Wherein I'm forced To Admit Only The GOP Can Save Us

So here we are, a month into Donald Trump's wacky version of an American presidency and every day it's something new and nutty. If the actor in this saga weren't actually the president of the United States, this whole thing would be highly entertaining.  A daily heart-pounding serial, picking up where the cliff-hanger from the day before left off--confusing, terrifying, laugh-out-loud--what's going to happen next?

The hapless Democrats, bless their pure hearts--relatively speaking--can only wring their hands and beg the people with the power to look behind a curtain so obviously transparent it's a mystery why we're the only ones able to see through it.

Trump ran on a campaign of shaking things up and now he's delivering in the only way he knows how--by remaining on the campaign trail promising to shake things up.  He loves the crowds that love him back. He pouts, he flounces, he sneers, he snarls, he laughs derisively at anyone who casts doubt. He threatens the people of the world. He cares not a whit about diplomacy or protocol. It's not in him to care. He's here to shake things up.

So last week he tweeted (Note to future historians: when you talk about our first tweeting president, don't hold back), calling certain members of the American press "the enemy of the people".

Well!  Let me tell you! That stirred the dust!  Even more than those times he tweeted about the various intelligence communities' failure to kowtow:

 
Every day we have to remind ourselves that the tweeter calling himself  @realDonaldTrump isn't a fake, he's actually the guy who won that crazy election and is now the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  The president of the United States is a plain-out ignorant doofus.

So now what? Well, now we admit to our own limitations and look to the Republican leaders to get us out of this. At this point they and only they can do it.  But will they?  We're seeing faint signs of insurrection among the GOP elite, but mostly they're all still of a mind to circle the wagons and pretend (a) this isn't happening, (b) their dignity is intact, and (c) their power is absolutely, wonderfully, absolute.

But, come on, they know better.  Here's the problem: Trump has opened the doors to the candy store and they're the kids rushing inside, grabbing, chewing, swallowing whole before the doors swing shut again.  Too, too delicious.

With the rise of Trump comes such enormous power for the GOP it would take bigger men than they are to look beyond the goodies to see the horrors ahead.  Only Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are saying out loud what many of them are thinking: This could go bad.  Real bad.  Don't shut out the messengers. Don't turn off the normal people.  There will come a day when we'll need them.

The rest of us won't sit back and watch this debacle without a fight, but it'll be a long battle unless the GOP gives up some ground, unless they see what the rest of us so clearly see.  Donald Trump may deliver the goods for them but at what price?  When it's all over, where will the country be?  Will those pounds of flesh, the selling of souls, have been worth it?

We know the answers. Now we have to convince the impenetrable Republicans that an unwitting "enemy of the people" sits in the ultimate catbird seat and it's up to them to do something about it. 

I'm wishing us good luck with that.  And Godspeed.

Hillary Clinton takes those mugs on and wins! (So what's new?)

So yesterday was the day Hillary Clinton finally testified on the Benghazi tragedy at hearings in both the House and the Senate.  The Republicans have been after her for months now to get it done, but things happened, including Influenza and her fall and subsequent hospitalization for a concussion in late December. (A clear stall, wicked lady. Hmmpph!)

No surprise, was it, that if the Republicans pushed that hard to get her on the stand, it would be theater less like Shakespeare's Globe and more like Gonzo Gaiety.  Satisfying, isn't it, that they didn't disappoint?

I don't know about you, but they far exceeded my expectations.  Those rascals did what they set out to do and the results were pretty much as predicted (by some of us.  Yea, verily, most of us).  Hillary the Indomitable chewed them up and spit them out, one by one.  I watched in horrified awe as they each entered the arena--impatient, it seemed, to become her next victim.  What were they thinking?

Kentucky's whippersnapper-in-residence, Rand Paul, probably couldn't know that lecturing in slow-drawl ("I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that"), was about as effective as my then-six-year-old assuming some sense of superiority by shouting, "I hate you!"

He must not have been looking at Hillary when he said it, because, already oblivious to his own sense of proportion when it comes to tragedies (Really, Randy? 'The worst tragedy since 9/11'?? Let's just look.), he went on:  "Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable."

Well, now, sonny, you'd best get hold of yourself.  "Inexcusable" is a mighty strong word.  It's been known to come back 'round and bite a busy body in the ass.

Ron Johnson, Republican senator from Wisconsin, harped on and on about the initial protest reports until Hillary forcefully reminded him, "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk that night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

(Johnson the senator later told a radio host, "It was theatrics.  She didn't want to answer questions so she makes a big show of it.")

Later, John McCain tells Hillary her answers are "unsatisfactory" and then goes back to questioning why the State Department called the attacks "a protest" way back in September when it turns out they weren't.  (Note to John:  See Hillary's answer to your good friend and colleague, Ron Johnson, above. Now get outta here.)

These hearings were not set up to get answers to the Benghazi raid, they were set up to get Hillary.  Everybody inside and outside those rooms knew that--the Republicans bent on bullying her; the Democratic Greek Chorus determined to defend her, the millions of watchers hoping to see a catfight.

Everybody got what they wanted.

And in the end Hillary took the blame, told the truth and won the day.  Because she's Hillary and they're so not.

(Cross-posted at Dagblog, as always.)

The SCOTUS Five: Just Asses

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

 _________________________

Yesterday, five "justices" of the Supreme Court--the usual suspects: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy--overturned most of McCain-Feingold, wrinkled up large chunks of the constitution, and laid to rest any laughable remnant of a notion that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  (Unless you're one of those who actually buys into that hokum that a corporation is really a person.  In which case, more about that later.)


Yesterday those five scamps saw another chance to give their corporate heroes the gift that keeps on giving--namely US on a platter--and made into law the right for "corporations, trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups"  to spend any amount they wish from any old source, in order to bash, lash, eviscerate, decapitate, or otherwise destroy, any political candidate who might seriously get in their way.  No holds barred anymore.  None.  Free at last, free at last. . .

 But, since this is America, the decision by those fair-minded (as opposed to "activist") gents, those black-robed pillars of our society, was all-inclusive:  Yes, "trade associations, unions and non-profit groups" get their chance, too.  NOW we're breathing easy.  But, wait. . . tsk. . .hmmm.   Since none of the above have treasuries anywhere near as vast as the corporations,  there might be some slight  disadvantage.  But never mind.  The law says they're included, and the law is the law.

So let's say the UAW empties its coffers in order to get a like-minded candidate elected, but GM really doesn't like the guy.  Every day for, say, six months, right up until Election Day, GM reaches into its pocket, pulls out a fist full of change, and goes after him.  A few days worth of GM's pocket change equals the UAW's treasury over their entire lifetime if they never spent another dime.  Who is going to win?  I don't know about you, but the suspense won't be killing me.

But back to the person-hood issue.  What kind of person is this "corporation"?  Is he/she young?  Old?  Male?  Female?  Black?  White?  Brown?  Yellow?  Red?  Single?  Married?  Gay?  Christian?  Jew?  Buddhist?  Muslim?  Rastafarian?  Other?  Does he/she have a criminal record?  Should he/she have a criminal record?  Is he/she even a full-time citizen of these United States, or are his/her interests elsewhere?  Why don't we know these things?

If a corporation can be a person, can a person be a corporation?  Can my liver and kidneys make up my board of directors or do I have to have a quorum?  Do I still have to pay taxes?  If I beg hard enough and lie good enough will my government give me somebody else's taxes?  Can I get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card?  Can I buy a Senator?

So many questions.  But this is serious.   It all started because an unpleasant little group of people called "Citizens United" made a nasty movie about Hillary Clinton.  I don't know all the details, and I don't care, but apparently things didn't work out on the distribution trail, so they took their gripes all the way to the top.   I don't know how this happened, either, but somehow a 20-year-old court decision in Michigan, my Michigan, Austin vs The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, got hot-footed, too.  Thrown out along with the bathwater.

All day yesterday and into today it's been a veritable firestorm, all the flak over that one ruling.  When John McCain heard of the court's decision to decimate the bill he co-wrote with Russ Feingold, he said, wanly,  “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions.  However, it appears that key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.”

Russ Feingold took it harder:  "Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’  Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.  The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."  


Last year, Feingold stuck his finger up in the air, felt which way the wind was blowing, and knew this was coming.  He spoke about it on the senate floor last October:  

"Before BCRA was passed, corporations were making huge soft money donations. They were also spending money on phony issue ads. That’s what Title II was aimed at. But what they were not doing was running election ads that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. That has been prohibited in this country for at least 60 years, though it is arguable that the Tillman Act in 1907 prohibited it forty years before that. So it is possible that the Court’s decision will not just take us back to a pre-McCain-Feingold era, but back to the era of the robber baron in the 19^th century. That result should frighten every citizen of this country. The Court seems poised to ignite a revolution in campaign financing with a stroke of its collective pen that no one contemplated even six months ago. "

I think that's pretty much what Jefferson was thinking.  But since the SCOTUS Five are not "activist" judges, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.  The law is the law.  Until it isn't anymore.   But do not fret, O ye of little faith, the justices taketh away state's rights (Bush v. Gore), but giveth them back whenever the mood strikes.  The law is the law when they say it is.

Final thought:  Every one of those bastards are in this for the long haul.  That means an entire lifetime, if they so wish it.  They are NOT too big to fail.   If they decree it, we shall fold.

I don't know about you, but I'M not taking the blame.  (Not that that makes me feel any better.)


Ramona

(Cross-posted at Talking Points Memo and Alternet)

Here We Go Again. . .

"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me. And I welcome their hatred!"
FDR, Madison Square Garden, October 31, 1936
_____________________

"The bear market would no doubt have magically turned around by now, and those failing geniuses at the helm of our flat-lined megacorporations would no doubt be busy manufacturing new profits and putting people back to work — if only Mr. Obama had solved the banking crisis, had lowered taxes on the rich, had refused to consider running up those giant deficits (a difficult thing to do at the same time that you are saving banks and lowering taxes), and had abandoned any inclination that he might have had to reform health care and make it a little easier for ordinary American kids to get a better education."
Bob Herbert, NYT, March 7, 2009
_______________________

"Americans all over this country hope for change. They hope the corruption, earmarking and pork-barrel practices will stop. What are we giving them? We are giving them a slap in the face, that is what we are giving them ... So much for the promise of change."
John McCain, Senate floor, March 2, 2009
(41 days after Obama's Inauguration)
________________________

Oh, that Grand Old Party. . .don't you just love them? Is there a former regime anywhere in the world more under-appreciated than they are? Why won't we listen?? Yeah, they've done some things in the past--some things that might have caused a tiny bit of the problems we're facing today--but if we just give them one more chance they promise to change their ways. Because, after all, they are the party of change. . .

Before we turn all those billionaires into mere millionaires, and before we do something as drastic as create jobs for the great unwashed, and before we make the whole damned country healthy, could we please, please just listen to what they have to say??

You know, there was a time when I might have indulged them--a very long, long time ago--but you give an inch with those people and they'll take a mile. I'm listening again to FDR's famous Madison Square Gardens speech, given in October 1936, and it sickens me that it's the same speech Barack Obama should be giving today.



How have we come to this again? Where was everybody? Oh, there were voices raised against the current Right Wing machine--many millions of them--but again, for way too long, we were treated as quaint, foolish Chicken Littles: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

So now that the sky has fallen, can we please get back to reality? Can we not give another moment's breath to the GOP's pompous hate mongers, their selfish twits, their holier-than-thous? If President Obama ever wants to get us on the right track again, he has to turn against them in order to be for us. That's his job. Hold him to it.


As Bob Herbert said today, in yet another smack dab, right on column, "I don’t know whether President Obama’s ultimate rescue plan for the financial industry will work. He is a thoughtful man running a thoughtful administration and the plan, a staggeringly complex and difficult work in progress, hasn’t been revealed yet.

What I know is that the renegade clowns who ruined this economy, the Republican right in alliance with big business and a fair number of feckless Democrats — all working in opposition to the interests of working families — have no credible basis for waging war against serious efforts to get us out of their mess."

Ramona