Russ Feingold for President.

for the original Huffington Post article go here.
for the unofficial Russ Feingold for President 2012 website go here.

Russ Feingold Expands Progressives United, Launches Advocacy Operation
by Amanda Terkel
WASHINGTON -- Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold is expanding his Progressives United operation, launching a 501(c)(4) and a new website on Monday morning. The organization will now consist of a political action committee for political work and a nonprofit for advocacy efforts. And although a 501(c)(4) is allowed to spend and raise unlimited amounts of undisclosed money, Feingold is promising to practice what he preaches by setting up strict disclosure requirements and contribution limits for his group.

Feingold launched Progressives United in February. Since then, it has raised more than $2 million. The organization was designed to support progressive candidates at the local, state and national levels, as well as hold the media and elected officials accountable on combating corporate influence in politics.

The PAC has raised more than $200,000 for the Democratic candidates in the Wisconsin state senate recall elections, and it organized a campaign calling on President Obama to fire General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The new nonprofit arm will allow the group to do more advocacy work, allowing the PAC to concentrate on political work. The PAC will be posting new endorsement criteria for candidates and asking supporters to nominate possible individuals they would like to see Progressives United endorse.

"It's clear people are fed up with the way corporations are running our politics and our government. Progressives United is taking the next step to fight back," said Progressives United Executive Director Cole Leystra.

Feingold has been one of the Democratic Party's most vocal critics on the issue of whether to accept corporate contributions.

Speaking at the annual Netroots Nation conference for progressive bloggers and activists in June, Feingold said the Democratic Party was "in danger of losing its soul" if it did not adopt stricter regulations on campaign contributions. He singled out Priorities USA, a new Democratic independent expenditure group, or super PAC, that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of corporate cash for political purposes.
Advertisement

The nonprofit that Feingold is forming, known as a 501(c)(4) in the U.S. tax code, is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of undisclosed money as long as its primary focus is not politics.

But Feingold is placing extra restrictions on his new organization. It will disclose 100 percent of its income and will not knowingly accept any money from corporations, national banks, labor unions, federal contractors or federal or state lobbyists. It is also swearing off independent expenditures, electioneering and the "issue ads" that are popular with outside groups. No contributions above $10,000 per individual per year will be accepted.

The group says it is also putting up firewalls between Progressives United Inc., the nonprofit, and the Progressives United PAC. While they will share resources and staff, they will be financed and fundraised for separately, and they will engage in distinct activities. On Aug. 1 of congressional and presidential election years, all non-administrative operations will be conducted and financed through the PAC.

On Monday, Progressives United supporters will receive an email announcing the launch of the new website.

"With elections coming up in Wisconsin next week and around the country soon -- and with corporate money already flowing into politics through shadowy front groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads -- we had to launch our new website right now to get these important grassroots tools into activists' hands as soon as possible," reads the message.

Feingold has said that he will decide by Labor Day whether he will run for retiring Sen. Herb Kohl's (D-Wis.) open U.S. Senate seat in the 2012 elections. Progressives United staff insisted that the new announcement is an extension of the senator's long fight for campaign finance reform, not any indication about his political future.

Our Proposal for the Democratic Convention Theme Song...

2011-07-13T18:06:00.001-04:00

The Who: Won't Get Fooled Again

It might not sit well with the President's people, but we think there would some foot-tapping and perhaps a cheer or two from the floor. Or three.

The Case for a Primary Challenge Against Obama

2011-07-12T14:02:00.000-04:00

c/o The Atlantic

July 8, 2011
by Conor Friedersdorf

It looks like Obama is to Boehner's left.. Perhaps a smidge. (photo credit: Reuters)

Ask a typical tea partier when his discontent with the political establishment began. Often as not he'll point to the Bush Administration. The list of grievances is long: the profligate spending, the new entitlement for prescription drugs, the Harriet Miers nomination, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Most tea partiers now think compassionate conservatism itself was ill-conceived.

So where were all the protest rallies back when Bush was president? It's a question tea party critics love to ask. The implication is that the protest movement is motivated by partisanship and antagonism to Obama more than principle. In fact, discontent on the right during the Bush years was genuine. Tongues were held for reasons including these: a desire to support the president in the war on terror, misguided partisan loyalty, a conservative movement that acted as unprincipled apologists and attack dog enforcers for the president, and perhaps more than anything else, a dearth of options. Circa 2003, when Medicare Part D was enacted, a primary challenge against Bush was unthinkable. What was an upset conservative to do, vote for John Kerry?

By their lights, he'd have been worse.

Liberals should understand that predicament. It's exactly the one in which they now find themselves. President Obama won't face a serious primary challenge prior to Election 2012, but that isn't because he has governed as the left would've wanted. He is trying to keep American troops in Iraq beyond his own withdrawal deadline. His executive power claims are every bit as bad, and sometimes more extreme, than the excesses the left blasted when Bush was responsible for them. The prison at Guantanamo Bay remains open. Warantless surveillance on innocent Americans continues. Whistleblowers are in greater legal jeopardy than they were. The economy is terrible. Health-care reform was more corporatist than progressives would've preferred. We're now waging an illegal war in Libya that'll cost over a billion dollars, even as we prepare deep cuts to social welfare programs. Despite promises to the contrary, the FBI is still raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in jurisdictions where they're legal under state law. Promised advances in government transparency haven't materialized.

The left would be justified in lashing out, given the Grand-Canyon-sized chasm that separates the rhetoric of candidate Obama from the behavior of President Obama. By and large, however, they've kept quiet about the abuses and unlawful behavior of the man who occupies the White House, with a few notable exceptions, compared to their volume and passion during his predecessor's tenure. That's partly because they've focused their attacks on the tea party, and politicians like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. The truth of the matter is that even if a conservative like Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, the soft spoken advocate of a truce on social issues, won the nomination, the vast majority of liberals would support President Obama's reelection anyway.

It is their feeling that they've got nowhere else to go.

Is there any way out of this cycle, whereby every president is virulently hated by the opposition and proceeds to betray his ideological allies, who submit for lack of an alternative? Are we condemned to a political establishment that has failed all of us? If things proceed as before, perhaps Obama will win re-election, continue to betray his base and the ideals he articulated in 2008, and sow the seeds for a left-leaning tea party equivalent. There is, however, one flaw in that plan: isn't the rhetoric of candidate Obama mostly what those people want to hear from a champion?

In a provocative essay, James Poulos lays out another possible future. It's deeply counterintuitive. He argues that the existing tea party can appeal to the whole political spectrum if its leaders and rank-and-file have the will to make it happen:

Democrats have not been so disillusioned with a sitting president of their party since Robert F. Kennedy ran in 1968 to unseat Lyndon Johnson. Liberal confidence in the most basic principles of Democratic rule have been shaken to the core by Barack Obama's intensification of Bush-era policies that even divide the right. The left cannot field a challenge to what increasingly strikes good-faith liberals as the rule of a corporatist police state. The Green Party is a husk. The radicals are a rump. Outside the right, there is now no viable political alternative to Obamaism -- the greatest partisan disappointment in generations.

But until Republicans make some fundamental changes to their party platform, the left is prepared to accept from the Democratic Party many generations of abuse and depression. This is why liberal elites are deep into a crash program to hardwire the public mind with their caricature of Tea Partiers as a virulent, violent fringe peddling moral hatred and social suffering. At the present moment, it sounds farfetched to say that only the Tea Party can address this concern in a way that can attract liberal voters to Republican candidates. But does it sound any less farfetched to say that establishment Republicanism can gain the support of any liberals worthy of the name?

His theory has this going for it: Tea partiers and disaffected liberals have in common a mistrust of the political establishment, a plausible critique of centrists, a desire to hold candidates they elect to their promises, and legitimate grievances with widespread appeal. As a student of partisan media, however, it is unthinkable to me that they'd join forces to elect even a reformed version of a Tea Party Republican. In a better world, ideological movements wouldn't rely on vilifying adversaries as the people who are "destroying America" while advancing their own causes.

But our world is one where there is not only a psychological temptation to do so, but huge financial incentives for people like Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Andrew Breitbart, Mark Levin and Michael Moore to stoke the pathology. If the other side is as malicious in their intentions as these entertainers say, it would be folly for the non-establishment right and left to join forces.

Thus failed "centrists" keep hanging around.

What I'd like to see, apart from everything else, is a return to strong primary challenges against sitting presidents. It's easy to understand why they don't happen. But hard to argue that we wouldn't be better off if President Bush had been forced to worry a bit more about fiscal hawks, and President Obama was worried a bit more about anti-corporatists and the anti-war, civil libertarian left.

Here's the Deal with Russ for President:

2011-07-10T01:32:00.001-04:00

the "candidate to be"

Today marked the launch of a new organization and website spelling out what has been whispered about in progressive circles for some time. There may well be a Russ Feingold Presidential Campaign in the preliminary stages.

Recently, a "draft Russ for Senate" campaign in WI has come up short. No one from his inner circle to state political pundits are expecting him to enter the senate race, a race polls show he would take by a landslide. Why? Is it that he has set his political sights higher?

While the former Senator may not enjoy the name recognition of Gov. Dean (neither did Dean til he ran for President) few individuals are held in higher regard by the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. A champion of civil liberties, worker's rights, a public health insurance option, peace overseas, a David to the Goliath of corporate influence in Washington, Sen. Feingold has been busy with his PAC, Progressives United since leaving office. A direct response to Citizens United, a corporate funded right-wing PAC repeatedly charged with ugly yet effective disinformation campaigns, Progressives United seeks to separate corporate money from the political process and promote greater transparency and accountability in government.

The fact is, many democrats are feeling disenfranchised after two and a half years of the Obama Administration and looking for a way to channel that frustration in a positive way. Recent polls show a majority of Democrats would like to see a primary challenger to Obama than would have him run unopposed. Russ 2012 may just be what they are looking for. We sure could do much worse.

For what it's worth, Mr. Feingold, consider us very much on board.

Find the Russ in 2012 website here.

Michelle Bachmann Doesn't Need a Flaming Husband to Burn Down Her Campaign...

2011-07-04T16:02:00.003-04:00

..she'll do it just fine on her own.

Granted, the article below is just a collection of observations by various people and one's sexuality is solely one's own business. However, when one is the vociferously anti-gay husband (who appears very gay) of the vociferously anti-gay presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann, it is the cruel hypocrisy at issue, not the sexuality itself.

As with Sarah Palin on John McCain's ticket, Ms. Bachmann's ability to lessen her chances with all but the right-wing fringe voters is exercised every time she opens her mouth to speak something other than a rehearsed talking point. The only question is when she will crest in terms of popularity and nose-dive her own campaign. Fellow candidate Mitt Romney is hoping for later rather than sooner. Bachmann is, according to Romney insiders, god's gift to the Romney campaign.

The Minnesota Congresswoman doesn't need a closeted husband who happens to be a homophobic "Christian" counselor to "former" gay men to bring down her campaign. Though with the increasing media exposure of Marcus Bachmann and his explicitly hypocritical and exuberantly angry stance towards homosexuality, it could certainly add fuel to the fire.

fabulousss marcus bachmann c/o getty images

This article comes to us c/o Laurie Apple at Gawker.com:

All Kinds of People Weighing in on Marcus ‘Mr. Michele’ Bachmann’s Sexuality
Lauri Apple —Since Tea Partying hostess-with-the-mostest Rep. Michele Bachmann declared her presidential candidacy, Dr. Marcus Bachmann—her gay-barbarian discipline-advocating therapist-husband—has been drawing heightened attention on his own. Some people, including famous-type ones, think maybe Bachmann's a gay barbarian as well.

Notable Bachmann sexuality commentators include:

Cher, who used her Twitter the other day to riff on Bachmann (as the gay news website Towleroad noticed).
Pundit Andrew Sullivan, who called Bachmann a "ssuper-sserial hunter of gays" and then compared him to Waiting for Guffman character Corky St. Clair.
The Daily Show co-creator and satirist Lizz Winstead, who tweeted that Bachmann is "the white Al Reynolds."
James Urbaniak of The Venture Brothers, who Tumbled: "It's pretty much a given that the most vociferously homophobic men are usually repressing something. But, oh Mary, Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus takes the ever-loving cake. He's a cure-the-gay therapist out of a John Waters movie. I haven't seen flames this high since the last California wildfire..."
Kids in the Hall comic and television actor Dave Foley, who asked via Twitter: "How can Michele Bachman be opposed to gay marriage when she is married to gay man." Foley made a few other tweets about Bachmann, using "#MarcusBachmanIsSoGay"; the hashtag got a bit of traction.
Keith Olbermann referred to Bachmann as a "bizarre-sounding man who's calling gays 'barbarians'" and wonders how you can "hide" him without putting him in some sort of closet.

Also, someone has created a @DrMarcusBachman Twitter feed. And at least one blogger believes Bachmann would make a "fine First Lady of the United States."
People started questioning Bachmann's sexuality well before his wife announced her presidential campaign. Back in September 2010, for example, Truth Wins Out—a nonprofit whose mission is to fight "anti-gay religious extremism"—posted on its website a YouTube of Bachmann with the comment, "Comment not necessary." That vid got people talking, but not at the level we're now seeing. Will his sexuality become a bigger issue as Mrs. B's campaign churns along? We'll see.
At this point, you might be wondering whether all these jokes and comments amount to gay-bashing. Wisconsin Gazette blogger Louis Weisberg took up that very question in a summary of all the Bachmann chatter. His conclusion?:

As long as the Bachmanns continue to display traits that seem to be at odds with their positions on the issues, they're sure to inspire more ridicule. Whether that ridicule is justified or unseemly is a debate within itself.

In addition to promoting the cause of gay discipline, Bachmann has also donated to a group that's trying to ban gay marriage in Minnesota. He might want to stop that kind of thing, if he wants celebrities and others to stop tweeting about him so much.

The Aspen Institute: The Obama Presidency and the Future of the American Dream

2011-07-04T12:30:00.000-04:00

Arianna Huffington, Michael Sandel and Jeffrey Rosen lead an insightful discussion at this year's Aspen Institute's Festival of Ideas from the query: "Has the Obama Administration saved or betrayed progressive politics in America?" A topic oft visited by The Democrat Deal, investigated and argued with a much higher degree of discernment and eloquence. (It is no surprise to our readers that we have consistently arrived to a thesis more akin to Arianna's perspective.)

The President's Empty Pulpit: Andrew Kimbrell echos The Deal on our Centrist Administration.

2011-05-09T21:14:00.001-04:00

For the past year, our articles at The Deal have oft visited the lack of traditional Democratic values reflected by the Obama Administration. Or, to place accountability where it is due - with the President himself.

Whether highlighting the disparity of promises and policy between candidate Obama and President Obama, or calling upon the President to seize the opportunity to become an agent of change by demonstrating leadership on civil rights, or ending the Bush era tax cuts that have cost the U.S. twice the monies spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan; The Deal has advocated for a return to what Gov. Howard Dean referred to as the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." While party leaders, such as the former governor from Vermont, have been shown great care in avoiding dissonance within a party that holds the White House, they have done so at the cost of the Party and the citizenry.

Support in MA for WI. photo by Ed Needham

As a result, within the first two years of Obama's Presidency, an ineffective GOP minority managed to quickly and quietly piggy-back on a Tea Party representation of Obama as a radical Socialist from Kenya. At the mid-terms, the Dems lost the House of Representatives and took a serious hit at their Senate majority. The once promising first two years of Obama's Presidency with majorities in both houses were lost to an underwhelming approach to an economic crisis and healthcare legislation that became a win for the insurance industry with the elimination of a public option.

In both substance and style, the current administration has failed thus far in communicating and leading reform along traditional Democratic lines. The fact that a Tea Party dominated GOP may produce a conservative unpalatable to the majority of Americans, or a lackluster alternative candidate following vicious infighting, will further ensure a centrist-dominated second term for the Administration.

Thankfully, some democrats have taken a different path. Former Senator, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has launched Progressives United, a political action committee dedicated to fighting corporate influence and upholding traditional Democratic values. Grass-roots progressive advocacy groups have also largely remained on course despite the lack of grass-tops leadership. The nationwide appreciation and acknowledgment of labor in response to thinly veiled attacks to collective bargaining in Wisconsin and Michigan demonstrates the enduring relevance of the AFL-CIO, Teamsters and the SEIU to a corporatist-leaning government. The deafening silence of the White House in both states' struggle to protect the rights of workers is a prime example of a bully pulpit wasted for want of leadership.

Support for workers. photo by Ed Needham

In his article in Tikkun, The Empty Pulpit: The Obama Problem, author/lawyer/advocate, Andrew Kimbrell, concludes:

"There is no immediate panacea to the “empty pulpit” problem we now face with the Obama administration. However, as we approach the next presidential election it is important, at a minimum, for progressives to challenge the president in the primaries. Not because there is a serious chance of having more progressive candidates at this time. But rather so that progressive narratives and voices so critical at this time can speak to an America that I believe is truly hungry for this vision of our society and ourselves."

That, friends, is The Deal. We couldn't agree more.

What's the Deal with the Deal?

2011-05-05T11:52:00.000-04:00

We couldn't be happier here at The Deal. Over the past month alone, we have broken daily readership levels three times, nearly doubling each time.

The Democrat Deal today has thousands of readers in more than one hundred countries.

If you want to get in on The Deal, we are always looking for new writers. Contact managing editor, Ed Needham @ democratdeal@gmail.com and write "contributor" in the subject line.

Lauryn knows the deal.

2011-05-05T11:17:00.000-04:00

Thomas Jefferson was a smarty-pants.

2011-05-04T08:42:00.001-04:00

portrait by Rembrandt Peale

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

Time for a New Deal: Bin Laden, Pakistan and $20bil in US aid.

2011-05-03T14:53:00.007-04:00

photo courtesy New York Times

The death of Osama bin Laden is a milestone in the history of our country.

One cannot underestimate the significance of his death to those men and women who have been working tirelessly for over a decade to find him. To the families of the men and women who perished at his hand on 9/11, at our bombed embassies in Africa, aboard the USS Cole, to the families of those who have perished in the pursuit of the man behind al-Qaeda. To the generation that has grown up with the images of the collapsing towers seared into their child's eyes, the generation that has known only terrorism, threat levels, security restrictions and never peace.

President Obama and White House staff watch the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound live

It is a milestone on many levels. Yet milestones mark beginnings as they do endings.

Late Sunday night, in the short time between the news leak of bin Laden's death and President Obama's speech making it official, sources in the intelligence, military and diplomatic communities where already questioning the significance of the al-Qaeda's leader's presence in Abbottabad, amidst a community known for its current and former Pakistani high-ranking military and intelligence officials. Bin Laden's compound is eight times the size of the other homes in the neighborhood. The copiously fortified buildings are within 800 yards of the Kakul Academy, Pakistan's premier military officer training headquarters.

We have since learned that President Obama alerted Pakistani President Zardari of the operation only after our helicopters were on the ground inside the compound and the Pakistanis had scrambled fighter jets in response to the incursion.

video of the compound following the attack filmed by embedded abc news cameraman.

It is a well known fact that elements of Pakistan's military and intelligence communities (the latter being the infamous Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence or 'ISI') have sympathized with and aided al-Qaeda. It is a relationship that goes back decades and claims many close ties. While the Pakistani government has officially claimed the opposite and vowed privately to root out any such ties, one thing is certain: the circumstances of the events Sunday demonstrate, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the relationship between the Pakistanis with bin Laden and al Qaeda is as robust and effective as ever. (Albeit, not so much with bin Laden anymore.)

At first glance, it is curious how such cooperation has continued even as al Qeada and its unofficial partner, the Taliban, have unleashed violence against Pakistanis themselves with car-bombs, assassinations and outright gun-battles throughout the country. The Taliban even controls Pakistan's Swat Valley, a coveted region once known for its beauty and tourism. How is it then, one might ask, that, with some, they may work almost overtly as a team?

The answer is a simple one. From 2002 to 2011, the U.S. has granted Pakistan in excess of 20 billion dollars. 20 Billion dollars to be used in the war on terrorism (approx. 13bil) and as economic aid (approx. 6bil) to the government of a country not especially known for its lack of corruption. A country (i.e. the pocket stuffing, swiss-bank account leaders of the goverment, military and intelligence communities) can get accustomed, very well accustomed to such an inflow of cash. It would follow, theoretically, that if terrorism were to actually be stamped out, if bin Laden were captured, if the tide significantly turned towards peace, all those billions of tax-payer dollars wouldn't be quite the priority it is for the U.S. Government.

Or, perhaps, 'was' the priority for the U.S. Government. For as we research and write from here in quiet Cambridge, Massachusetts; we can nearly hear the cries and hurly-burly hue rising from the US Capitol in Washinton, DC. Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee stated in a conference call to reporters Monday:

[the Pakistanis have] got a lot of explaining to do. It's hard to imagine that the military or police did not have any ideas what was going on inside of that [compound]."

Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker, told the Associated Press:

of his letter to Secretary of State Clinton "seeking details on the level of cooperation from Pakistan, saying the fact that bin Laden lived in comfortable surroundings near Islamabad 'calls into question whether or not the Pakistanis had knowledge that he was there and did not share that knowledge.'"

Doug Mills/The New York Times John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, speaking about the death of bin Laden on Monday

By later today, expect a cacophony of similar, if not more far less diplomatic, voices coming from Capitol Hill. The previously itemized 1.3bil of U.S. aid in this year's budget is pretty much dead on arrival. Again, according the Associated Press this morning:

"Congress may consider cutting the almost $1.3 billion in annual aid to Pakistan if it turns out the Islamabad government knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she wants more details from CIA director Leon Panetta and others about the Pakistani government's role. Feinstein spoke to reporters about the raid that killed bin Laden early Monday and the questions raised by his hiding place deep inside Pakistan."

Agreeing with the Chairwoman, from across the aisle:

"'I think this tells us once again that, unfortunately, Pakistan at times is playing a double game,' said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who indicated that Congress could put limits on funds for Pakistan."

One thing may be sure, we are at a critical moment with our presumed "ally in combating terror." It might be we will soon learn that is was Pakistani intelligence that helped make the historic take-down of bin Laden possible. This would be highly unlikely. With circumstances of the past 72 hours and what may be gleaned over the coming days it is more likely we will see a shift in our approach to Pakistan. With the death of bin Laden by U.S. Navy Seals on Sunday, we are more likely to see a Pakistan with far less leverage over the United States. We are also likely to see a Pakistan with far less U.S. tax-payer monies coming in the future.

After learning of the death of Osama bin Laden, angry supporters of Pakistani religious party Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam burn a flag of the United States during a rally to condemn the killing. The protest took place in Quetta, Pakistan, yesterday. - AP

While this reassessment is absolutely necessary and well-overdue, we believe it would be a dire mistake to disengage in the manner some would have us do. It continues to be the worlds most unstable nuclear-equipped country. With severe rifts between the military and and intelligence communities on one hand, and the civilian government on the other; and with the rising fundamentalism and accompanying violence matched with what will surely be a period of retribution for the U.S. killing of a hero to a small but vocal community, now is not the time to leave Pakistan to the Pakistanis. The U.S. must have a continued presence in the country and hold its leaders accountable, while helping to discourage the overthrow of the government by any number of rival groups.

To paraphrase the words of the great Chinese General and strategist, Sun-tzu, we would do well to keep our friends close and our enemies closer.

[On a related matter, The Democrat Deal, its staff and families, wish to convey our heartfelt gratitude to the brave Navy Seals who carried out this operation, the intelligence professionals who made it possible and the American men and women who have fought for this outcome for the past decade. Our thanks and blessings]

Adding Insult to Injury: Afghani/Pakistani Schoolgirls, the Taliban and Greg Mortenson.

2011-04-19T09:14:00.003-04:00

Unfortunate news came via CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night. Greg Mortensen, author of "Three Cups of Tea" and founder of the charity "Central Asia Institute" whose mission it is to build schools for girls (and boys) in Pakistan and Afghanistan in spite of threat by the Taliban, is having his James Frey moment (remember, Million Little Pieces, Oprah..). Only for Mr. Mortensen, things are worse. Much worse. Besides being found fabricating entire accounts of his memoir recounting his experiences with the kind people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who live under fear of the one of the worlds most violent and repressive regimes, the Taliban; the author has also been found to be using funds from his charity for his own use while vastly exaggerating the work of the charity being done on building schools in these blighted areas. Consequently, Mr. Mortensen, a mountaineer turned writer/lecturer, has sullied an issue so compelling, so completely distilling of the good vs. evil plight of central asians under Taliban rule, he may have permanently set back the cause he has championed. Mr. Frey embarrassed Oprah (admittedly, no minor transgression), while Mr. Mortensen may have stolen the future of a portion of the hundreds of thousands of children whose best ideation of their future is survival at best. Hardly more than a metaphor in common.

Mortensen with schoolchildren.

Its a raw deal to be born a girl on Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. First, with the world's highest infant mortality rate, 25% of children die before they reach school age. Then there's the school thing. Traditional schooling is replaced by madrassas for boys. In some countries, these seminary-like schools teach the Koran just as American Christian schools might teach the bible. But not these Taliban madrasses, they teach the Koran like the KKK teach the bible. And, likely for the better, women are not allowed.

What is worse, there are no alternatives other than home religious education for girls. For the Taliban, a girls education above the age of 8 is forbidden. And that is just the official version, as schools with younger students have been bombed, gassed or otherwise destroyed. In the 90's, when the Taliban held free reign over Afghanistan, it was decreed that woman would no longer work outside the home. As a result, nearly 7,800 women teachers were dismissed, leaving 148,000 boys and 106,000 girls without teachers.

Government troops inspect the completely demolished 21 room girls school, blown up by Taliban forces 25 miles west of Peshawar in 2009.

Since the fall of the Taliban government, the Taliban, in partial exile, mainly in the area of Waziristan and the Swat Valley in Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, has enforced it's own interpretation of Sharia Law against those sinful enough to educate girls (or any children in a secular fashion). Their brave warriors have blown or otherwise demolished at least 185 schools (an estimated 130, girls only) and gassed others, and on at least one occasion in 2006 at a girls school in Lakshar Gar, armed gunmen walked through the gates, shooting and killing several young women, forcing another 900 private schools to remain closed under threat. Following one such bombing in Swat Valley in January of '09 a local lawyer, Shoukat Saleem, was quoted the British paper, The Independent, “Yesterday there was a bombing of a school in Mingora, the main city,” he added. “No one is giving any education. Girls preparing for their matriculation exams in March have had to abandon their education. Unless the government or the Taliban announce that the situation will be ok, no one will take the risk.”

Afghan schoolgirls suffering from suspected poisoning are taken to hospital in Kabul. Photograph: Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images

The same Swat Valley lawyer is also credited with filming on his cel phone the flogging of a 17 year old girl and her fiance for allegedly being along in the boys house, a serious offense under the Taliban's Sharia Law. The video follows below. Please be advised, while grainy, it is nonetheless disturbing.

On the upside, this latest media meme has thrust the issue of the Taliban and human rights, especially in relation to young women, back into the spotlight for at least another 15 minutes of infamy. Let us hope, and give us momentum, that the situation becomes the better for it and that it doesn't merely flame brilliant and quick, leaving a generation in darkness.

The full segment, courtesy "60 Minutes":

For more on the Mortensen debacle see:

Mondays NYT article by Julie Bosman and Stephanie Styrom

todays WSJ Blog.

todays LA Times.

PLEASE NOTE:

The are still plenty of courageous people and organizations doing humanitarian work on behalf of the young women and children of Taliban-controlled Central Asia that need assistance and visibility. These laudable (and credible) charities include:

Help The Afghan Children is dedicated to improving the lives of children in Afghanistan through quality education and helping them become educated, healthy, productive citizens.

Green Village Schools is a Portland, Oregon, based non-profit organization committed to building a generation of hope in Afghanistan.

Women for Women International provides women survivors of war, civil strife and other conflicts with the tools and resources to move from crisis and poverty to stability and self-sufficiency, thereby promoting viable civil societies.

The Deal on Spin: how the President will try to put a nice face on cuts to medicare, the elderly and children while the richest 2% of American to save 10 trillion on taxes.

2011-04-13T15:46:00.001-04:00

Progressives, get ready to be brokenhearted as our President betrays his base. Again.

President Obama just addressed the nation today at Geo. Washington University describing his plan to cut 4 Trillion dollars from the deficit. It was a great inspirational speech. Undoubtedly, the most talented public speaker since Reagan (perhaps more so because he actually understands what is both saying and omitting) will not mention the cuts in Medicare which, should it proceed, will force a quarter million elderly people out of the program. He will claim the concessions on Medicare, low interest student loans, medical research, after-school programs, Head_Start and minute assistance to other nations in humanitarian crises and democratic transition (less that 1% of the budget), not by name, but as a good idea. A victory for reform.

The President has approved cuts in medical, educational, and social programs. Things sacrosanct to most Democrats and many Americans and, if you remember, Candidate Obama. Yet, he is has found the necessary gall and political hypocrisy to step out before the cameras and claim his defeat as a victory for the nation. As expected, the president spoke in broad strokes, never mentioning specific agreed to cuts or approximate dollar or percentage amounts in any program.

Wow, right?

Just last December, the President, betraying democrats, some republicans and his own defining campaign promise furthering Bushs' tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans, totaling 10 trillion dollars. The onus of these financial cuts falls to the middle class and loans from overseas (China, mainly). This puts the contribution from the wealthiest to the lowest levels since 1931. What is fair, let alone patriotic, about that?

At a time when CEO's, on average, make over 300 times more than their employees, when fortune 500 companies move their "official" headquarters overseas, all the while waving the American flag in the media, unions are facing the lost of collective bargaining across America. Saving trillions of dollars in taxes to the country that has made their rise possible. People will often point to these wealthiest Americans as necessary to the creation of new jobs. The opposite is true. Many of today's largest, most successful, most job creating companies started in simple garages or dorm rooms of colleges. The rich did manage to jump on the bandwagon when these companies went public, buying up shares and reaping huge dividends.

The President is currently railing against the prescription he has already agreed to. He has promised continued investments in education, job-training, medicare, medicaid, and other pillars of the Democratic, but will failed to mention that these funding levels will be dramatically cut. If one were unfamiliar with recent compromises between the President and the far right-leaning GOP, one might feel reassured, even inspired by the speech.

The question begging to be asked, how is it he can make such compelling argument to the American people, yet fall so desperately short in a room with a few Republican leaders?

Were the Bush tax cuts eliminated, with a tougher stance on corporate tax loopholes, we wouldn't be in this situation. We'd be increasing levels investment in our country's future. Not finding ways to slash them, then working hard to put the best political spin on it.

Let us hope, there will be those who will illuminate the crevice between the President's talk and the President's walk. If the party base, the activists and progressives want a win in '12, they must feel that the President is following the path he describes so eloquently, with such conviction. The conviction of the party regulars, the activists, the progressives must be shared if the President is to have the opportunity of a second term. The margin of the winning the election, this time, will be a very small fraction of voters. The dedication and the belief in their president to show leadership on his commitments will directly reflect the contribution of time and money by the folks who got him elected in '08., and consequently, barring any unexpected scandals or surprises, will most certainly decide the presidency in 2012.

For video of speech go here .

For great analysis by Sam Stein courtesy Huffington Post go here.

The following is President Barack Obama’s prepared speech on deficit reduction:

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?”

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

The Assassination of Arab-Jewish peace activist, Juliano Mer.

2011-04-06T14:54:00.001-04:00

Courtesy of our friend Andrew Sullivan and The Dish.

Friends hang a poster of Arab-Jewish actor and director Juliano Mer-Khamis outside The Almidan Theatre on April 5, 2011 in Haifa, Israel. The 52-year-old and director of the theatre was shot dead by unknown gunmen in the West Bank city of Jenin. By Uriel Sinai/Getty Images.

"I don’t understand the murder. He was a man who was totally there to deal with the things he believed in and I find it hard to understand the twisted rational of the people who did this. He was a special person, brave but crazy to do what he did," - actor Alon Abutbul, speaking of a remarkable Israeli peace activist, Juliano Mer, who was assassinated by a masked gunman at close range in Jenin. More on this horrible news at the Guardian. A reader writes from Israel:

People I know here in Israel just can’t stop crying. Juliano Mer was the Nazareth-born and bred son of an Israeli Jewish mother and an Israeli Christian Arab father, both lefty activists, and they clearly did something right because instead of losing his mind, he tried to quietly and with dignity remake the world we live in.

It’s not Libya, but it’s a bone-chilling night here too.

[we think so too. r.i.p. Mr. Mer, and thank you Mr. Sullivan]

A Few Bad Men: What do Terry Jones, Fred Phelps and Osama bin Laden have in common?

2011-04-06T13:41:00.003-04:00

Afghans carry a wounded man following an attack on the UN office during a protest against the burning of a copy of the Quran by a Florida pastor, Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, Friday, April. 1, 2011. Photo courtesy AP

"I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive." Sarah Palin, from her Facebook page prior to the event.

As a direct result of Terry Jones' well-publicized burning of the Koran on March 20th outside his church, the ironically named Dove World Outreach Center (designated as one of the 18 leading "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010 for his attacks on homosexuality), riots occurred in the Muslim world. One of these riots, as pictured above, led to the deaths of at least 12 people (including 8 UN employees) and left nearly 100 injured.

Mr. Jones has the right to burn any book he wishes. It is a freedom of speech. One of the many freedoms the country has fought to protect for over the past two centuries. Yet, with rights come responsibilities, and his actions are the antithesis of responsible. He has sent teens to school with t-shirts emblazoned with the phrase "Islam is the Devil" and distributed lawn signs of the same verbiage. He has joined with the infamous Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church of the godhatesfags.com infamy for an anti-gay rally, saying last April “[h]omosexuality makes God throw up.”

Just as the invasion of Iraq following 9/11 became al-Qaeda's best recruiting tool, Mr. Jones' actions only solidify the rhetoric of the equally extreme fundamentalists in the Muslim world.

Neither the Dove World Outreach Center, the Westboro Baptist Church, al-Qaeda or the Taliban have any true connection to the faiths they invoke save for the self-serving fictions created and fanned by the likes of Jones, Phelps and bin Laden. What they do share is intolerance, hate and violence; the very opposite of the most basic theology of the world's many faiths.

The onus then falls to the rest of us to do our best to undue the damage done by the promoters of hate. To speak out against such actions as the Koran burning last month. To speak to the vastly greater bulk of similarities between faiths than the differences. To proclaim, even evangelize, and live the most shared edict, the distillation of all of our faiths: the golden rule, to treat others as we would wish to be treated. History teaches that truth, eventually, prevails as Christianity teaches "blessed are the peacemakers" and the Koran teaches that respect for the lives of all is sacred. We ask that you, the reader, join us in putting our collective shoulder against the side of truth and the golden rule, to move it along so that's it's momentum may never know the slightest restraint as a result of the actions of a few bad men.

Below, an excellent commentary by Cathleen Falsani.

Terry Jones: Holy Hand Grenade Outreach Center
By Cathleen Falsani
courtesy Religion News Service 6 April 2011

(RNS) The website of the Dove World Outreach Center describes the tiny church in Gainesville, Fla., as “a New Testament church based on the Bible, the Word of God.”

Someone might want to tell them that they missed that whole “Blessed are the peacemakers” part.

While there is great debate about what, exactly, Jesus meant by many things he is quoted as saying in the New Testament, the “peacemakers” passage is not one of them. It is eminently clear that Jesus was talking not just about being peaceful, but also creating peace in the world.

As we’re all too painfully aware by now, the church, led by Pastor Terry Jones, put the Quran on trial on March 20 and set it aflame as punishment. That act, in turn, sparked deadly riots in Afghanistan that killed nearly two dozen people, including several United Nations peacekeepers.

To lob a religious grenade into the fragile tinderbox that is the Islamic world is the opposite of what Jesus described.

“We do not feel responsible — no,” Jones said in an interview with ABC News. “We feel more that the Muslims and radical Islam uses that as an excuse. If they didn’t use us as an excuse, they would use a different excuse.”

Whether the kind of violent response witnessed in Afghanistan over the past week was Jones’ intention or not, it is precisely what his actions have wrought.

That is not peaceable. It is wrong. It is sinful. It flies in the face of the message that the Prince of Peace brought to the world, and makes a mockery of the white dove referenced in the very name of Jones’ horribly misled church.

When Jesus said that “peacemakers” would be blessed and called the “children of God,” he wasn’t just talking about people who are peaceful or hope for peace. Jesus was talking specifically about those who “make” peace, those who work for harmony in conflict and unity in divisions.

Jones told ABC that he presided at the “International Judge the Quran Day” event and the subsequent burning to raise “awareness of this dangerous religion and this dangerous element” within Islam.

The irony that his asinine actions portrayed his own Christian faith and values as pretty dangerous themselves seems to be lost on Jones. But it’s not lost on many other Christians, Muslims and people of good faith around the globe: the British government deemed Jones such a danger that in January it barred him from entering the U.K. to protect “the public
good.”

Theologically speaking, Jones shouted “Fire!” in a crowded theater. He caused a riot. Lives were lost. And their blood is on his hands.

The deadly potential of Jones’ Quran burning was something he was well aware of before he lit the match. Jones first threatened to burn the Muslim holy book last fall on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. President Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and a host of international political and religious leaders publicly urged Jones to abandon his plans. And for a time, he did.

But six months later, ignoring political, religious and military warnings about the clear and present danger of his plans, Jones brazenly carried them out anyway.

Although Jones shares culpability for the deaths in Afghanistan with his fellow religious extremists (in this case Muslim rather than Christian fundamentalists) whose insane rage physically took so many lives, Jones was the catalyst, the chief provoker and inciter.

While Jones claims it was within his civil and constitutional rights to burn the Quran, some legal experts, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, are seriously questioning whether the First Amendment should protect speech that directly incites violence at home or abroad.

In a 1919 Supreme Court decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said that even the “most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” The question to be answered, Holmes said, “is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Breyer, in an interview last September, is trying to figure out what that means in the 21st century.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer said. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Whether Jones’ words and actions are or should be protected by the Constitution is a matter for the courts to decide. But in the court of public opinion and in the realm of religious ethics, Jones stands in violation of all that is right and just.

Jones should remove the dove from his church name and replace it with a more accurate symbol of what it stands for. A holy hand grenade, perhaps?

For the original article go here.

He's talking about the GOP Primary, people, so just relax...

2011-04-06T11:49:00.001-04:00

An interesting, brief analysis of a possible (not, mind you, probable) path to the GOP nod for the curious woman from Minnesota. It still strikes us as inconceivable that all these pieces would fall into place, but one cannot deny: a) she's out-raised Mitt Romney in the first quarter, b) she has Huckabee's very capable former political director, Wes Enos, to head up her team, and c) she is THE Tea Party Candidate, i.e. she has the most motivated and energetic political, grassroots semi-organization on the ground at the moment in the U.S.

And, lest we forget, at one time it was a given that a) Howard Dean stood no chance outside VT, b) there was no way G.W. Bush would beat Gore in '00, and c) there was no was no way G.W. Bush would beat ANYONE in '04.

Still, for Bachmann to bag the nomination, it means she and her pitchfork-partisans would need to successfully storm the GOP convention in Tampa next year. We think there are still enough moderate/sane Republicans out there who wouldn't let that happen as they realize, while the disaffected and disillusioned Tea Partiers would be dancing down the Main Streets of America, the Democrats would be dancing right alongside them.

How Michele Bachmann Could Win
by Jonathan Chait
April 5, 2011
article and photo courtesy of The New Republic

Michelle Bachmann is starting to make a move in the GOP primary. She's drawing strong reviews for her public appearances. She out-raised Mitt Romney in the first quarter. She's hired Mike Huckabee's well-regarded political director. And yet most reporters still believe she has no chance to win the nomination. The most bullish assessment I've seen, by Ed Kilgore, concedes, "it’s hard to imagine someone as radical as her actually winning the nomination." But I think Bachmann is a legitimate dark-horse possibility to win the nomination.

Now, my model of how the nomination works presumes the nominee will probably be someone who's acceptable to both the activist base and the party elites. That argument took me, by process of elimination, to Tim Pawlenty, the only candidate who 1) the base won't disqualify, 2) the elites won't disqualify, and 3) actually seems to want to run. But, as Josh Marshall points out, if Bachmann wins in Iowa, she could knock Pawlenty out of the race.

Then what happens? Well, you'd see the GOP establishment scrambling to unify behind a non-insane alternative. But as I've argued ad nauseum, I don't think that will be Mitt Romney. Or, if it is Romney, I think Bachmann could probably beat him. She'd carve him to pieces over health care, not to mention general inauthenticity issues. Haley Barbour? Perhaps. I could also very well envision some kind of effort to draft a young right-wing heartthrob like Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio into the race.

The best parallel I think consider is Howard Dean. No, Dean is not anywhere near as crazy as Bachmann. That's not the point. Both tap deeply into a well of activist anger against a sitting president that is not being fully satisfied by other candidates. Both inspire passionate activist volunteers, and make their rivals look phony by comparison. And both inspire terror among the party leadership -- Democrats in 2003 considered Dean just as unelectable as Republicans now consider Bachmann.

Of course, Dean imploded right before the Iowa caucus. But he could have won, and he was on the verge of sweeping right through the primaries, as he picked up steam through 2003 and the opposition fractured. Republican elites will mount a determined opposition to Bachmann. While the effort may be successful -- the way GOP leaders rallied around Bob Dole to fend off Pat Buchanan in 1996 -- it may be a failure, like the effort to draft Wes Clark.

I think Bachmann has a genuine outside shot to win the nomination.

More on AG Holder and the 9/11 Trial from our friends at the NYT

2011-04-05T19:56:00.000-04:00

Cowardice Blocks the 9/11 Trial

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. described a federal court trial for the self-professed mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as “the defining event of my time as attorney general.” On Monday, Mr. Holder’s dream for demonstrating the power of the American court system crumbled when he announced that the trial would take place not in New York City or anywhere in the United States but before a military commission at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison camp.

That retreat was a victory for Congressional pandering and an embarrassment for the Obama administration, which failed to stand up to it.

The wound inflicted on New York City from Mr. Mohammed’s plot nearly a decade ago will not heal for many lifetimes, yet the city, while still grieving, has thrived. How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice. The administration of George W. Bush encouraged this view for more than seven years, spreading a notion that terror suspects only could be safely held and tried far from our shores at Guantánamo and brought nowhere near an American courthouse. The federal courts have, in fact, convicted hundreds of terrorists since 9/11. And federal prisons safely hold more than 350 of them.

The pandering toward this mentality began as soon as Mr. Holder announced his plan in 2009 to try Mr. Mohammed in Lower Manhattan. A group of senators, including Joseph Lieberman, an independent of Connecticut, complained that it would give terrorists a platform to rally others to their cause. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said the trial should be moved elsewhere because New Yorkers didn’t want it, as if prosecutors needed opinion polls to determine where to seek justice.

The final blow came from Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who originally accepted the trial but then gave in to downtown business interests that opposed it for reasons of inconvenience. His office promulgated the absurd notion that security would cost $1 billion. Congress then made the trial impossible last year with a measure prohibiting any spending to move prisoners from Guantánamo to the United States.

Mr. Holder was right to sound bitter about the decision at his news conference on Monday. But the Obama administration must shoulder some of the blame. As The New Yorker reported last year, it did little to prepare the political groundwork for a local trial and barely defended the idea after the unfounded attacks began.

Given the circumstances, Mr. Holder is right to push for a military trial for Mr. Mohammed, rather than let him linger in indefinite limbo. His decision will test whether reforms to the military commission system will allow for both a fair prosecution and a vigorous defense. But Monday’s announcement represents a huge missed opportunity to prove the fairness of the federal court system and restore the nation’s reputation for providing justice for all.

Four More Years?

2011-04-05T16:20:00.001-04:00

It is both fitting and ironic that the President doesn't really appear in his video released yesterday officially launching his 2012 campaign. The man who ran for president in 2008, Candidate Obama, has similarly not appeared in public or the oval office since his inauguration.

The video is intended to reach out to the grassroots network of progressives that handed him victory last time around. The trouble is that network is presently consumed fighting for collective bargaining rights for unions, fighting for equal rights for the GLTB community, fighting for a responsible tax policy, fighting for clean elections and stricter revolving door lobbying policies, and a whole host of issues we thought we'd have the President's back on. Instead, it is us out on a limb, waiting for the President to show us some love. It has been a very lonely couple years as the man who we saw leading a dawning of a new day, instead, stepped back and allowed for a twilight of the Bush Administration by extending the bulk of his predecessor's domestic and foreign policies.

The same day the video was released, AG Eric Holder announced Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be tried before a military tribunal at the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, allowing the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to have yet another, more profound victory over the American people: the resignation of our civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance.

Progressives are locked in heated discussion and have been for some time now. Where do we go? What do we do? What is our role in the current environment? As would be typical for Democrats, there is no consensus to be had. Some froth at the mouth at the slightest rebuke of their knight in shining armor. Some have pledged hard and fast to "Draft Dean" and "Draft Kucinich" campaigns, while the majority, presently entrenched fighting the battles they never expected to fight, let alone lead, are waiting. Waiting for what, specifically, no one seems to know.

The President will not be re-elected without the fierce loyalty and 'get out the vote' of grassroots progressives. In the end, we believe, he shall have them if only because of fear of the alternative. But it is far more effective to be fighting for a belief than fighting against one. So until then, progressives must continue to be, as AFL-CIO President, Richard Trumka put it, Obama's "troublesome ally."

Candidate Obama insisted his supporters call him out when he makes a mistake or wanders off the reservation. He has and we have. Repeatedly. Time and again with little to show for it. We may be ready to walk through hot coals for him as November '12 draws near. Until then, it is our responsibility to hold his feet to that fire. Our voices need to be as loud and compelling and more intelligent than the other side. Not a tall order? The voices must be as one. Unified and on message and on the streets. That is our challenge, our tall order. That is what will decide the next election for President of the United States.

Why Karen Armstrong is Our Hero..

2010-05-27T21:32:00.003-04:00

Carnage Along the Path: the Rise and Fall of the Tea Party/Palin/Christianist Movement and the Violence in its Wake.

2010-03-29T15:29:00.011-04:00

The socio-political monster that is the Tea Party/Sarah Palin/Christianist movement must first rise for it to be slain. The result will be a more vibrant, constructive and civil political environment. But at what cost? If the last two weeks are a precursor of what is to come, it won't be pretty.

In February of this year we argued that the rise of Sarah Palin as a political figure in the U.S. would, ultimately, be good for the GOP, the Dems and America as a whole. [Read the article here.] Briefly, we believe Palin (and with her the Tea Partiers and Christianists) have placed the GOP in a position where it is splitting along ideological lines. The rift has been visible just beneath the surface since Sen. Barry Goldwater's (R-AZ) 1964 Presidential Campaign. The 1980's saw Ronald Reagan's hired gun, Lee Atwater, mobilize the "Christian Conservative" movement into a powerful base of the Republican Party. Atwater's protoge, Karl Rove, did the same for Pres. George W. Bush. In the meantime, the conservative-right has moved from being a reliable and effective grassroots supporter of the GOP to outright challengers to the leadership of the party. When John McCain ushered Sarah Palin onto the national political scene eighteen months ago, she captured the imagination of the far right as no one else in the past decade. Which was just what McCain had hoped she would do for his lackluster campaign. What he hadn't fully taken into account was the push-back from the moderates of the GOP and independent voters. In the end, Obama won the election with most of the independent vote as well as a modest, yet notable, percentage of moderate Republicans.

Jump ahead to 2010 and the Tea Party movement. The midterm elections are around the corner and the Charlie Crist/Marc Rubio Senate campaign in Florida shows what we can expect from the GOP. A big, vocal, ugly split. Charismatic young Rubio has the Tea Partiers/Palin folks sewn up. Gov. Crist has the support of the GOP establishment and the moderates along with some independents. This results of this race, the other primaries and the midterm general elections will be a precursor to what the next Presidential election in 2012 looks like.

It is most likely the Democrats will lose seats but keep the majority in both houses of Congress in 2010. The Tea Party/Palin/Christianists (TPPC) and the moderates will both claim some victories and suffer some defeats. As a result, the direction of the GOP will not be decided in the mid-terms and the struggle for dominance will boil over into the 2012 elections, culminating most visibly in the 2012 Republican National Convention.

This will do one or both of two things. The GOP traditionalists will win out and reestablish the party's fiscally conservative/socially moderate roots while reaching out to independents as the party with the "big tent." This could also mean the rise of a third party political force made up of the purged and disgruntled TPPC. Or, less likely, the vocal right wing of the GOP, bolstered by wins in the mid-terms and meeting with tepid or ineffective resistance from Republican leadership, will gain control of the party, perhaps even with Ms. Palin at the top of the ticket. Here, again, the possibility of the third party emerges with a candidate along the lines of Christine Todd Whitman, Colin Powell or Bill Weld.

How is this good? Because a healthy political system partially depends on a vibrant opposition. Look at the healthcare debate as a case in point. The GOP is still in a shambles following the 2010 election. The was very little constructive debate and negotiation between parties. With little exception, the GOP offered no proposals of their own and only a few Republican members became part of the process and suffered backlash for doing so. As a result, they are heading into the election cycle having to overcome their image as obstructionists. A robust GOP would have had plenty of political cover and wherewithall to develop and negotiate its own healthcare policy measures and temper those democrat proposals they deemed excessive. The Democrats, meanwhile, facing only the strategy of "No" were not put into a position where they had to unite, focus and fight for a cohesive policy. Instead, they split into factions and fought amongst each other, House against Senate, with the President staying above the fray without employing leadership to the cause of either faction. The result? A watered-down, middle of the road health care bill that, while making some significant headway, fell far below the expectations of just over a year ago when the new government was swept in with huge margins under a now less prescient banner of "Hope" and "Change."

Ultimately, the GOP is already heading into an identity crisis and the TPPC are accelerating that process. That is a good thing. The sooner the Dems have an opposition that relies more on constructive ideas, accountability and mutual respect than fear, misinformation and obstruction, the better.

The more timely question, given the events of the past two weeks, is what will be the cost of this process. While often characterized as such by the left, the TPPC's are neither wholly insane or racist (though arguably some of the former and much of the latter may be found). What may be said of those in the movement as a whole is that they share significant frustration, are motivated by deep-seated beliefs and are nearly entirely misinformed. This is not just a matter of believing false or misleading information from talk radio, the internet, Fox News or one another. It is also a matter of gravitating towards and accepting as legitimate information and ideas that reflect deep seated beliefs, fears and prejudices. This phenomena, known as cultural cognition, makes beliefs specifically and perspective of reality in general impervious to fact or reason. Topical examples abound. Climate change, for instance, is accepted as fact by nearly every element of the scientific community. Yet, there are those who wholeheartedly believe otherwise. The so-called "Birthers" believe Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen. There are those who believe homosexuality is a choice made by the individual rather than the natural development of an individual's biology as shown in every major study on the issue. And there are those, as we covered in previous articles, who would claim America was founded as and intended to be a uniquely "Christian nation" despite the overwhelming contradiction of the U.S. historian community. In each of these instances, there are two clear factors. The belief in question is met with an irrefutable body of evidence to the contrary while it simultaneously reflects the cultural beliefs and perspective of the individual.

Cultural Cognition on display at McCain/Pain '08 rally.

Tea Party Convention, 2/10, Sarah Palin, Orly Taitz, and interviews with participants.

This is where things start to get sticky. Once one removes reason from the situation, you are essentially left with crowd control. Trying to limit the damage made by those who see themselves as leading a modern revolution. The crowd control around the Capitol earlier this month was not enough to restrain Tea Party protesters from shouting obscene language, racial and sexual slurs, and even spitting on a Member of Congress. This while other Members like Michelle Bachman stood on a Capitol balcony cheering and rallying for the protesters.

Rep. Bachman (R-MN) and fellow GOP members cheer on Tea Party health care protest.

Examples of racism at Tea Party demonstrations.

Politicians and political figures have taken to fanning the flames of the TPPC crowd to further their own political objectives. Witness the Sarah Palin poster of her "targeted" politicians, each with a gun sight symbol while encouraging her supporters to "reload." As the fears and prejudices of the TPPC are being exploited we hear of a brick through the window of Rep. Louise Slaughter's office in upstate New York. A coffin placed in front of Rep. Russ Carnahan's home in Missouri. A gas line cut at the home of the brother of Rep. Tom Periello in Virginia after the his home address was mistakingly posted as the Congressman's by Tea Party activists who encouraged others to "stop by." Earlier in the year we saw a man attack guards at the Pentagon and another fly a plane into an IRS building. Just today, nine men from a Michigan-based, Christianist Militia have been arrested and charged with planning to kill a police officer and bomb the funeral procession in an effort to spark a national uprising against the U.S. Government.

What does it take to get a highly motivated individual to move from the threat of violence to carrying out an act of violence? Seemingly, too little. And we are likely to have ample instances to inform an answer as long as there are those who continue to encourage such behavior directly or indirectly.

It will be a while before the TPPC begins to fade as it has yet to reach its apex. In the meantime, politicians and public figures who do not publicly and vociferously condemn the violence and threat of violence and, instead, fan the flames of this jingoistic, racist and fear-based anger do so at their peril. And our peril, as well.

For more on Tea Party rage, see Frank Rich opinion piece in NYT 3/27 here.
To learn more about "cultural cognition" go here.