"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, September 19, 2013

Why do Republicans hate Americans?
Posted by Jill | 5:41 AM
And so here we are on September 19, 2013, with the House of Representatives led by the government equivalent of a bunch of kids who decide to pour gasoline over a sleeping homeless person and light him on fire "just to see what happens."

I've never understood the logic of putting in government positions people who really hate the very idea of government. There's something profoundly hypocritical about guys like Ted Cruz, whose raison d'etre is to hate government, and yet they cash their government paycheck just like the teachers and firemen and federal workers they excoriate even as they check their bank balances on their government-issued hand-helds. But if there's one thing they hate more than the idea of government, it's Democratic presidents in general, and Barack Obama in particular. And they hate Americans. They really, really, really hate every American that isn't funnelling large sums of soft-money into their campaign coffers. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they want as many Americans to die as possible -- to die from diabetes and cancer and cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anemia and heart disease. They want Americans to just tough out the pain of shingles. They want children to go without vaccinations and well-baby care and treatment for peanut allergies and ear infections and having that arm that broke when they fell out of a tree. They want the kids with moyamoya who are having strokes every day to become copmlete invalids. They want this. They hate the idea that Americans should have health care. Fuck 'em if they can't afford $20,000/year for a family policy. That's Republican doctrine.

Four years ago, Rep. Alan Grayson took no end of crap for saying this:



Someone please tell me exactly what he said then that was wrong, especially in light of the Republican House's plan to create global economic collapse because they hate the idea that Americans might have health care.

I happen to believe that we should have single-payer health coverage, but the reality is that we don't, and we're not going to for a very, very long time, if ever. No matter how much you hate the insurance companies, no matter how much you hate screaming on the phone that the neurosurgeon's office faxed the clinical information over three times and just because the guy in the mailroom hasn't gotten around to rerouting it to you doesn't mean it isn't there, you need what they sell. You never realize just how much you need it until you do.

I've always been really healthy, but one thing I've learned from our experience with cancer and rare brain diseases is that you can be walking around feeling fine and have no idea what kind of deadly enemy is lurking in your bladder, or your brain, or your breast, or anywhere else. In fact, my own medical maintenance has been neglected lo these last six months as much as our driveway, which is in desperate need of sealing, has. But I could show you a list of claims as long as my arm that would make your head spin. Because while we are grateful for access to the wonderful people at Big Cancer Center and Big Prestigious Hospital, I am also extremely aware of what it costs. Much of the reason it costs as much as it does is because the medical facilities have to hire entire staffs of people just to deal with insurance companies, and because the CEO of Aetna has to make $36.6 million a year including his stock options, and the ousted CEO of Wellpoint can get almost $50 million for doing a crappy job and hospital operator HCA Holdings can give its CEO a pay package worth about $48 million. There's a lot to hate about insurance companies, but they're here and they're what we've got. And when you are dealing with cancer and brain surgery, there isn't an American alive who isn't a CEO who could pay for what we're getting.

When we hear that the scans show no tumor. When I look at Mr. Brilliant's head where you can hardly see the scar from his surgery not even a month ago. When I see what the radiologist bills for a consult. When I see the mid-five-figure claim from Big Prestgious Hospital. When I see all these things, I always ask, "What do people do who don't have insurance?" You know what they do? They die. Not quickly, but they die. They piss blood until they go into kidney failure. They go right to Stage IV and die in pain because they can't even pay for painkillers.

And Republicans hate these people. And they are willing to rock the world economy just so they can show them how much they hate them -- and how much they hate their black president.

But it's not just about Americans' health care. It's about their wages. Because while it's OK for Republicans to make six figures in government-issued pay and rake in campaign cash, it's not OK for an American working in a retail store to make a living wage. It's not OK for people living in fracking areas to have clean properties without fracking waste oozing through their yards. It's not OK for American children to have clean air to breathe and food that doesn't poison them. This is not OK because Republicans hate the very people who sent them to Washington.

Yes, these people are ignorant, some of them willfully. They're incurious and frightened and they are so used to looking at those who are dark of skin as the source of their problems that they have become wired that way. But the bottom line is that they put these people into office and we are all going to pay the price. Now we will see what happens. But nothing that is going to happen is going to change one simple fact.

Republican Congresspeople hate Americans.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, June 21, 2012

Well, now we know what they're going to use to try to impeach...
Posted by Jill | 6:33 AM
It's pretty clear at this point that the Republican Guaranteed Presidency ducks are rapidly forming a nice row consisting of a toxic stew of disenfranchisement of anyone who might not vote for the Money Guys' Designated Plunderer. But just in case it doesn't work, and Barack Obama is re-elected, there's always Plan B: Impeachment. Obama is a man of such personal restraint that they'll never get anything as titillating as lying about a blowjob, but that doesn't mean the Republicans won't try to go The Full Clinton on him.

The "high crime and misdemeanor" that's going to be deemed far more heinous than deliberately ignoring the threat of an imminent terrorist attack just because the information had been passed on by the Clinton Administration and then lying us into an unrelated war under false pretenses to enrich your oil buddies, is going to be a botched program that started under the Bush Administration.

Barbara over at Mahablog explains:

If you aren’t seeing an Obama Administration scandal here, you must not be a rightie. Fast and Furious combines two rightie obsessions, guns and the Mexican border. Oh, and the Obama Administration, never mind that the program began during the Bush Administration. Righties are certain that the Obama Administration planted guns in Mexico as part of a scheme to undermine the Second Amendment. Recently House Oversight Committee member Rep. John Mica (R-FL) said,

“People forget how all of this started. This administration is a gun-control administration. They tried to put the violence in Mexico on the blame of the United States. So they concocted this scheme and actually sending our federal agents, sending guns down there, and trying to cook some little deal to say that we have got to get more guns under control,” Mica said, a theory that is supported by absolutely zero evidence. “That’s how this all started.”

According to everything I can find, “all of this started” in 2006, three years before the Obama Administration took office. Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped the wingnuts from working themselves into a frenzy over Fast and Furious. House Republicans, Darrell Issa in particular, have striven mightily to jack Fast and Furious up into Obama’s Watergate.

To make a long story short, the House Oversight Committee chaired by Issa, has worked up a nice constitutional crisis by holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt because he didn’t give them evidence confirming what they wanted to believe. This is basically all about destroying the Obama Administration by any means necessary. The President’s evoking executive privilege may be less about a cover up than about rope-a-dope.


It's not hard to believe that the Republicans would turn this into something that feeds into their paranoia about Barack Obama being a secret Islamoterrorist who's going to take their guns away as part of his Evil Master Plan® to obtain dictatorial control over everyone. Last night Rachel Maddow attempted to make sense of this lunacy, including a nice little reprise of her trip to Alaska (heh) during the Lisa Murkowski/Joe Miller primary battle of 2010, in which a young man told her to look at Eric Holder's "voting record", even though Eric Holder has never held elected office.



It's a wonderful piece of video, because it perfectly embodies the right's utter refusal to allow pesky things like FACTS get in the way of their preconceived notions, which have been pre-digested by Fox News, World Nut Daily, and other screaming, frothing nutjobs of the Fantasy Right and vomited into their hungry mouths like a mama bird feeding its young. The difference is that mama bird feeds her young so they can grow up and fly free, whereas the right wing noise machine wants the gaping mouths into which they spew their predigested God-knows-what remain enslaved to their propaganda in perpetuity.

I disagree with Barbara, however, that the executive privilege invocation is part of the mythical 17-dimensional chess game that far too many on my side of the fence seem to think is the Obama modus operandi. This president and the people around him have proven far too inept to pull this kind of Nixonian foot-putting-down. I think it's more a case of the Obama Administration paying far too much attention to the screaming from the right and thinking this is what it has to do in order to make the screaming stop.

And I wonder what it's going to take for them to realize that the screaming will never, ever, ever stop -- not when the Republicans have removed Obama from office through election shenangans or impeachment; not even decades from now, when the Republicans have achieved their Randian dream and may have resorted to mowing down American citizens in the street to try and stop the violence once even the Fox Newsbots can no longer delude themselves that the Job Creators Are Going to Ever Create Jobs. Even then, the right will be blaming Obama. Because after all, he was the Communist Fascist Homosexual Islamic Terroristic Secretive Corrupt Megalomaniac whose fault this is. And oh yeah, he was also a black Democrat, which automatically meant he was all of the above.

They will hound him until the day he, like all of us will inevitably do, leaves this mortal coil. And then they will dig him up and hound him some more.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, August 07, 2011

Funny how Charles Rangel's ethics violations were flogged for weeks but you don't hear a peep about this one
Posted by Jill | 10:01 AM
Remember Mean Jean Schmidt? She's the vile wingnut who defeated then-netroots darling Paul Hackett for Ohio's 2nd Congressional district seat in 2004.

Well, the very same House Ethics Committee that gave a "public admonishment" to Rep. Charles Rangel for ethics violations has found that Mean Jean has taken bribes from some shady sources.

Howie Klein:
Schmidt hasn't had any impact at all in Congress and is widely considered an embarrassment and one of the least influential members of the House. The only other thing she's known for is her dogged opposition to the legitimate aspirations of the Amenian-American community. Schmidt, a dim bulb, isn't exactly someone would expect to even know anything about Armenia or Armenians. But she has been taking bribes from shady Turkish sources and helps run their anti-Armenian efforts. Friday the House Ethics Committee issued their report on her corruption, but decided not to recommend expulsion or arrest, claiming, in effect, that she was too dumb to know she had violated House rules. You have to be pretty dumb to not know taking bribes is against the rules... and the law.

The report is here.

It may very well be that Jean Schmidt is too much of a moron to know that what she did was unethical. And getting the vapors over Congressional bribes is kind of laughable right now, when the Koch brothers are openly buying Tea Party members of Congress. But the issue for me is one of spin -- that when a Democrat is accused of ethical lapses, or found to have committed such lapses, it's flogged in the media for weeks. But when it's a Republican, even as insignificant a Republican as Jean Schmit, it lands in the Friday news dump and you don't hear a peep about it.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 26, 2011

People are starting to wake up
Posted by Jill | 5:38 AM
Of course it's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, but it's better than nothing. New tea bagger Congressman and former reality show contestant Sean Duffy held a town Hall recently and few were buying his Koch bros./Paul Ryan talking points:



More videos from thos town hall of informed Wisconsin citizens who recognize a line of crap when they hear it here.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, March 20, 2011

I'm so glad to see that the Republicans are focused like a laser beam on job creation.
Posted by Jill | 2:38 PM
So focused that in addition to empowering the IRS (which they used to hate, what happened?) to conduct audits of the uteri of American women, they now want to go to the mat to re-affirm "In God We Trust" as our national motto:

The US House of Representatives will have a chance to vote on a resolution to affirm the phrase "In God We Trust" as the nation’s official motto after it was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the founder and chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, sponsored the legislation. It would encourage the public display of the motto in all public buildings, public schools and government institutions.

He said he introduced the bill in January because he was troubled by a pattern of omitting God from the nation's heritage.

"There is a small minority who believes America does not have the right to trust in God, who believes the United States should not affirm trust in God, and who actively seek to remove any recognition of that trust," Forbes said.

And once they do that, jobs will magically appear, right? Because all the Great White Alpha Male in the Sky wants is to have this silly motto re-affirmed, and he will create jobs.

But wait. I thought rich people created jobs. Now I'm confused....

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Republican men can be said to be domestic abusers too
Posted by Jill | 5:22 AM
If controlling behavior and wanting to see women powerless and pregnant is the mark of the abuser, then every last Republican male who has decided that forced childbearing is their first priority is a domestic (i.e. within the U.S.) abuser.

And another hallmark of the domestic abuser is sabotaging birth control:
Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.

Several small studies have described this kind of coercion among low-income teenagers and young adults with a history of violence by intimate partners. Now, a report being released Tuesday by the federally financed National Domestic Violence Hotline says 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the hot line said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex.

The report was based on answers from more than 3,000 women, but it was not a research study, those involved said.

“It was very eye-opening,” said Lisa James, director of health at the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, which worked with the hot line on the report. “There were stories about men refusing to wear a condom, forcing sex without a condom, poking holes in condoms, flushing birth control pills down the toilet.

“There were lots of stories about hiding the birth control pills — that she kept ‘losing’ her birth control pills, until she realized that he was hiding them,” Ms. James added.

One respondent described having to hide in the bathroom to take her pill. Another said that when she got her period recently, her partner was “furious.”

The hot line’s report did not include a comparison group and did not gather information about the participants, who were questioned anonymously; nor was it published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on answers to four questions posed to 3,169 women around the country who contacted the domestic violence hot line between Aug. 16 and Sept. 26, 2010, who were not in immediate danger and who agreed to participate. About 6,800 callers refused to answer the questions.

Of those who did respond, about a quarter said yes to one or more of these three questions: “Has your partner or ex ever told you not to use any birth control?” “Has your partner or ex-partner ever tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” “Has your partner or ex ever made you have sex without a condom so that you would get pregnant?”

One in six answered yes to the question “Has your partner or ex-partner ever taken off the condom during sex so that you would get pregnant?”

The questions were devised by Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, whose earlier papers on reproductive coercion prompted interest in the subject.

“It’s really important to recognize reproductive coercion as another mechanism for control in an unhealthy relationship,” Dr. Miller said. At the same time, she added, younger women and girls dating older men may be confused by the pressure to become pregnant.

“If you can put yourself in the shoes of a 15-year-old dating an 18- or 19-year-old man, which is not an unusual scenario, and he says to her, ‘We’re going to make beautiful babies together,’ that’s pretty seductive.”


Now remember, until there was a sizable enough outcry, Republican men wanted to remove this kind of statutory rape from the bans on federal funding of abortion, instead forcing fifteen-year-olds to bear the children of the men who exploited them. And as for sabotaging birth control, well, Republicans fit that description too:

Republicans are looking to wipe out funding for Title X, a 40-year-old family planning program.

The cut would be a hard hit against Planned Parenthood, which received $16.9 million of Title X funding in 2009. By law, the funds must be spent on health care such as contraceptives, pelvic exams, and safer-sex counseling, and cannot be spent on abortion services.

The cuts are part of the continuing resolution, a Republican spending proposal released Wednesday.

Started in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, Title X is the only source of federal funds dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health. Some 5 million women and men received services through 4,500 community-based clinics in 2008, according to the Department of Health & Human Services.

The House Appropriations Committee said in a Wednesday press release that it would cut $327 million from the family planning program. That would effectively wipe out the program’s budget: for fiscal 2011, Title X was authorized at $327 million and appropriated $317 million.

Republicans were already eyeing the Title X program as ripe for attacks. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced separate legislation that would strip Planned Parenthood of its Title X funding.

But while his legislation bar abortion providers from participating in Title X, the Republicans’ continuing resolution would wipe it out entirely.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 30, 2011

Around the blogroll and elsewhere: Sex-Obsessed Republicans Longing for the Dark Ages edition
Posted by Jill | 5:06 AM
Because when politicians and writers on the right starts talking about sex, they're telling you an awful lot about themselves.

Amanda on Maggie Gallagher's strange world in which legal abortion leads to anal sex and how the world was much better when women would grit their teeth, lie back, and think of England. And extra bonus points for this rant about Rush Limbaugh's view that advising people to eat fruits and vegetables is a Kenyan Socialist Communist Fascist plot by four-eyed aliens named Gallaxhar.

Melissa, whom I've knocked on more than one occasion for an ever-expanding definition of rape that turns every woman into someone who was victimized at some point, makes a very valid point about how Chris Smith and the Republican House of Representatives want to give men a roadmap as to how to avoid a rape rap and as a bonus, force women to carry their children.

Scott over at World-o-Crap channels his inner Driftglass and demolishes this lunatic article bemoaning The Descent of Women. Because we all know that women had it so much better when they could have their heads cut off for not delivering sons on cue.

Evan McMorris-Santoro at TPM shows that with Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? Perhaps Daniel Lipinski ought to actually read the bills he co-sponsors.

Sady at Tiger Beatdown: "Instead of maintaining that rape is always rape, that there’s no such thing as a “minor” or “excusable” rape, the GOP is putting forth a bill that says some rapes are so very minor and excusable as not to warrant consideration."

Taking a stroll down memory lane over to I Blame the Patriarchy, back to Bill Napoli's musings about the kind of virtuous, untouched, pure virgin he might allow to have an abortion if raped. Think about it. Chris Smith is even more nutty than Bill Napoli. And so is the current Speaker of the House.

AK Muckraker with examples of what kinds of sexual assault would now be redefined as essentially consensual. One wonders what the impact would be on prosecutions of people who use date rape drugs and then assault unconscious women. If rape is redefined for the purpose of funding of abortions, why not redefine it for the legal system as well?

RMuse at Politics USA wonders: just who are the ones imposing tyranny and stealing liberty here, when the House is starting to resemble the Westboro Baptist Church?

Was this a real enough rape to satisfy Chris Smith, Daniel Lipinksi, and John Boehner?

Dennis G. at Balloon Juice makes special note of how this bill protects child predators, which makes me wonder just what kind of secrets Rep. Chris Smith and others who support this travesty are hiding. After all, when Republicans start ranting about the morality and sexual practices of others, they're telling you a great deal about themselves.

And where ARE those jobs, anyway, Mr. Boehner?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, January 29, 2011

The GOP 's sick, twisted men
Posted by Jill | 7:18 PM
You really have to wonder about Republican men. These are the guys who rail the most about family values but have affairs themselves. They call others corrupt when their own histories are questionable at best. And they stand for reproductive policies that punish women and girls while their own ranks are rife with sex offenders, many of whom prey on underage girls and boys.

In the past, they have advocated laws requiring minors to have parental consent for abortion on the grounds that without such laws, men who prey on underage girls (like some Republicans???) will be able to hide the consequences of their actions (such as pregnant 12-year-olds). But now, even though the Hyde Amendment prevents federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the woman's life, New Jersey lunatic wingnut Congressman Chris Smith has decided that while he's not quite ready to protect fathers who rape their daughters, and he knows it's political suicide to come out and say that women are just garbage to be thrown in the trash if it meqans saving a fetus, what he CAN do is define what constitutes rape. Yes, folks, a Congressman from New Jersey is all set to redefine rape according to his own twisted vision:
Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense. 



So if your twelve-year-old is sexually attacked by a neighbor, and her attacker says he'll kill her if she doesn't keep quiet and do what he wants, in Chris Smith's world she wasn't actually raped. And if your twelve-year-old becomes pregnant as a result, and your insurance doesn't cover abortion, and you want to use your flex or HSA money to pay for it, Chris Smith won't let you do that either. Because Chris Smith thinks your daughter is a dirty slut who asked for it.

And this is one of the new GOP Congress' first priorities.

Where ARE those jobs, anyway? Or are we too busy painting scarlet letters on women who are assuaulted by guys like Chris Smith?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, January 18, 2011

GOP: The party of taking no responsibility
Posted by Jill | 5:48 AM
I'm not enough of a glutton for punishment to sit through Sarah Palin fielding softballs lobbed by Sean Hannity, but if you're interested in Madame It's All About Me's latest chapter in, well, It's All About Her, you can read about it here. For those who have forgotten, we had a president for eight years who never, ever, acknowledged a mistake, and look where that got us. If being as much of a dunderhead as Snowflake Nasnooki of the North (or the Texas Tool, for that matter) makes you infallible, then the Great White Alpha Male in the Sky either has a really sick sense of humor or doesn't warrant worship. Take responsibility for your words? Admit inappropriateness? Even if that would let you put it behind you? Nope. Being a Republican means never taking responsibility for your actions.

Now it applies to Congress as well. As Keith Olbermann pointed out, barely two months after crowing about how they now run Washington, the Republicans are now trying to back out of the kind of draconian spending cuts they claim to want -- by claiming they don't know nothin' about birthin' babies, Miz Scarlett -- that they have no power at all and have to wait for the president:




Meanwhile, here in the reality-based community, it's the Republicans who have largely been responsible for running up the debts we face today.

James Kwak:
I know this is a bit early, but I wanted to get some facts out there in advance of the debate. I picked five major bills in the past decade that have significantly increased the national debt: the 2001 tax cut, the 2003 tax cut, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit, the 2009 stimulus, and the 2010 tax cut. (I left out the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars because it’s hard to pin down Congressional votes specifically authorizing their costs, in part because the famous Senate vote wasn’t actually a vote to go to war, in part because of the peculiar way the costs of the wars were budgeted.)

Then, for each of those bills, I looked up the CBO budget impact estimate made at the time. (Sources are at the bottom of this post.) Their costs, as projected at the time (and hence as knowable by members of Congress), were as follows. The first number is the ten-year cost; the number in parentheses is the portion of that cost through fiscal year 2011. Numbers are in billions.

* 2001 tax cut: $1,346 ($1,346)
* 2003 tax cut: $350 ($354 — the cut has a tiny deficit-reducing impact in its final years)
* Medicare Part D: $395 ($271). Note that I am not including the fact that the cost of this bill was almost immediately reestimated after it passed to be significantly higher, since that was not knowable to members of Congress when they voted.
* 2009 stimulus: $838 ($793)
* 2010 tax cut: $858 ($374)

That’s a total of $3.8 trillion — $3.1 trillion of it hitting the national debt by this year, and hence contributing directly to the need to raise the debt ceiling.

Then I looked up how current senators voted on these bills, whether they were in the Senate or the House at the time. For each senator, I added up how much of the current (2011) debt he could have voted for, and how many he did vote for. So, for example, Daniel Akaka (D-HI) was in the Senate for all five votes, so he was on the floor for $3.1 trillion in budget-busting bills; he voted for the last two, so he voted for $1.2 trillion, or 37 percent of what he could have voted for.

The results are predictable, but I still think worthy of noting, especially with all of the grandstanding that is going to happen.

Overall, current Democratic senators (including Sanders and Lieberman) had the opportunity to vote on $127 trillion of additional debt, and voted for $64 trillion, or 50 percent; current Republican senators had the opportunity to vote on $104 trillion of debt and voted for $70 trillion, or 67 percent.

The difference would have been greater except for trends in the composition of the Senate. Of current senators, the proportion in each party voting for each bill is as follows:

* 2001 tax cut: Democrats 18%, Republicans 93%
* 2003 tax cut: D 3%, R 94%
* Medicare Part D: D 17%, R 88%
* 2009 stimulus: D 100%, R 5%
* 2010 tax cut: D 77%, R 87%

So the typical Democratic vote pattern is N-N-N-Y-Y (I counted “present” and not voting as no votes — there were very few of these, anyway), which would mean voting for 37 percent of the total debt produced by these bills (just like Daniel Akaka). In fact, thirty-four Democrats were able to vote on all five bills, and twenty of them voted that way.

The typical Republican vote pattern is Y-Y-Y-N-Y, which means voting for 75 percent of the total debt. And, of the twenty-seven Republicans around for all five bills, eighteen of them voted that way.

The reason that the Republican-Democratic “debt responsibility” percentages are 67-50 instead of 75-37 is that not all senators have been in Congress for the past decade, and most of the ones who have only been there for a few years are Democrats. So there are many Democrats who were only in Congress for the last two votes, on which they typically voted Y-Y (100%), and a few Republicans who were only there for the last two votes, on which they typically voted N-Y (32%). So the facts that the Democrats’ budget-busting bills came later, and that I’m only looking at current senators, make the Democrats seem more profligate than their party has been as a whole, and vice-versa for Republicans.

The bottom line: As a party, the Republicans who will be railing against fiscal irresponsibility and threatening to block a raise in the debt limit are the irresponsible ones themselves who created the need to raise that debt limit. The Democrats can claim to be somewhat less irresponsible; more to the point, perhaps, insofar as they did vote to raise the debt, at least their current behavior (assuming that most support the administration and vote to raise the debt limit) is at least consistent with their past votes.


To the extent that Republicans are associated with "fiscal responsiblity", it's because the Democrats, in their inimitable way, have been too lazy, or too afraid, or too SOMETHING, to point this out. The Republicans are not, and have never been, the party of fiscal responsibility. They just scream that they are, and no one screams back. But then, Republicans never take responsibility for what they say, or what they do. Like the Pope, they regard themselves as infallible. Sarah Palin puts human beings in her crosshair metaphor and someone shoots them? Nothing wrong with what she did. John Ensign pays off the parents of his paramour while running as a family values Republican? Nothing wrong. Tom Delay is convicted of money-laundering? It's a political conviction. Republicans never, ever, ever admit to doing anything wrong. Instead they deflect blame to others: Liberals. Illegal immigrants. "The Lamestream Media." Markos Moulitsas (who very conveniently has a "foreign-sounding" name). Liquor. "Soulmates." Nothing they do is ever wrong, nothing they do is ever inappropriate. In the eyes of the GOP, well, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, if a Republican does it, then it is not wrong.

And yet this country continues to hand the car keys to the very same petulant drunk teenager who wraps the car around a tree and blames it on the kid who brought the beer.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Your Tax Dollars At Work
Posted by Jill | 9:08 PM
Hey, America! This is how you voted to have Washington Republicans spend your hard-earned money:
California Rep. Darrell Issa is already eyeing a massive expansion of oversight for next year, including hundreds of hearings; creating new subcommittees; and launching fresh investigations into the bank bailout, the stimulus and, potentially, health care reform.

Issa told POLITICO in an interview that he wants each of his seven subcommittees to hold “one or two hearings each week.”

“I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” Issa said.

[snip]

He also wants to organize aggressive oversight beyond his committee and plans to refer inquiries to other House panels, drawing even more incoming GOP chairmen to the cause of investigating the executive branch.

Because with persistent unemployment, financial industry greed, an intractable war in Afghanistan, a collapsing infrastructure, declining American educational levels, and the many other problems facing this country, nothing is more important than sham investigations and ginning up bullshit against Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, a real live war criminal and mass murderer of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is free to hawk his book.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, October 29, 2010

Friday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 7:07 AM
today's honoree: Rick Moran over at, of all places, The Moderate Voice, on Why the GOP Will Probably Fail.

Money quote:
Note that there has been very little talk about the GOP “Pledge to America” since it was rolled out a month ago. In fact, the party leadership has avoided specifics about what they plan to do with this great victory. No grandiose plan to get the jobs machine pumping up employment. No details about a legislative strategy to repeal Obamacare or any other agenda item. There is nothing but empty platitudes and harsh criticism – well deserved – of the Democrats.

It begs the question of just what Republicans plan to do with their victory?

What appears they will do is investigate the Obama administration for a host of transgressions – real and imagined. There will be endless posturing about the debt. The president’s commission on the deficit will receive short shrift from both sides, so their recommendations will have as much impact as those of the Baker Commission on the Iraq War. Obama will blame the “do-nothing” GOP congress while the Republicans will blame “obstructionist” Democrats.

And in the end, we’ll all come back to square one and be stuck with the same high unemployment and sluggish economy, with no prospects for improvement.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

What's a little Nazi sympathizing among friends?
Posted by Jill | 5:50 AM
I'd love to hear how the teabaggers, who march in -- dare I say it? -- goosestepping unison with their ideology even when actual reality shows them something different, differentiate between the Hitler mustaches they draw on posters of Barack Obama and their possible future House Majority Leader stumping on the campaign trail for a guy who thinks the Waffen SS was fighting for its freedom against evil Bolsheviks:
Why is anyone surprised that John Boehner decided to campaign for Ohio congressional candidate Rich Iott, one of the GOP's assortment of extremist 2010 candidates, which includes a Marine who killed two unarmed Iraqi prisoners, a guy whose security detained reporters at a public school event and one whose volunteers stomped a MoveOn volunteer?

Iott's in a category by himself, as someone who admits he's enjoyed attending Nazi history re-enactments dressed up in an SS Waffen uniform. But he's not a Nazi sympathizer! "It's purely historical interest in World War II," Iott told the Atlantic's Josh Green. "I've always been fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible things. I mean, they took over most of Europe and Russia, and it really took the combined effort of the free world to defeat them. From a purely historical military point of view, that's incredible."

Remember the outrage that ensued when Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan declared Adolf Hitler "wickedly great?" Imagine if Obama was stumping for an NOI member who'd praised Nazi Germany. You can't, right? That's where we are, folks, less than a week before this crucial and possibly crushing (for Democrats) midterm election.

Still, it makes a kind of political sense in 2010. With only a few days left, there's a real chance Republicans can take back the House. Boehner wants to be speaker, he can taste it, Marcy Kaptur's seat is a possible pickup for his party – so he's not going to let a little Nazi re-enactment stand in the way. That's John Boehner.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, September 17, 2010

Karl Rove is a wuss
Posted by Jill | 6:06 AM
September 14:



September 15:


There, in a nutshell, is the one thing you can always say about Republicans: They will willingly march off a cliff together rather than listen to the guy who says that a cliff is coming.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, June 19, 2010

Here we go again...
Posted by Jill | 1:31 PM
I don't know what it's going to take for Barack Obama to realize that Republicans are never, ever, ever in a million years going to ever believe that any Democratic president, no matter how nice he is to them and how much he capitulates to their demands, is legitimate. For the rest of recorded history, until Americans become smart enough to realize just what Republicans are, we will go through this again and again and again, every time a Democrat is elected President.

This is what we have to look forward to if the GOBP takes Congress in November:
Rep. Darrell Issa, the conservative firebrand whose specialty is lobbing corruption allegations at the Obama White House, is making plans to hire dozens of subpoena-wielding investigators if Republicans win the House this fall.

The California Republican’s daily denunciations draw cheers from partisans and bookings from cable TV producers. He even bought his own earphone for live shots. But his bombastic style and attention-seeking investigations draw eye rolls from other quarters. Now, he’s making clear he won’t be so easy to shrug off if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2011.

Issa has told Republican leadership that if he becomes chairman, he wants to roughly double his staff from 40 to between 70 and 80. And he is not subtle about what that means for President Barack Obama.

At a recent speech to Pennsylvania Republicans here, he boasted about what would happen if the GOP wins 39 seats, and he gets the power to subpoena.

“That will make all the difference in the world,” he told 400 applauding party members during a dinner at the chocolate-themed Hershey Lodge. “I won’t use it to have corporate America live in fear that we’re going to subpoena everything. I will use it to get the very information that today the White House is either shredding or not producing.”

In other words, Issa wants to be to the Obama administration what Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) was to the Clinton administration — a subpoena machine in search of White House scandals.

We have an economy that is still not producing private sector jobs other than overseas, despite the fact that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are still in place. We have an ecological disaster the long-term consequences of which are still unclear in the Gulf of Mexico. Our troops are still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan with no clear mission. But does Darrell Issa care about this? Do Republicans care about this? No, the only thing they care about is regaining power By Any Means Necessary....unless those Means involve having some kind of a better plan. On that they're utterly clueless.

UPDATE: As mandt point out in the comments, Darrell Issa was charged in 1980 with faking the theft of Issa's Mercedes Benz sedan and selling it to a car dealer for $16,000, according to court records. The case was never pursued. In Darrell Issa's world, innocent until proven guilty only applies to Republicans.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Baby Jesus Died on the Cross so Mark Souder Could Fuck His Assistant
Posted by Jill | 5:20 AM
I've never understood this business of so-called Christians excusing their misdeeds by saying "I'm born again and forgiven" -- because a Jewish guy was nailed to a cross 2000 years ago. Even if you want to say that this act somehow absorbed all the sins of humanity in perpetuity, why the awesomeness of this act of self-sacrifice isn't taken seriously by such people is a mystery to me. I mean, if someone lets himself be killed for you, don't you owe it to that person's memory to live up to that sacrifice, rather than taking it as a "Get out of jail free" card?

I talk a lot about this idea of God and Satan playing Skee-Ball in a Keansburg, NJ arcade and Satan getting bonus points for successfully tempting Christians, but that's my construction based on someone a Christofascist Zombie once told me rather than any kind of official Christian doctrine.

So it's amusing, if predictable, to see the Usual Suspects blaming everything but Mark Souder's own hypocrisy and hubris for his downfall:

Souder hired Jackson (who's also married) in 2004. She seems to have spent most of her time interviewing Souder for cable access TV and Internet videos (there are plenty of them). Souder's aides told Minority Leader John Boehner about the affair when they heard about it last week. Boehner spoke to Souder yesterday, and Souder resigned today.

The same year he hired his mistress, Souder told an STD specialist and CDC officer that out-of-wedlock sex ruins lives.

Thankfully, the Concerned Women for America can explain exactly what happened here.



Those of us who have worked with Mark over the years know him to be a kind and thoughtful legislator. If Mark Souder is capable of sexual misconduct, it could happen to anyone. The frat house environment on Capitol Hill does nothing to encourage accountability. Most Members do not live with their families while they are working in D.C. during the week and have even ditched common rules of etiquette that even major corporations follow such as office doors with windows or careful examination of employee/boss interaction.



It was the "frat house environment on Capitol Hill" that forced Rep. Mark Souder to have sex in Indiana state parks with a woman who lives in Indiana and works at his district office, in Indiana. If only there were windows in the heavily wooded areas near Fort Wayne.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, May 16, 2010

What the hell is wrong with these people???
Posted by Jill | 5:54 AM
Do Republican EVER for ONE MINUTE stop thinking about sex? With all their talk about "Hollywood morality" and "Hollywood values" and the "homosexual menace" and their anti-abortion rhetoric about women who "got themselves pregnant", combined with the tendency of some of their followers to hire rentboys and prostitutes and cheat on their wives, it makes me wonder just how much better a world would be if these people could just have sex willingly and happily like normal people. Then perhaps they wouldn't pull crap like this:

Yesterday, House Democrats were forced to scrap the COMPETES Act — a jobs bill to increase investments in science, research, and training programs. Despite initial bipartisan support, the bill went down suddenly as House Republicans staged a parliamentary ambush to insert a provision that would fire any federal worker “disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography.”



The unadulterated partisan politics were on full display shortly before the vote. Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) unveiled the GOP porn amendment, announcing that it would be a referendum on the use of porn on government computers. However, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) quickly took to the floor to denounce the minority party’s “embarrassing” gimmicks to “undermine an important bill for my 9-year-old daughter, for your kids and your grandkids”:


JENKINS: If you think spreading pornography with a government computer is an act that should lead to dismissal, then vote for this motion. [...]


GORDON: For God’s sakes. And when it gets to the conference, we’ll take care of that even more. But everyone raise your hand that’s for pornography. C’mon raise your hand. Nobody? Nobody is for pornography? Well I’m shocked so I guess we need this little bitty provision that means nothing is going to gut the entire bill. This is an embarrassment. If you vote for this, you should be embarrassed.



Watch it:



Using a “motion to recommit,” the amendment scared enough Democrats to back the porn amendment, thus forcing Democratic leaders to pull consideration of the bill, possibly postponing it for weeks. House Republicans celebrated their success in obstructing the jobs bill, and promised more of the tactic in an interview with CQ. “We certainly should do more of this type of thing,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX).



Besides, they get to feel all warm and tingly in the groin when they talk about porn on the House floor.

Too bad the Democrats didn't have the balls to call their bluff. After all, conservatives are the most likely users of porn:
A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, March 23, 2010

When frogs don't start falling from the sky, even the teabaggers will have to calm down
Posted by Jill | 5:46 AM
Well, not all of them. But when all the Medicare recipients who have been screaming "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" at rallies start getting $250 rebate checks as part of closing the prescription drug "doughnut hole", and see other immediate benefits as outlined by Rachel Maddow last night...



...the bellowing of John ManTan Boehner on the floor of the House the other night is going to look pretty damn ludicrous. Because this fall, the Republicans are going to have to run on the freedom of insurance companies to make absurd profits by refusing to cover your future pregnancies if you've ever been pregnant before, dropping you if you get sick, and raising your premiums by 40% a year.

Somehow that doesn't strike me as a winning platform. And as for John McCain, a clip of whom is shown in the segment above, is unlikely to be able to do anything to repeal it, because it looks increasingly likely that no matter how much he panders to the Ranks of the Stoopid in Arizona, he's going to get his clock cleaned by one of them in the primary.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, February 05, 2010

And the Great Timing Award goes to...
Posted by Jill | 5:53 AM
..Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who earlier this week, in his redundantly named "Roadmap Plan" revived George Bush's brilliant idea of privatizing Social Security:
This proposal addresses the shortcomings of the current system and strengthens the retirement safety net by providing workers with the voluntary option of investing a portion of their FICA payroll taxes into personal savings accounts. Due to the higher rate of return received by investments in secure funds consisting of equities and bonds, these accounts would allow workers to build a significant nest egg for retirement that far exceeds what the current program can provide. Each account will be the property of the individual, and fully inheritable, which will allow workers to pass on any remaining balances in their accounts to their descendants.

Yesterday the Dow-Jones Industrial Average closed down 268.37 points. Much of the gains of recent months have been wiped out.

And this isn't a one-day blip, either. The world economy is once again teetering. Latvia has 23% unemployment. Greece may need a bailout.. Portugal has debt concerns. Spain is in hock up to its eyeballs too.

So of course, with markets reeling all over the world, it's a perfect time to tell Americans that they should trust their retirement to these markets.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, November 13, 2009

Oh fer cryin' out loud: Yet Another Republican Hypocrite Edition
Posted by Jill | 6:30 AM
Two-term republican Senator Jim DeMint thinks we need a Constitutional amendment mandating term limits:
A handful of Republican senators have proposed a constitutional amendment to limit how long a person may serve in Congress.

Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve six years in the House.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

No word on whether Jim DeMint plans to run for re-election, since he has served the two terms to which he wants to limit OTHER Senators.

There's an easy way to enforce term limits, and that's to have voters pay attention. I live in a town that just out of force of habit elected a mayor who has been on the exclusively-Republican town council for nearly three decades, and ran as the candidate of "change." Voters don't pay attention, and so they vote for the familiar name on the ballot. If voters want term limits, they need to start paying attention and doing the civic part of their duty as citizens.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, November 07, 2009

Where is the Republican outrage over THIS use of the Holocaust?
Posted by Jill | 9:00 AM
It wasn't so long ago that Republicans had a hissy-fit over Alan Grayson, who is Jewish, using the word "holocaust" (lower-case "h") to describe the deaths of over 40,000 Americans EVERY YEAR due to lack of health care coverage.

Richard Blair wants to know, and so do I, why NOT ONE REPUBLICAN has taken a similar stand of outrage against the lunatic frothing teabagger who went to Washington the other day carrying a poster of dead Holocaust victims and calling it "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau Germany - 1945". This is the same rally at which Eric Cantor spoke and said nary a word about it, nor did he say anything about the poster which read "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds" -- "Rothschild" being code for "Jew" that was used by Jew-haters before they elected George Soros to be their all-purpose Jewish scapegoat.

Yes, folks, Eric Cantor, a Jew, sides with Jew-haters against the president for no other reason than political power.

For one brief moment during the 2008 campaign, John McCain got in touch with his humanity just long enough to contradict an insane woman who was a precursor to the teabag lunacy who ranted about how she couldn't trust Obama "because he's an Arab." Eric Cantor can't even do that much.

Over eleven million people were murdered during the Third Reich simply because they were Jewish, or gay, or disabled, or in some other way didn't fit into Hitler's plans for a master race. Six million of those were Jews -- Eric Cantor's people (and mine). And this man gets up and speaks who have shown that they would gladly show up to be some contemporary version of brownshirts, simply for political gain.

Eric Cantor is a disgrace.

UPDATE: Cantor FINALLY speaks up (sort of):
At yesterday's tea party rally on Capitol Hill, at least one protester brandished a large graphic photograph of the victims of the Dachau Nazi concentration camp, comparing health care reform to Nazi policies. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph "inappropriate."

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) has also condemned the poster.

Cantor, in an interview today with Bloomberg, also offered some criticism of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office has pointed reporters to the story, emailing the link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.

It's worth noting that Limbaugh made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks.


I guess if it were "helpful" to the Republican agenda to make Obama fail even if the nation collapses as a result, Cantor would be A-OK with it. Because if you're a Republican, ideology trumps everything.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share