Blue City Politics And Commentary: 2010

The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.

The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: “a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.” A political action committee is defined as:“a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate.” Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative “The New York Post” in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: “The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses.” What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it’s because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch’s primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.

The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on “Hannity” was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:” If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way.” According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: “The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Fox’s biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend.” Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: “Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama — and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well.” Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

When you look across the political spectrum to Fox’s chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: “All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts.” To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network’s payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn’t the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of “Fair and Balanced” from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?

Steven J. Gulitti
10/25/10

Sources:

Two Takes at NPR and Fox on Juan Williams; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/business/media/22williams.html?_r=1

Candidates Running Against, and With, Cable News; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/us/politics/24cable.html?emc=eta1

The New York Post: Profitless Paper In Relentless Pursuit;
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Business and Rights Groups Are Growing Wary of the Tea Party

For Tea Party Candidates, the Stumbles, and Fumbles Continue

Who Is Desperate, Progressives or Sharron Angle?

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Bent Angle, Sharron Angle's Major Flip Flop

Tea Party darling, Sharron Angle has apparently decided that politics as usual suits her better than sticking to her previously held Tea Party Movement principles. In an development that has been reported on both the left and the right, Angle has abandoned her previous positions on privatizing both Social Security and the Veterans Administration. Likewise, her attitude that unemployment insurance is welfare has been abondoned for the latest spin du jour. Think I'm putting you on? Well here it is from the conservative organ NewsMax:" In a dramatic shift, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle said Saturday she wouldn't work to privatize Veterans Affairs, dismantle Social Security or dismiss unemployment benefits as welfare... Angle on Saturday denied she had called for the end of the VA...In another slight change Saturday, Angle said of unemployment: "We pay into it, so in some respects, it is an insurance policy that we bought into with our paychecks." She described it previously as a "system of entitlement."

At the same time, another prominent Nevada Republican has decided against Angle and thrown her support to Harry Reid. As reported in yesterday's New York Times: "Harry Reid can now boast a second Republican feather in his cap, of sorts. Less than 24-hours after earning the endorsement of Bill Raggio, a highly influential Republican and Nevada state senator, the Senate majority leader on Friday landed the support of Dema Guinn, the wife of the former governor who died unexpectedly this year."

All of this fits into what I have said in previous posts and that is, that as we get closer to November 2nd, the scrutiny put on the Tea Party Candidates will cause people to have serious second doubts about their positions and the viability of those candidates if they are actually elected. Secondly, that many of the movements leading contenders are nothing more than professional politicians in Tea Party clothing who have jumped on the wave of voter discontent so as to get themselves elected.

Steve Gulitti
10/10/10

Sources:

Nevada's Angle Recasts Position on Public Benefits; http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/USNevadaSenateAngle/2010/10/10/id/373156

Sharron Angle, on second thought, changes her mind on some things; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/sharron-angle-nevada-senate.html

Reid Receives Two G.O.P. Endorsements; http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/an-unlikely-endorsement-for-reid/

Friday, October 8, 2010

Controversy Continues for Tea Party Candidates

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Health Care Hypocrisy of a Tea Party Candidate

What word would you use to describe a candidate for the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, that publically advocates repealing health care reform, opposes the regulation of health care insurers while at the same time benefits from health care provided by a federal government agency? If the word hypocrite comes to mind, you just hit the jackpot. Not necessarily intended to be a tongue in cheek quip, but our winner of the hypocrite of the day award goes to Nevada’s Sharron Angle, who just happens to hail from the land of slot machines and crap tables.

Yeah, you read me correctly, this morning’s “Politico’s Morning Score” blew the cover off of Ms. Angle’s dirty little secret and possibly a hole in her campaign to be the next U.S. Senator from Nevada. Needless to say, this isn’t exactly the kind of publicity that the Tea Party Movement is looking for either. Its one thing for the Tea Party Movement to be lampooned by the political highbrows on MSNBC and the Daily Show who can be dismissed as elitist by the party faithful. It’s quite yet another for one of its premier candidates to so seriously stumble just weeks before an election that is supposed to be the movement's coming out party in the big leagues of electoral politics. Politico’s Morning Score reports: “Angle's campaign acknowledged to Nevada journalist Jon Ralston Monday that both the candidate and her husband receive health care from the federal government. Spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said in a statement: "Mr. Ted Angle receives his pension through the (federal) Civil Service Retirement System. While it is not supplemented by the federal government, current civil servants pay into the program to pay the schedule of those already retired - much like how the Social Security Program works today.” But there’s more to it than just the machinations of the Angle family, another prominent mouthpiece of the Tea Party Movement, Michelle Bachmann, a regular critic of government health care is also a beneficiary of the very programs she rails against. According to MediaMatters.com:” Angle isn't the only right-wing Republican to bash government involvement in health care while benefiting from it. Back in May, the Minnesota Independent reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a frequent critic of "socialized medicine," was profiting from a government-run health program in Minnesota through her husband's Christian mental health clinic.” A Christian clinic?, What became of the values of honesty and truthfulness, or are they to be convienently ignored when politics is what's on the menu?

So there you have it, some of the leading lights of the movement that is supposed to “take back our country” and bring us back to “the values and wisdom of our Founding Fathers”, have found it in their best interest to talk you out of the need for health care reform and insurance company oversight while they and their families are more than happy to benefit from programs they publically oppose. These Tea Party elites, who regularly blast the established Washington elites, have seen fit to insulate themselves and their families from life’s vicissitudes while admonishing the rest of us to” work hard, be frugal and trust in the markets and what made America great in the past." The hypocrisy in all of this is obvious and undeniable. What is not immediately obvious is to what extent these revelations just weeks before the mid-term elections will give the independent voter cause for concern as it regards supporting candidates like Sharron Angle or re-electing a Michelle Bachmann. I doubt it will do much to dissuade the rank and file Tea Party foot soldier, but it may. That said, what the rank and file intend to do really is of secondary import, it’s the independent voter who holds the key to both this election and the next.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/28/10

Sources:

Politico’s Morning Score: http://www.politico.com/morningscore/

Anti-Government Crusader Sharron Angle Receives Government Health Care; http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201009280002

Sharron angle and Her husband Receive Government Health Care: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?link=225844_Sharron_Angle_And_Her_Husband

Friday, September 24, 2010

Doubts About Christine O'Donnell Continue to Grow

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Today's O'Donnell Farce du Jour

Monday, September 20, 2010

From Palin to O’Donnell or From Farce to Absurdity

Tax Cuts and Their Efficacy: A Postscript

Thursday, September 9, 2010

It is noteworthy that General David Petraeus appeared yet again on the evening news last night, repeating his very real concerns and continued dismay over the planned burning of a Koran by Preacher Terry Jones. General Petraeus was emphatic in his denouncing the act, firmly believing that it will lead directly to increased American casualties: "General David Petraeus told NBC television that images of the Koran burning would be used by Islamic extremists to fuel anti-Americanism and harm the US mission in Afghanistan and other areas in the world. "We're concerned that the images from the burning of a Koran would be used in the same way that extremists used images from Abu Ghraib that they would in a sense be indelible", Petraeus told NBC. "They would be used by those who wish us ill, to incite violence and to inflame public opinion against us and against our mission here in Afghanistan, as well as our missions undoubtedly around the world, he added." Likewise similar concerns have now been voiced by General Ray Odierno, who recently stepped down as the ranking officer in charge of our military mission in Iraq. As of last night the F.B.I. has announced that a reaction to the burning of a Koran is imminent and the State Department has put American embassies and consulates on a full alert worldwide in expectation of their being targets of attack.

It is also noteworthy that in light of their current concerns, neither Petraeus or Odierno so much as uttered a passing reference to the controversy surrounding the planned construction of an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan. In light of this it's interesting to note the following. General Petraeus has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and General Odierno received a Masters in nuclear effects engineering and national security and strategy from the Naval War College. Thus a reasonable and well informed observer of political affairs would conclude, that in the midst of all the concern about the expected fallout from burning a Koran, both of these well educated and politically astute Generals would at least mention the planned construction project in lower Manhattan if it was even remotely related to issues of national security and safety. Yet, they didn't. Why because both of them know what many of the rest of us know as well, that it's not relevant or germane to what we can expect to be the follow on to the reckless folly that is scheduled to transpire this coming Saturday in Florida.

There are those among us who will continue to conflate the issues of burning a Koran and constructing an Islamic Cultural Center in their ill conceived and conceptually flawed argument as to how these issues relate one to the other or how both relate to the debate over national security and public safety. In trying to tie the two together they continue to reveal just how little they understand of the importance of the issue at hand, which is the burning a Koran on American soil by an American preacher for all the world to see. What we have here is a crass attempt to politicize one issue so as to distract the public from the other. In their silence on the issue of the Islamic Cultural Center, Generals Petraeus and Odierno, have effectively rendered this issue as something of little or no practical value in the current debate. It's time for those who are trying to use the "Mosque Controversy" as a foil or counterargument to the public concern with Preacher Jones' recklessness to realize the folly of their position and get on the right side of the issue once and for all.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/9/10

Sources:

Koran burning could amount to another Abu Ghraib: Petraeushttp://sify.com/news/koran-burning-could-amount-to-another-abu-ghraib-petraeus-news-international-kjjhkicfcda.html

Petraeus: Burning Qurans will undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistanhttp://www.stripes.com/news/petraeus-burning-qurans-will-undermine-u-s-efforts-in-afghanistan-1.117486

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Aiding and Abetting Our Enemies by Burning the Koran

The controversy surrounding the proposed and ill conceived burning of a Koran by a preacher named Terry Jones has devolved, to some degree, into an intellectual parlor game as to the rights of this preacher to do, untrammeled, what he pleases and the rights related to building an Islamic Cultural Center in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Lost in all of this intellectual exercise is the welfare of those Americans now serving in the armed forces overseas. Some would suggest that if Muslims have the right to build a religious and cultural institute in lower Manhattan, then Preacher Jones is justified in carrying out his burning of the Koran, as if the two were somehow conceptually equivalent as it relates to the potential fallout. Lost in all of this is the reality that while people have rights of freedom of speech and expression, those rights are in fact neither absolute nor boundless. Such rights are conditioned by an operative test as to what extent these actions fall within a society's accepted norms and fundamental mores. Both individual and group actions are viewed within the bounds of what rational people would consider reasonable in a civilized society. That's why we operate with common sense conditions on human action with the overall welfare of the population in mind, the prohibition of yelling fire in a crowded theater being an often cited example. The point is a very simple one, while as citizens we constitutionally have the freedom of speech and expression, those freedoms don't extend to or accommodate license and reckless behavior. Thus viewed against the social, political and legal realities of American society, one could only classify the intended behavior of Preacher Jones as that which has now gone beyond the pale of protected behavior and into the realm of unmitigated recklessness. Behavior that can only increase the threat level for Americans both at home and abroad.

By itself, the preacher's actions could be dismissed as the ranting and raving of just another maladjusted soul who seems prone to bizarre and anti-social behavior. But when that behavior puts the lives of Americans serving in the Middle East and Southwest Asia in jeopardy, then these actions are clearly at variance with the well being of both the nation's military and it's citizens. General David Petraeus has already raised the alarm that Preacher Jones' actions will increase the risk of attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and protests of the planned burning have already materialized in the region. The General has drawn parallels with Abu Gharib and how the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners aided Al Qaida's recruitment efforts thereby directly adding to the number insurgents we had to face in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Abu Gharib, the burning of a Koran by a Christian preacher will provide images that directly help Islamic radicals in their recruitment efforts, the General said. Jones' intended act will undo much of the progress made in winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Iraqis as well as creating further disincentives for moderates in the region to align themselves with the American effort. The net affect of Preacher Jones' act of freedom of expression, if carried out, will most likely be Americans losing their lives so that this glorified storefront preacher can garner his fifteen minutes of fame. That's what's really at issue here and all of the rest of this intellectual gymnastics is both now misplaced, misconstrued and totally misses the point that when freedom of speech or expression crosses over to the reckless, then it need be proscribed for the good of the overall public. While people can certainly continue to discuss the pros and cons of Preacher Jones' actions, those who chose to do so are blind to the larger issue entwined within all of this and that is the safety of their fellow Americans. The time for the intellectual games has passed and the time for an advocacy of the rational and reasonable as it relates to this issue is now upon us .

Steven J. Gulitti
9/7/10

Sources:

Quran Burning Warning: General Petraeus Words Fall On Deaf Ears?
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212321953.shtml

Top US Commander: Burning Quran Endangers Troops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

Burn a Koran Day Sparks Protests in Afghanistan
http://www.breitbart.tv/burn-a-koran-day-sparks-protests-in-afghanistan/

Koran Burning: Terry Jones Burn A Quran Day Not Cancelled
http://www.newsopi.com/us/koran-burning-terry-jones-burn-a-quran-day-not-cancelled/4130/

Monday, September 6, 2010

Where Have all the Libertarian’s Gone?

The late Mary Travers once sang a song called “Where Have All the Flowers Gone? It was a lamentation about the human cost of war and it was a popular protest song during the Vietnam era. Well it seems to me that someone could write a song, or at least ask the same question, about Libertarians. Specifically, where have all the Libertarians gone?

In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: “More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.” That said it’s interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?

During the 2008 election cycle, America’s Libertarian’s had a clear choice among those vying for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul was an outspoken Libertarian and had been so for many years. Paul’s Libertarian bona fides were well established, widely known and beyond question. But Paul wasn’t even remotely competitive within the G.O.P.’s contest for candidate in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Yet even though Paul was eliminated from the race, Libertarians still had a choice in the person of Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia, and the Libertarian Party’s presidential pick for 2008. The irony of it all is that even though they still had a horse in the race, in an election that offered four different choices for president, the Libertarian candidate finished dead last with a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in 2008. With the aforementioned facts in hand, we can only conclude that Libertarians either do not vote, fail to vote for their own candidates or that there aren’t very many of them in existence after all.

Well, if it’s hard to discern the actual existence of Libertarians in any precise number, then how is it we have over sixty five Libertarian organizations afloat in the body politic according to Wikipedia? The Stason Organization lists 11 “Major Libertarian Organizations” and 33 “Think Tanks”. But this begs the question: Why so many organizations for just over a half of a million voters, or less than one half of one percent of the voting public? It seems a bit fishy to me that we have all of these “Libertarian” organizations in a country that seems to have so few Libertarians. If we have so few Libertarians, then where does the cash that fuels all of these “Libertarian” organizations come from? After all it would be pretty hard to fund this large number of organizations out of the pockets of just 0.4% of the voting public. Could it be that these “Libertarian” organizations are propped up by those with a specific agenda and deep pockets or do these 523,686 voters just all happen to be billionaires? So can someone tell me where have all the Libertarians gone, long time passing?

Steven J. Gulitti

9/6/10

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Who Is Barack Obama: Should We Believe Beck or Limbaugh?

Americans to some degree and particularly those on the Right are now beset by a true conundrum. Is Barack Obama a Christian or a Muslim? According to the latest Pew Research polling: "nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is." Well, it's no wonder people are so confused, especially when two of the most prominent talking heads on the far right differ as to what is the actual religion of the President. If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't on the same page on this, how can we expect the lowliest schlep to know what's the truth?

In a recent anti-Obama rant, Mr. Limbaugh intoned: "Imam Hussein Obama is probably the best anti-American president we've ever had." Limbaugh has been at center stage in railing against the proposed "Ground Zero Mosque' while trying to somehow insinuate that Obama's defense of the constitutional right to religious freedom somehow proves that the President is an Islamic. Meanwhile just this past Sunday, in a follow up to his Lincoln Memorial Rally, Mr. Beck appeared with Chris Wallace of Fox News to proclaim that Obama is in fact not a racist after all, but a practicing Christian who just happens to be enamored with Liberation Theology. This brand of Christian thought is defined: "as a movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions." According to Beck himself: "he misunderstood Obama's philosophy and his theology...which is liberation theology... he didn't understand, really, his theology his viewpoints come from liberation theology. That's what I think as in -- at the gut level I was sensing. And I miscast it as racism. And really, what it is liberation theology." Thus, its now official, according to Glenn Beck, Barak Obama is legitimately some sort of Christian. Well fancy that, one of the most prominent forces in the American right has reaffirmed that the President is in fact a Christian while the other is still working overtime to convince Americans otherwise.

So what is really going on here? Is there a genuine question as to Barack Obama's faith or are we in fact looking at a garden variety witch hunt perpetrated from two different angles in a crass and unvarnished attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president through the propagation of falsehoods? Do Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh really believe what they are publicly saying or are they and their followers just unable to face up to the fact that their idea of what America should be just does not comport with what people voted for in 2008. Is that truth just too much to bear? And where is the leadership that we should be seeing from responsible and respectable Republicans in opposition to this political falderal and farce? Perhaps the leaders of the G.O.P. are just too cowed by the far right to stand up for political decency or perhaps they just don't have the requisite courage. In a recent op-ed on this very topic, Paul Krugman opined: "What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don't consider government by liberals - even very moderate liberals - legitimate. Obama's election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn't, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage. And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage...Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we've just seen, he's doing his best to insinuate Obama is a Muslim. And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found." That said, it's more than evident that the time for the truly patriotic to stand up for political decency and honest debate is now and that's especially true for the leadership of the G.O.P. How can they legitimately ask for our votes when they allow this type of anti-democratic demagoguery to take place right under their noses and in plain view? Perhaps this is what you get from a political party that may be on its way out of business in the long run. Then again, maybe it's what you get when there is just a lack of courage in a party that has for so long prided itself as the repository of "real American values." At any rate every American voter has to ask himself this question: If the leaders of the Republican Party lack the courage to take on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, where will they find the courage and stamina required to get us out of the Great Recession or face down Al Qaida or any other threat that will surely emerge in the brave new world of this new century? Failing that courage, do they really deserve our votes?

Steven J. Gulitti
New Haven, Ct
8/31/10

Sources:

Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim; http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx

Liberation theology; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Beck: Obama's not a racist, he just believes in an "evil" theology; http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008310014

Limbaugh Dubs NYC Islamic Center "The Hamasque"; http://mediamatters.org/research/201008180055

Rush Limbaugh Newswire: Comprehensive Real-Time News Feed for Rush Limbaugh.; http://www.topix.com/wire/radio/rush-limbaugh

It's Witch-Hunt Season

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The Efficacy of Tax Cuts Is Now Questioned

Tax policy and tax cuts in particular are elements central to the Republican Party's economic philosophy. Republicans have made tax cuts one of their primary tools for fighting the Great Recession and returning America to prosperity. When advocating cuts, many on the Right have waxed nostalgic for the Reagan era tax cuts and their supposed economic benefits. The "record" of those cuts is held up as a justification for extending the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date and likewise for cutting taxes generally. All of this as an ideological counterpoint to what the Obama Administration has done in addressing the current downturn. Thus when economists who describe themselves as free market advocates, Libertarians, Republicans and even conservatives call extending the Bush era tax cuts into question one can only take note and inquire further as to why those whom we would expect to endorse tax cuts count themselves among the opposition.

Opposition to extending the tax cuts of the Bush Administration falls generally into two different schools of thought. In one camp you have people like Alan Greenspan and David Stockman the former Director of OMB during the Reagan years, both of whom argue that tax cuts are being supplemented by foreign borrowing and are as such unwarranted. In another camp you have people like Bill Gross of PIMCO and former Bush Administration economist Glenn Hubbard who support more federal spending due to the severity of the current downturn. Appearing on Meet the Press on August 1st Greenspan voiced opposition to the idea of tax cuts combined with continued borrowing. He reinforced this point in a New York Times interview the next week that stated: "Mr. Greenspan is calling for the complete repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, brushing aside the arguments of Republicans and even a few Democrats that doing so could threaten the already shaky economic recovery." Greenspan went on to point out that tax cuts are appropriate when the government is running a surplus and that his original support of tax cuts was combined with other economic requirements that were ignored by economic policy makers within the Bush Administration. A far more scathing condemnation of the Republican Party, it's economic performance and it's fixation with tax cuts was voiced by David Stockman in two separate pieces: "Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt" and "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse". Quoting Stockman: "Yes, there was a good idea that in certain circumstances, lower tax rates will encourage economic activity and savings. But when you make it a religion, when you make it a catechism and you say you cut taxes no matter what the circumstance, what the season, what the condition, then I think the whole idea has been perverted...I find it unconscionable that the Republican leadership faced with a 1.5 trillion deficit could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population who, after all, have benefited enormously from this phony boom we've had over the last 10 years as a result of the casino on Wall Street." Stockman goes on to analyze the four deformations of the American economy that he says resulted from Republican policies that abrogated the Bretton Woods Agreement, the exportation of jobs overseas, the hyper-growth of the financial sector and the explosion of public debt. Yet it is in addressing the growth of public debt that Stockman is especially harsh in analyzing the Republican policies both during the Reagan era and beyond. Again to the author: "This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

The alternate point of view is put forth by those who see the economy as being so structurally unsound that no amount of tax cuts will help and that only massive public works projects and spending on retraining will provide the necessary remedial aid the economy requires. Bill Gross the fixed income guru of PIMCO was interviewed for an article in the New York Times by Nelson Schwartz, "Jobless and Staying that Way" with the following takeaway: "Despite his long-held belief in free markets, smaller government and lower taxes, Mr. Gross said politicians must recognize that this time, "government is part of the solution." He added, "In the new-normal world, there are structural problems, which require structural solutions... Mr. Gross believes that it's time for the government to spend tens of billions on new infrastructure projects to put people to work and stimulate demand." Quoting Gross: "We think the coma will last for years unless government policy changes to restimulate the private sector and bring unemployment down," In the same camp is former Bush economic advisor Glenn Hubbard who stresses a new, expanded role for the government in addressing the problem of structural unemployment. He talks about a "new normal," where economic growth is too slow to bring down the unemployment rate which in turn requires the government to be more actively involved in mitigating problems that now emerge as the result of globalization. In Hubbard's words: "If there is a new normal, it's more about the labor market than G.D.P. "We have to help people face a new world."

In contrast, the Republican Party continues to talk about the current downturn as if it were a garden variety economic contraction that could be dealt with through tools and policies related thereto. It continues to advocate tax cuts as if they would somehow create consumer demand where it currently doesn't exist. Conservatives have repeatedly pointed to the Reagan era tax cuts as a prime example of the efficacy of such measures in stimulating demand and at the same time they have ignored the massive Reagan era stimulus provided by military spending. In a recent article titled "Unemployment: What Would Reagan Do? Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute talked extensively of Reagan's tax cuts but mentioned not a word of his spending. To paraphrase the source "Reaganomics" below: "Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose from $267.1 billion in 1980 to $393.1 billion in 1988." That meant that "defense spending went from being 22.7% to 27.3% of total public spending. In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation." Beyond spending for military goods, Reagan expanded the size of the federal government creating a new cabinet level department and presiding over a federal workforce that was larger when he left office than it was when he arrived. Economist Robert Reich points out the fallacy of the Reagan era tax cuts as follows:" Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America's top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation's average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower -- ranging between 35 and 39 percent -- the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan's 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan's 1982 tax increase." An analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001. Thus if you want to find the wellspring of economic growth in the Reagan era you won't find it in tax policy, ironically it can be found in simulative spending for military hardware and the growth in federal employment.

In their constant baying "Where are the jobs?" the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill has ignored the fact that the present downturn is far more severe than their rhetoric would allow. In analyzing the current downturn Sara Murray points out:" GDP was revised down in seven of the 12 quarters of 2007, 2008 and 2009, primarily because consumer spending grew more slowly and home building fell more sharply than previously estimated...The overall depth of the latest recession surpassed that of any other downturn since the late 1940s. GDP fell by 4.1% from the fourth quarter of 2007, when the recession officially began, to the second quarter of 2009, when many economists believe it ended. The previous estimate for the peak-to-trough decline was 3.7%...The new data show that the worst of the recession came in the last quarter of 2008." With economic utilization rates down by 30% across much of the economy and manufacturing output off 28% in the U.S. and 23% worldwide and with services down significantly as well, it was more than evident that tax cuts could not restart the world economy and that is why they were not a major element in the initial policy response in any major economy. The value of government action has been outlined by Jon Hilsenrath as follows: "Most mainstream economists agree on some points: The U.S. economy needed some kind of fiscal help in 2009 as the financial system teetered and the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates near zero. The deficit has to be reined in eventually, in part by restraining the growth of spending on health and other benefits. And developing a long-term plan to do so now would reduce risks of a future financial market calamity and help hold interest rates down... But today, neither side can say with certainty whether the latest stimulus worked, because nobody knows what would have happened in its absence...One big issue: Lessons about fiscal policy in normal times aren't necessarily applicable to today, when the Fed has cut interest rates to zero and unemployment remains high. Skeptics of fiscal stimulus traditionally argue that government borrowing crowds out private investment and pushes up long-term interest rates. True, says Obama adviser Lawrence Summers, but not at times like these...When private-sector lending was drying up and the credit markets froze, "government investment and creation of demand for consumers was a form of alternative financing, not a threat to private investment," Likewise, David Wessel author of "In Fed We Trust" notes: "Government, which did fail to head off the crisis, saved us from an even worse outcome... But we know now that the economy was imploding in late 2008. We know now with detail how paralyzed financial markets were, and how rotten were the foundations of some big banks. We know now that even after all the Fed has done, we still risk devastating deflation... So the short answer has to be: Yes, it would have been far worse had the government failed to act." The factors that affect unemployment predate the Obama Administration as the economic downturn started roughly a year before he took office and you can see unemployment starting to rise in the last quarter of 2008. One could make the argument that the stimulus has been far less effective in getting people back to work than one would hope, but there is little reason or historical evidence at hand to lead to the conclusion that we would have done better by employing tax cuts. Some conservatives would point to Calvin Coolidge's tax policies in fighting the 1920-1921 downturn as evidence that these policies work, but in doing so the avoid the influence of sharp tariffs that were also part and parcel of his response and the negative chain reaction that ensued worldwide as a result. Besides, what was the follow on act to the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression.

In analyzing the effect of the controversy surrounding stimulus verses tax cuts on the recessionary economy, Jon Hilsenrath states:" Tax cuts haven't been a cure-all. President Bush tried $168 billion of tax rebates in 2008, and a recession ensued anyhow. Economists note that households tend to save temporary tax cuts or use them to pay down debt, so they don't provide much short-term stimulus." Hilsenrath goes on to point out that one third of the Obama stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. This fact has also been pointed out by Steve Weisman of the Petersen Institute for International Economics who has stated that the tax cuts included in the stimulus have had zero simulative effect. There is now evidence that business is starting to spend money on capital goods regardless of the specifics of tax policy. Nomura Securities economist David Resler calculates "that businesses didn't spend enough in 2009 on new equipment to offset the wear and tear on their existing equipment...Mr. Resler estimates that even with the recent sharp increases in capital spending, the total capital stock is still $100 billion less than it was two years ago. That suggests that capital spending could continue to grow strongly the rest of the year." Mr. Greenspan himself added that the relationship between taxation and growth was still not well understood. "I don't think anybody can know exactly what the impact of these taxes is on G.D.P.," he said, referring to gross domestic product, the broadest measure of output. "We put them through econometric models that have a very poor record forecasting recession. Conclusions based on such models must be suspect." The fact of the matter is that companies spend money on replacement and expansion when they see an economic reason to do so, not primarily as a result of tax policy. While tax incentives for plant and equipment can be helpful, they alone are not enough to give rise to business spending if there is a perceived lack of demand for a firm's goods or services. After all, companies still have to lay out millions of dollars in expenditure and why would they do so if they have idle capacity to the tune of 30%?

So the question is this; if so many influential people are pointing to the lack of effectiveness of tax cuts in this particular economic environment, why do Republicans cling so desperately to the idea? As I have said in earlier articles, I believe that, in a large part, the G.O.P. is at the point of ideological exhaustion and is sorely lacking when it comes to new and compelling ideas. It is basically, with few exceptions, pushing old wine in old bottles. Their one big exception is Congressman Paul Ryan's " A Roadmap For America's Future", which contains a number of tax reform ideas and advocates for a privatization of Social Security, a tall order to fill in this environment and one that Republicans could not pull off during the Bush Administration when they had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. Ryan's plan has been picked apart by Economist Paul Krugman for what he claims are its faulty assumptions. One is Ryan's claim that based on OMB estimates; his policies would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020. Krugman's critique is as follows: "But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan's request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts - period. It didn't address the revenue losses from his tax cuts... The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has... Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers... you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion. And that's about the same as the budget office's estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration's plans...The Tax Policy Center finds that the Ryan plan would cut taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population in half, giving them 117 percent of the plan's total tax cuts... Even as it slashed taxes at the top, the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population...Finally; let's talk about those spending cuts. In its first decade, most of the alleged savings in the Ryan plan come from assuming zero dollar growth in domestic discretionary spending, which includes everything from energy policy to education to the court system. This would amount to a 25 percent cut once you adjust for inflation and population growth. How would such a severe cut be achieved? What specific programs would be slashed? Mr. Ryan doesn't say."

There is a curious lack of candor and directness among Republican leaders making the rounds on the political talk show circuit when it comes to detailing specifics. Appearing on the Bloomberg network, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) declined to outline what comprised the G.O.P.'s political or economic platform for the 2010 election cycle saying he "did not want to scoop himself". A week later in an August 8th Meet the Press interview, John Boehner (R-OH) would not provide specifics on the same topic choosing to talk around the issue by saying that the G.O.P. was "still listening to the American people." That's a sharp contrast to Mr. Boehner's comments on Meet the Press this past January when he said: "Leadership is about standing on principles and offering alternative policy solutions" The fact of the matter is that if they were in power now, they would most likely have favored simulative spending as well as there is no historical evidence that tax cuts alone, or as a primary strategy, has ever pulled an economy out of a downturn as deep as this one. They certainly can't harken back to the business friendly 19th century America as taxes then were low or nonexistent on economic activity as well as personal incomes. And interestingly enough, Senator McConnell appearing again on Meet the Press, 22nd of August, was unwilling or unable to come up with an answer as to how to pay for extending the Bush era tax cuts as well as answer the question of the viability of Congressman Ryan's Roadmap. As per the moderator, David Gregory's take on the Ryan plan: "it lays out some Draconian steps to balance the budget, to cut spending in both Social Security and Medicare. I'm wondering why it is if Republican leaders are so serious about cutting the deficit and cutting spending, why there aren't more than 13 cosponsors in the United States Congress for this plan?" Somehow the new found fiscal rectitude of the G.O.P. seems to ring hollow when you consider that much of the present Republican leadership on Capitol Hill are the same culprits who took this country from surplus to deficit and endorsed a military misadventure that has by now cost over one trillion dollars that would have been better spent here fighting the downturn.

Perhaps it is this lack of compelling new ideas in the midst of the worst downturn since the 1930s that has led the G.O.P. to basically avoid policy specifics and let the far right media fringe do much of the talking for the Party. Perhaps that is why so little is known about the ideas of a Paul Ryan, he can't be heard over the roar and din of the fanatics on the far Right and the political theater of people like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest of the entertainers on the right who pawn themseleves off as legitimate news analysts. Perhaps that is why many of its leading figures have been so enmeshed in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy or perhaps why they have let the "Birther Mania" run wild and unabated. After all, if you don't have compelling ideas to offer voters in general, you're left with having to rile up the base and keep them engaged no matter what the method or the reasoning. Columnist David Brooks addresses this as part and parcel of the lack of civil public discourse currently gripping the nation in his latest op-ed "Case of Mental Courage":"Many conservatives declare that Barack Obama is a Muslim because it feels so good to say so. Many liberals would never ask themselves why they were so wrong about the surge in Iraq while George Bush was so right. The question is too uncomfortable...There's a seller's market in ideologies that gives people a chance to feel victimized. There's rigidity to political debate. Issues like tax cuts and the size of government, which should be shaped by circumstances (often it's good to cut taxes; sometimes it's necessary to raise them), are now treated as inflexible tests of tribal purity." While the Republican Party will surely make gains in the 2010 election cycle, it will be a function of the natural progression of electoral cycles rather than the start of a renaissance. We are now in a brave new world of globalized economic competition where military power may very well play a diminished role. No amount of tax cutting will help us in combating the cost of production in China and the Far East. We are in need of bold new ideas and to date, the Republicans have largely offered an agenda of obstruction and out of date economic concepts that proved lacking in the 19th Century as well as in 2008. Generally the voters still blame the Bush Administration for the current economic disaster and the G.O.P. remains at historic lows in favorability ratings. In spite of the fact that some 30% of the voters identify as conservative, the long term demographics are trending against the G.O.P. and its core philosophy and at some point it will either have to redefine its reason for being or it will have to accept a role as the default party of American politics.

Steven J. Gulitti
New Haven CT 8/25/2010

Sources:

Meet the Press 8/1/10; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38487969/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/
Greenspan Calls for Repeal of All the Bush Tax Cuts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/economy/07greenspan.html?emc=eta1

Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129052425&sc=emaf

Stockman: Four Deformations of the Apocalypse; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Jobless and Staying That Way by Nelson Schwartz
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/weekinreview/08schwartz.html?emc=eta1

Unemployment: What Would Reagan Do?
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704388504575419280283794598.html

Course of Economy Hinges on Fight Over Stimulus by Jon Hilsenrath http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704720004575376923163437134-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

Reaganomics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Robert Reich; Why We Really Shouldn't Keep the Bush Tax Cut for the Wealthy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-we-really-shouldnt-ke_b_667816.html?ref=email_share

SARA MURRAY
Revisions Show Slower Recovery, Deeper Recession online.wsj.com/.../NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703578104575397520711904... -

David Wessel
Emerging Lessons From Fighting the Financial Crisis: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB20001424052748704741904575409170687936934-lMyQjAyMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

The U.S. Unemployment Rate Since 1990;
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/images_lessons/813_em813_figure11.gif

The Politics of Boom and Bust, 1920-1932: The Republican "Old Guard" Returns Chapter 33: http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/outlines/chapter-33-the-politics-of-boom-and-bust-1920-1932

Firms Spend More-Warily: Equipment Outlays Aim to Make Up for Cutbacks, Not to Boost Production and Jobs
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB20001424052748704164904575421403221676016-lMyQjAyMTAwMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html

A Roadmap for America's Future
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Paul Krugman: The Flimflam Man;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Meet the Press 8/22/10
http://thepage.time.com/details-mcconnell-on-presidents-commission-on-cutting-deficit/

David Brooks: Case of Mental Courage
New York Times; Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Reuters/Ipsos poll: Obama approval hits new low, but Republicans catch blame too.
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/08/24/reutersipsos-poll-obama-approval-hits-new-low-but-republicans-catch-blame-too/

AUGUST 11, 2010.Grim Voter Mood Turns Grimmer: Pessimism Rises on Economy and War; Bad Reviews for Both Democrats and GOPhttp://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704901104575423674269169684-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMTExNDEyWj.html#articleTabs%3Dinteractive

Friday, August 6, 2010

Is Sharron Angle Afflicted by Palin Syndrome?

If you close your eyes and listen to Sharron Angle, you might think she is deliberately channeling Sarah Palin. The Tea Party has pinned its hopes on Angle to defeat Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race and thus far like Palin, when it comes to public misstatements, Angle is a serial offender. Consider the following quote from: "This Tea Party Candidate is No Jefferson”: " The strange inconsistency of the Tea Partiers reached new depths recently when Nevada's Sharron Angle, running against Harry Reid for the US Senate, sat for an interview with Fox News on Monday. She told her interviewer, when asked about her relationship with the press, "We needed the press to be our friend. We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer, so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.... The Tea Partiers love to claim that they represent the "Real America." Yet, here is their favorite candidate in the Nevada Senate race advocating for some sort of docile, captive press. What would a "real American" like Thomas Jefferson think?" Well suffice it to say that Jefferson or any other true Jeffersonian would find Angle's remarks anything but in keeping with our deeply held democratic values of a free press. So much for the "true patriotism" of the Tea Party in Nevada. The real question for the Tea Party and Angle is, what is the actual effect of such statements on the rank and file Nevada voter?

Angle's views on the press are just the latest in a continuing series of public pratfalls. So much so that even Fox News' Carl Cameron had to point out the following: "What precisely she’s advocated; phasing out Social Security and Medicare, withdrawing from the United Nations, abolishing the EPA and much of the tax code and banning all abortions. But it’s not just the positions that Angle has taken, it’s how she’s defended them. She suggested that entitlement programs “spoiled our citizenry”, that it may be part of God’s plan that rape victims get pregnant and to some she even seems to sanction armed insurrection, a “Second Amendment remedy” is what she called it, if Harry Reid isn’t beaten at the ballot box." So, according to Angle, if Harry Reid is legally reelected, it's legitimate for the citizens of Nevada to holster up and do something about it. That's a strangely undemocratic and thus unpatriotic line of reasoning in my political playbook.

What does this all mean for one of the Tea Party's rising stars? Well if poll results are any guide the bottom line is bad news for Angle, the Tea Party and the Nevada G.O.P. The latest findings from the conservative Rasmussen Reports show Reid has now jumped ahead of Angle for the first time. The poll showed 45 percent of likely voters favored Reid, while 43 percent supported Angle. Earlier polls had Angle ahead of Reid 46 percent to 43 percent. Once considered a sure loser, Reid has seen his poll numbers climb and he now has a new lease on political life, thanks to Sharron Angle's continuing gaffes. Likewise his own attack ads painting her as too extreme are starting to pay off with the voters because his claims have started to make sense. The public perception of Angle as to extreme has now cost her support even among women and Republican voters. Polling conducted for the Las Vegas Review Journal by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc., primarily conducted to measure the effects of Angle's opposition to extending unemployment benefits showed: "Angle is also known for her other radical views, like her interest in phasing out Social Security and Medicare, to doing away with federal agencies such as the Education Department to cut spending and developing Yucca Mountain into a nuclear reprocessing facility...These same radical views are also cited as the cause for Angle’s declining support among Republicans and women voters. The poll showed that her Republican support has dropped from 81% to 70%, and her support among women dropped from 38% to 33%."

I would predict that as we get closer to November 2010 and people begin to pay more attention to the upcoming election, the candidates that espouse the more radical platforms will see their political fortunes fade with each passing day. On the eve of election day, their radically wild statements will come home to haunt them and when voters go into the voting booth they will ask themselves: "Do I really want to elect someone who wants to phase out Social Security or Medicare?

Steven J. Gulitti
NYC 8/6/10

Sources:

This Tea Party Candidate is No Jefferson http://www.cnbc.com/id/38565683/

Even Fox News Can't Hide Sharron Angle's Wingnuttery in Their Special on the Mid-Term Elections http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38746

Election 2010: Nevada Senate Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/nevada/election_2010_nevada_senate

Anti-Unemployment Extension View, Other Key Issues Drag Sharron Angle’s Poll Numbers: http://all247news.com/anti-unemployment-extension-view-other-key-issues-drag-sharron-angles-poll-numbers/2060/

Real Clear Politics: Nevada Senate - Angle vs. Reid
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Mislead Enough Already: An Emerging Tea Party Dilemma

Taxes, more than any other issue is what drives the Tea Party movement. Thus those philosophical arguments related to taxation and the resulting size of government constitute the very essence of the rationale for the movement’s existence. How then will the movement react and adapt to the latest findings of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which reveal the movement’s essential positions to be clearly at odds with empirical facts? As such, the Tea Party movement may soon find that the very rationale for its existence is being fundamentally challenged by a reality very much at variance with the movement’s belief system. Likewise, the Republican rhetoric about taxes increasing may also start to ring hollow.

The Bureau’s findings as reported by UPI are as follows: “Including state, federal and local taxes -- with sales tax and property tax thrown in -- the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009…. That’s down from an average of 12 percent over the past 50 years. The tax burden has not been this low since 1950...The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years…The tax rate has fallen 26 percent since 2007, a sharp drop that reflects progressive tax rates passed during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the 2009 federal stimulus bill that cut taxes by $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.” The Bureau’s findings are just the latest in a growing body of evidence that refutes the basic premise which the Tea Party movement relies upon to energize its followers and fuel it’s much hoped for transformation of American government. In a piece that followed this years Tax Day Protests, the Associated Press observed: “Lost in the rhetoric was that taxes have gone down under Obama. Congress has cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion, leaving Americans with a lighter load despite nearly $29 billion in increases by states.”

In an article, which appeared in Forbes in March; “The Misinformed Tea Party Movement”, conservative writer Bruce Bartlett outlined just how little members of the Tea Party movement actually knew about the structure and level of taxation. Utilizing a survey of movement protestors at a recent rally Bartlett found: “Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944… In short, no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.” In contrast in 2009 the corresponding number was 14.8%. When it comes to the structure and composition of taxes, the Bartlett article is chock full of repudiation for just about everything that the Tea Partiers believe in and that does not bode well for a movement that has as one of it’s stated goals, the reconstitution of the size of American government based on its belief that taxes are too high and that they will crowd private borrowers out of the credit markets. Bartlett sums up his skeptisim of the Tea Party movement with an insightful statement that points out just how confused the Tea Partiers may be: “It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality. Perhaps these people haven't calculated their tax returns for 2009 yet and simply don't know what they owe. Or perhaps they just assume that because a Democrat is president that taxes must have gone up, because that's what Republicans say that Democrats always do. In fact, there hasn't been a federal tax increase of any significance in this country since 1993.” And to think, such an observation would roll off the tonuge of an economic censervative who once promoted supply-side theories and who had also worked for Ron Paul!

Ironically, its not just on the issue of taxes that the Tea Party movement is in a bit of a pickle. For one thing, the movement’s overall lack of a cohesive strategy for affecting political change works against its durability as a force on the American politcal scene. Atlantic’s Michael Kinsley points out that unlike the anti-war movement of the 1960s which had a central theme and aim, the Tea Party movement is so fractionalized in terms of leadership and difuse in its overall ideological makeup so as to be more than a little precarious as a long term movement with staying power. Quoting Kinsley:” Not only do TPPs (Tea Party Patriots) not have one big issue like Vietnam—they disagree about many of their smaller issues. What unites them is a more abstract resentment, an intensity of feeling rather than any concrete complaint or goal.” Kinsley points out that in their undefined frustrations the Tea Partiers have in affect discarded the much-cherished notion so dear to the conservative credo, self responsibility, in that everyone’s problems can be directly traced back to Washington D.C. or their state capitol. Kinsley defines this inherent flaw in the movement as follows: “Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?”

There is one other major time bomb ticking away inside the Tea Party movement, and that is the company it keeps. Who are the leading personalities associated with the movement, none other than some of the most controversial characters alive in American politics today: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck. If Bachmann and Palin weren’t the Thelma and Louise of the far right, who would it be? I mean if the G.O.P. ever were to find itself in the back seat of their car they will, like the movie characters find themselves on a joy ride off of a cliff and heading straight for political disaster. It goes without saying, that having Beck as the Tea Party movement’s most vocal media personality leaves allot to be desired, unless your aim is to turn the movement into a laughingstock. After all, can you put together a more gruesome threesome than the aforementioned when it comes to alienating independents from the Republican Party? I doubt it.

Lets face it, if it were not for the fact that the Tea Party movement has become the primary pawn in the ideological proxy war between MSNBC and Fox News, its presence on the American political landscape would be far less visible. A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement and that this group is largely white, had supported McCain and presently backs Sarah Palin. But in what could be the most telling piece of evidence derived from the Quinnipiac Poll is that: “Overall, this survey paints a picture of the Tea Party movement that encompasses a broad swath of the American middle class, but clearly at this stage one that is a minority group. In essence their numbers equate to about the size of the African-American electorate overall,” That said and with that empirical evidence in hand, does anyone really think for a second that the future of American Conservatism or its fellow traveler the G.O.P. is best served by hitching its wagon to the Tea Party movement, especially when that movement has been exposed as containing a fundamental philosophical credo that is so starkly at variance with established political facts and trends.

Steven J. Gulitti
New York City
May 12, 2010

Sources:

1) U.S. tax burden at lowest point in years http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/

2) The Misinformed Tea Party Movement by Bruce Bartlett, 03.19.10, http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

3) Tea Party Rally Upbraids 'Gangster Government' by The Associated Presshttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125251286&sc=emaf.

4) My Country, Tis of Me, There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots. by Michael Kinsleyhttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/my-country-tis-of-me/8088/

5) QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL: TEA PARTY COULD HURT GOPhttp://thepage.time.com/quinnipiac-university-national-poll-tea-party-could-hurt-gop/

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Comedy Central Moves to the Right

I once heard conservative columnist David Brooks refer to a Republican Party political miscalculation as stupidity on stilts. Well, courtesy of the national media, the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has provided a few prominent people on the right with a new opportunity to once again make fools of themselves.

Just days after the Deepwater Horizon collapsed and sank, Rush Limbaugh opined on his April 29th show: “Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day… But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here.” Okay Rush, I’ll play the game, who actually blew up the Deepwater Horizon, environmentalists or the “Federal Swat Teams” that are supposed to be securing the oil patch? I know that Greenpeace has a ship it employs to disrupt whaling, but which environmentalist group has the capability to pull off an act of sabotage a mile down on the ocean floor? Could it be that this act of environmental sabotage is actually for the purposes of furthering a secret green agenda or could it be that having recently endorsed offshore oil exploration as a component of a new energy policy; Barack Obama has now destroyed an oilrig as a means of achieving energy independence?

Appearing days later on Fox and Friends former Bush White House spokesperson Dana Perino, suggested a conspiracy was afoot: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder...if there was sabotage involved." Well that’s certainly a prescient line of logic coming from someone who publicly admitted that she “didn’t really know much about the Cuban Missile Crisis”, what was arguably the most dangerous two weeks in history. Is it not more than a little comical that fresh from her regular pratfalls in the White House, Ms. Perino feels rather qualified to comment on offshore oil drilling and underwater pyrotechnics? I mean, after all it’s pretty impressive for someone who majored in mass communications and public affairs to now have such a firm grasp on the particulars of ocean engineering and underwater ordinance. Is it me or is some of this stuff is just too ridiculous to be taken seriously?

However, in what may be the most ironic commentary of all, Michael Brown the former Director of FEMA during the Bush Administration contends that Obama wants to capitalize on the Deepwater Horizon disaster so as to pander to environmentalists. Quoting Brown: “They want this crisis so they can respond to it and shut down oil and gas drilling for being too dangerous.” Brown went on to suggest that Obama will use the current disaster to impose new restrictions on the coal industry. Well coming from a guy who’s primary qualification for being Director of FEMA was his experience with the International Arabian Horse Association, this sort of commentary is more than just a bit comical. After all, in the days leading up to Hurricane Katrina, Brown had been given sufficent warning of impending disaster by the National Weather Service whereas the Deepwater Horizon disaster was unpredicted. Thus the two events are not exactly congruent, except perhaps, for the geography. Who could ever forget Bush’s praise for Brown during the Katrina Crisis: “Brownie, you’re doing a hell of a job.” Days later, Brown was sacked and yet today he feels qualified to second guess the Obama Administration based on his own botched handling of Katrina and it’s aftermath.

If stupidity makes you laugh, well Limbaugh, Perino and Brown can certainly be considered headline acts in what has become a fully booked and never ending theater of the absurd on the far right. Don’t get me wrong, thus far the Obama Administration has definitely made mistakes in handling the Deepwater Horizon crisis and there is nothing funny in that. But to suggest that Obama and his consort are destroying oilrigs to further an agenda friendly to the environment is beyond absurd and borders on the surreal. Like those crackpots on the far left, who continue to maintain that the Bush Administration was either behind the 9/11 attacks or knew something of them, these characters are just as absurd and moronic in their claims that Obama has a hand in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I can’t help but laugh as the jokes not on the Obama Administration, but on Limbaugh, Perino and Brown for believing their own content free cackle. Likewise the laughs on those people who turn to the likes of Limbaugh or Fox News for serious political analysis or commentary and take much of what they hear as gospel. Just a few weeks ago Bill O’Reilly claimed that comedian Jon Stewart of the Daily Show had become the point man for left-wing attacks on the right and asked why there were no conservative comedians on the air to counteract Stewart and the rest of the left leaning late night comedy crowd. Well Bill, their out there, you just need to know where to look for them.

Steven J. Gulitti
New York City
May 6, 2010

Monday, April 19, 2010

Coming Unhinged On the Far Right: A Postscript

When I wrote my earlier article there were doubters among the readership as to who actually was perpetrating violence against those in Congress who had voted in favor of health care reform. Since that article there continues to be a growing stack of evidence of both borderline seditious rhetoric as well as actual examples of threatening behavior having been leveled against the more progressive elements in American political society.

The F.B.I. defines domestic terrorism as follows: “Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. …Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change.” (F.B.I. "The Threat of Eco-Terrorism" (February 12, 2002): http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm.)

If you had the opportunity to watch the Chris Matthews Show this past Sunday, the 18th of April, you would have witnessed a lively discussion on the nature of the present threat of political violence emanating from the far right side. I have taken the time to delve into several of the show’s references, as a means of producing undeniable evidence of the propensity for political violence among right-wing extremists.

First there is Michael Savage who, on his April 9th Savage Nation Show said: “What we need is a vigorous right-wing movement in America, not a Tea Party. And you need to face off against those scum on the left and then you’ll have a nation.” (See - Michael Savage: “Obama a traitor who is not Loyal to America” http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004120011) Then there is the example of Mike Vanderboegh, former Alabama Militiaman who now hosts the Freedom Radio Show. In his “To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW.” He clearly and explicitly incites his followers to violence: “Pelosi and her ilk apparently do not understand that this Intolerable Act has some folks so angry that they are ready to resist their slow-rolling revolution against the Founders' Republic by force of arms… These are collectivists. They do not hear you grumble. They do not, it is apparent after the past year of town halls and Tea Parties and nose-diving opinion polls, hear you SHOUT. They certainly do not hear the soft "snik-snik" of cleaning rods being used on millions of rifle barrels in this country by people who have decided that their backs are to the wall, politics and the courts no longer are sufficient to the task of defending their liberties, and they must make their own arrangements…. So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows. Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats.” (http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/to-all-modern-sons-of-liberty-this-is.html).

Finally there is Michele Bachmann who recently advocated that Minnesotans become “armed and dangerous” in reaction to Barack Obama’s energy policy. As reported in the Minnesota Independent: “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.” Quoting the author, Chris Steller: “Smart Politics notes it’s not the first time since the election of President Obama and a new Democrat-led Congress that Bachmann dubbed her conservative compatriots “foreign correspondents reporting to you from enemy lines.” The metaphor, combined with her “armed-and-dangerous” rhetoric, drifts close to Sean Hannity’s excited speculation about a militant right-wing reaction.” (“Bachmann wants Minnesotans ‘armed and dangerous’ against Obama energy policy” BY CHRIS STELLER, MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT, March 24, 2009 http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/03/24/bachmann-wants-minnesotans-%E2%80%98armed-and-dangerous%E2%80%99-against-obama-energy-policy.html.)

If the above dosen’t constitute incendiary or seditious rehetoric, than what does in fact constitute? At this point in time it would seem to me that the preponderence of reported incidents seems clearly aimed at the current administration and its supporters, not the other way around. I know there are those on the right who are bending over backwards to try to explain away today’s clear and present evidence of a trend toward right-wing violence with comparisons back to the sixties, violence by animal rights or enviornmental groups but that was then and this is now. Today the problem lies clearly on the far-right and generally speaking, nowhere else. There are those who will say that there is plenty of evidence of current left-wing violence if one cares to look, well fine, give us some credible and empirical examples in the present and not five or six or forty years ago. As we observe the fifteenth anniversary of the America’s greatest act of domestic terror, the Oklahoma City Bombing, let us be ever mindfull of those clear and present threats aimed at our public safety, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they come from, and as good citizens, stand up to reckless rehtoric when ever and where ever you confont it.

Steven J. Gulitti
19 April 2010

Sunday, April 18, 2010

MSNBC’s Airing the McVeigh Tapes: Sensationalism or Timely Reminder?

On April 19th, on the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, MSNBC will televise live footage of interviews with Timothy McVeigh, the right wing mastermind of the attack. In light of all the turbulence and controversy surrounding the administration of Barack Obama, is this just another case of crass sensationalism or does it serve as a timely, in your face, reminder of what constitutes an extreme threat to public safety?

In my last two articles: Coming Unhinged on the Far Right and Hutaree Militia: Foiled Fantasy of a Citizen’s Uprising, I pointed out what I believe to be an undeniable trend towards a violent confrontation between the government and the far right. I experienced some degree of pushback from conservatives who fell back on the argument that the left had committed plenty of violent acts in the sixties, as if that were somehow relevant today. Nowhere in either of these articles did I ignore, condone or endorse left wing violence. In fact I roundly deplored all political violence:” It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means.”

Many conservatives would point to an incident of labor thuggery by SEIU members, the Weathermen Bombings or the Seattle World Trade Organization anarchist riots as being somehow equivalent to the damage done in Oklahoma City or on par with the numerous deaths thus far committed by anti-government extremists since the inauguration of Barak Obama. In doing so, they are deliberately ignoring the facts that currently exist. Some critics went so far as to label the recent reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center as just a bunch of “liberal propaganda” for having pointed out the exponential growth in hate groups and anti-government “patriot” organizations since the Obama election. This argument, that past left-wing terror is somehow relevant to dealing with today’s clear and present danger, is a straw man argument being made by people who are fooling themselves with a historically challenged analysis in assessing the present situation. Its either that or they are so heavily invested in an anti-Obama crusade that they have become complacent in accepting this threat as it has yet to produce another Oklahoma City. Thus far it serves to support their anti-government animus so they have implicitly accepted the rhetoric while not actually endorsing violent acts.

I spent the last week with my reserve unit where I am part of an armed maritime security / law enforcement team. One of our team leaders is also a U.S. Marshall and SWAT team member with a background in having dealt with anti-government groups. We got on to the topic of domestic terror and his name and office will remain anonymous. I asked him if he had witnessed a significant rise in the number of anti-government organizations and he answered yes to that question. I asked him if they were predominately right wing and he said while there are some on the left, there were more on the right. Furthermore, I asked him if the findings of the Southern Poverty Law Center constituted legitimate research, again he agreed with me that their findings are consistent with what he was seeing from with inside the Marshall’s Service. He went on to say that the Secret Service was working overtime to keep up with all of the potential threats that have emerged in the last six months.

On this Sunday’s Chris Matthews Show the topic of domestic terror was front and center and Matthews presented two quotes from right wing extremists to underline his point that this is a serious problem. Michael Savage on his April 9th Savage Nation Show said: What we need is a vigorous right-wing movement in America, not a Tea Party. And you need to face off against those scum on the left and then you’ll have a nation. Then there was Mike Vanderboegh of Freedom Radio on March 17 who advocated going for the throats of the country’s elites. Finally, Nora O’Donnell pointed out how Sarah Palin starts off so many of her speeches with “Do you love you freedom.” implying that the current administration is bent on taking it away. If anyone can claim, that at least the Savage and Vanderboegh quotes are not an incitement to violent behavior that would to me constitute an act of outright self-denial.

If individuals are being complacent in their implicit acceptance of this incendiary rhetoric, what then is the position being taken by the Republican Party? I found it interesting that every one of Matthews’ panelists pointed out that to date, the G.O.P. has said very little in the way of condemning those on the far right who have put forth politically violent and vitriolic commentary. A salient point made by the commentators was that Fox News had allowed both Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to run wild with their comments and that the G.O.P. of today lacks the moderating forces of thirty years ago who would have distanced the Party from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Joe Klein, having looked up the meaning of sedition said, the current language of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin “came up against the seditious.” Even Kathleen Parker who is listed on the conservative TownHall.com website of conservative columnists said:” The Republican Party must distance itself from the far right otherwise it will be seen as complicit.”

In the final analysis, when you take in to account the totality of the present situation, I think the MSNBC airing of the McVeigh Tapes should serve as a reminder of just how dangerous and incendiary rhetoric can become. That said, it is impossible to deny that there is an element of the sensational in the airing of McVeigh’s interviews. But it is also hard to deny that there are those among us who in their deep dislike of Barak Obama and dynamic social change are silently endorsing the very language on the part of leading right-wing politicians and media personalities, which could lead us, God forbid, down the road to another Oklahoma City.

Steven J. Gulitti
April 18, 2010

Monday, April 12, 2010

Back to the Future in Massachusetts: A Post Script – Brown Snubs Palin

Earlier this year in an article titled “Back to the Future in Massachusetts”(1/24/10), I made the following observations among others: “No analysis of the 2010 Massachusetts election can be complete without acknowledging that the Tea Party Movement has moved, at least for the time being, from the fringe into the mainstream of American politics…. But the real question for the G.O.P. is has it made a deal with the Devil in jumping onboard the Tea Party tiger? It is one thing to embrace the Tea Party Movement when the opposition is a Democrat, but what about the prospect of intra-party challenges during the upcoming 2010 Republican primary process… When you combine the Tea Party Movement’s penchant for ideological purity with the likes of it’s leading personalities: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, you have a formula for driving independent voters into the hills and thereby affecting a drain off of support for any type of centrist Republican agenda.”

Well, as it so happens, it didn’t take long before the chickens came home to roost around the Bay State. According to the Monday Edition of the Boston Herald, it appears that newly elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown wants to be a U.S. Senator for more than one abbreviated term. Why else would the politically savvy Brown chose not to appear with Sarah Palin who is scheduled to appear at a Tea Party rally in Boston this Wednesday? Quoting the Boston Herald: “U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, whose stunning victory in January was fueled in part by Tea Party anger, has snubbed the fiery grassroots group and declined its invitation to join Sarah Palin Wednesday at a massive rally on Boston Common, the Herald has learned. Brown’s decision to skip the first big rally in Boston by the group whose members are credited with helping him win election has some experts saying he’s tossed the Tea Party overboard, as he prepares for re-election in 2012. He wants to mainstream himself before the election,” said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist”

Political analyst Lou DiNatale put it even more bluntly saying: “To win re-election, Scott Brown floating to the right is a serious problem. And showing up at a Sarah Palin, Tea Party event is not the way to the middle.” So much for the great surge to the right in Massachusetts. As I said in my original article: “The one thing that is abundantly clear is that Brown rode to victory on a wave of independent voter support and not because large numbers of Massachusetts voters have suddenly embraced the principles of the G.O.P. and switched their party affiliation.” Scott Brown knows that his political bread is buttered at the table of moderate politics and not on the far right and certainly not by affiliating with the Tea Party Movement or its current claque of cheerleaders. Likewise Brown has declined the invitation by the Greater Lowell Tea Party to appear at a rally being held in this old New England mill city. The Lowell Tea Party organization has downplayed Brown’s unwillingness to appear because he has to stay in Washington and “do his job”, a view that veteran political analyst Larry Sabato suggested: “was willfully naive.”

So there you have it, the first major political figure to ride to victory partly on the back of the Tea Party Movement has decided to quickly distance himself from it rather than risk having it torpedo his hopes for reelection two years from now. Scott Brown wants to continue to be seen as a mainstream moderate New England Republican, anyone surprised by that? Afterall moderate Republicans are the only variety that can presently survive in the harsh climate of 21st Century New England. I guess in the final anlysis remaining electable trumps ideological purity, even on the political right.

Steven J. Gulitti
New York City
April 12, 2010

Sources:

Scott Brown snubs Sarah Palin, bags Tea Party rally
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?&articleid=1246482&format=&page=1&listingType=MA2004#articleFull

Scott Brown To Skip Tea Party Rally In Boston With Sarah Palin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/scott-brown-to-skip-tea-p_n_533961.html

Progressives, Its Time To Take The Offensive!

Conservative columnist, David Brooks once pointed out that the Internet has had the net effect of not bringing us closer together, but rather, driving us further apart. By allowing individuals to coalesce into narrower, self-reinforcing groups - based on political, ideological, religious or regional sentiments - the Internet has created a society that is characterized by many separate groups where communication is largely within and between group members. Brooks went on to say that one could get up and watch Fox News from dawn to dusk, read conservative newspapers or magazines and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity on talk radio and thus, never come across a competing idea all day. Likewise, the same sort of thing happens amongst the denizens of the left. It reminds me of a comment made by Norman Mailer after the Bush victory in 2004: “How could Bush have won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Mailer was reflecting the fact that as a resident of New York City, one of the Bluest in America, you would never find a Bush supporter, unless you deliberately left the insularity of your own social group.

That brings me to the point of this piece. Many of us who utilize the blogs to traffic in political thought tend to stay on those blogs that are user friendly. We tend to blog on those sites that are supportive of the ideas we ourselves promote and favor. At the same time there are those on the far right who are doing the same thing, peddling their ideas or attacks against the current administration and Progressive ideas in general. These attacks on the very essence of Progressive thought go largely unchallenged with no more than a handful of stalwart progressives waging a counterattack and enduring a tremendous amount of vitriol and abuse in the process. Thus it is time for us to sally forth and bring the battle to the opponent’s home turf. Anyone who has had a peek at the latest trio of reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center knows full well just how violent the rhetoric on the right has become. All one need do is to look at the attacks against those who voted for health care or consider the case of the Hutaree Militia as proof positive that things are getting more confrontational and vicious.

I regularly dust it up with the wing nuts on TownHall.com but there are also several others like AmericanThinker.com; Human Events, and RedState.com to name just a few.
It would be great if we could get some help battling lies and misinformation on these sites and others like them. Townhall.com in particular is easy to deal with, as they don’t restrict your participation unless you engage in bona-fide hate speech. AmericanThinker.com screens your input and RedState.com will redact your comments if they don’t agree with you. I had an article dispelling the lies on health care redacted and I have since been barred from this site so you may only be able to get one shot at them and then you are done. If you’re up for the fight, and you ought to be, considering the stakes, the links are below.

We just fought and won some semblance of a health care reform program and there are plenty of other important battles ahead. As Progressives we need to learn how to throw a punch, figuratively, and stop being seen as a bunch of kumbaya signing pushovers who let the right push us around. My advice to you is the same that Stonewall Jackson gave a group of cadets at the outset of the Civil War. When asked just how bad he expected things to get he replied: “If I were you I would draw my sword and throw away the scabbard.”

Steven J. Gulitti
April 11th, 2010

Rage on the Right
The Year in Hate and Extremism
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right

Fear of FEMA
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/fear-of-fema

Midwifing the Militias – Resurgence of the Patriot Movement.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/midwifing-the-militias

Townhall.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/

Human Events
http://www.humanevents.com/

American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/

RedState.com
http://www.redstate.com/

The Hutaree Militia and the Foiled Fantasy of a "Citizen's Uprising"

Anyone who thinks I am off course on the topic of right wing extremism should consider the latest incident that was reported on the evening news. Over the weekend the FBI arrested nine members of the Hutaree Militia, located in southern Michigan, when the agency uncovered their plot to kill a policeman and then bomb his funeral so as to create the mass killing of his fellow officers. The leader of this group, David Brian Stone, believed that this act would trigger a nationwide revolt against the Federal Government by thousands of "aggrieved citizens". Stone's ex-wife said that his life had "spiraled out of control" and that he believed that this despicable act was part of some preordained plan to "defend the world against the anti-Christ."

Anyone who really thinks that there is no threat from the fanatics on the far right or who persists in trying to equate the legacy of the left with the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER from the furthest fringes of ultra-conservative politics should wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late. Those who irresponsibly fantasize about some "citizen's revolt" aimed at toppling the current government in Washington are fooling themselves and have embarked on a reckless course of action. This ill begotten fantasy will only lead to senseless killings, including possibly their own, leaving behind in its wake a pathetic legacy of unnecessary tragedy.

Maybe its time for my fellow Americans to turn away from the extremist nonsense that passes for political commentary on the television and radio shows of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh or that which flows from the poison pens of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and their fellow travelers. Maybe its time to marginalize the content free cackle of people like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Sarah Palin when they babble on about enemies within the ranks of Senators and Congressmen or when they draw pictures of congressional districts held by Democrats overlaid by the crosshairs of a rifle scope. How often have you seen a Tea Party placard representing President Obama as the anti-Christ? Ask yourself; can you truly abide the most radical rhetoric of the Tea Party extremists who have come to drown out even the sensible people within their own ranks?

The vast majority of Americans have no desire to partake of this lunacy and the government has far more firepower than that possessed by the fanatics. Do the math on the probability of success for any kind of "citizens uprising" and you will see by intuitive deduction that this is a losing proposition, especially in a society that abhors extremist political actions and ideologies and one which would never support such a thing.

Steven J. Gulitti
March 29, 2010

See the attached Christian Science Monitor article for more: Who is David Brian Stone, leader of the Hutaree militia? / The Christian Science Monitor

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Friday, December 17, 2010

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Monday, December 6, 2010

Monday, November 8, 2010

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Friday, November 5, 2010

Monday, November 1, 2010

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Monday, October 25, 2010