Politics from UnFox News

WASHINGTON — They just don't get it in Washington.

There's a gaping disconnect between what Americans care about and what President Barack Obama and Congress, Democrats and Republicans are actually doing. A new Associated Press-GfK poll tells the story: contempt for lawmakers, a bare majority approving what Obama's doing.

Or just listen to Robert Watson.

He backed Obama in 2008. He lost his job at a direct mail company in the Great Recession. And he's been looking for work ever since. Neither Obama nor Congress, Watson says, is addressing what really matters: "I'm still unemployed."

"There's nobody doing any hiring," he says. And when they are, "100 people are going for the same job." He wants Obama to focus more on creating jobs, Congress to stop the partisan games and both to remember who sent them to Washington.

"They just can't seem to agree on what's important for this country," laments Watson, 59, of Annapolis, Md. "It's just a mess."

Now look at Washington.

The White House and Congress are consumed with the partisan gridlock on overhauling health care. That issue is overshadowing everything else – even legislation in the House and Senate to provide unemployment relief.

The Senate did vote Wednesday to extend many elements of last year's economic stimulus, including help for the jobless. But that isn't final: The vote merely sends the measure into talks with the House, which is wary about some Senate provisions.

At the same time, Democrats and Republicans are jockeying for the upper hand on every issue they can ahead of this fall's midterm elections. Corruption is the latest: Each party has spent the past week painting the other as more tainted.

Job creation and economic recovery – and cooperation in Washington to achieve them – are too often taking a back seat.

The gulf between what voters are focused on and what Washington is talking most about seems as wide as the anger is deep in America, and that helps explain why people are so turned off, so furious at politicians of any stripe.

Only 22 percent of Americans – less than at any previous point in Obama's presidency – approve of Congress, the new AP-GfK poll shows. Just over half like what Obama's doing. Frustration is directed at both Republicans and Democrats. Half of all people say they want to fire their congressman.

Unemployment and the economy are among the issues Americans are most concerned about; health care trails behind those issues as well as terrorism and the federal budget deficit.

Despite promises to do things differently, Democrats and Republicans alike are engaged in the politics of usual, maneuvering for election-year advantage. And that's exactly what their constituents say they don't want. People are tired of the games. And why wouldn't they be?

Nearly 10 percent of Americans don't have jobs, and the prospects for finding them anytime soon are bleak. The Labor Department reported Wednesday that unemployment rose in 30 states in January, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country. From coast to coast, Americans are questioning whether anyone they've elected is on their side – and actually working for them.

Even voters who supported Obama and his Democrats have soured on Washington. That's a danger for the party in power as it looks to hang onto control of the House and Senate in November. Angry voters tend to reject the status quo; that's how Democrats rose to power in Congress in 2006 and Obama won the White House in 2008. Today, voters are still furious with Washington – if not more so. And now Democrats could be blamed.

Simply listen to voters, and you'll hear their priorities – and their frustrations – loud and clear.

"The jobs, the economy is a much bigger issue for this country than trying to push this health care bill through," says Republican John Campbell of Del Rio, Texas. He wants both Obama and Congress to shift the focus – and work with each other.

"There needs to be some bipartisanship," says Campbell, 52, a warden at a federal detention center.

College student Claire Hatton of Wellington, Ohio, seems jaded at age 19.

"It doesn't seem to me like a whole lot is getting done except politics in Washington," says this self-identified independent. Enough with the arguing, enough with the fighting, she adds. "They should be working together and trying to get more things accomplished to benefit everyone."

And Obama?

"He should be doing more of what he said he would be doing," Hatton says. "He's straying off of campaign promises."

Retired kindergarten teacher Ann Heffernan of Memphis, Tenn., who doesn't belong to a political party, also questions Washington's agenda.

"They should be trying harder to get jobs for people," says Heffernan, 84.

Congress, Obama – "they just seem to be working against each other, and I don't see either one of them making big progress," she says.

"There is such a polarity" in Congress, bemoans retiree Carl Cheney, a Democrat from Wellsville, Utah.

Is government working for him?

"Heavens no," Cheney, 76, says, and launches into a blistering critique.

"Their most important job they feel is to get re-elected, and they have no concern for the nation or the public" – or what matters most to voters. His advice to lawmakers: "Try to develop a little statesmanship instead of individual greed and interest in their jobs."

Democrat Benny Newman, 79, of Tulsa, Okla., recently lost his job in a local school district because of budget cuts.

He says neither Obama nor Congress is doing right: "Just bundle them in the same bag."

"They're spending too much money," he says, adding: "The economy is not well enough to support some of the things that they're doing."

Judging by what both Obama and Congress are wrestling with, he says: "I don't think either one of them is interested in the general public."

Or, more to the point, listening to it.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE – Liz Sidoti is the AP's national political writer and has covered national politics since 2003. Christine Simmons has covered Washington for the AP since 2007. AP Writers Ann Sanner and Natasha Metzler contributed to this report.

From his insider vantage point, McClellan cited the White House’s ‘carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval’ – and he called the Washington press corps ‘complicit enablers’.

More: continued here

More: continued here

We all depend on reasonably-priced insurance to function and I'm not talking just about heath insurance. Without affordable property-casualty insurance, we couldn't drive cars or own homes, doctors wouldn't be able to practice medicine, small businesses like day care centers wouldn't exist and local governments couldn't function. Having insurance is not an option. For better or worse, the property-casualty insurance industry is a critical sector of the U.S. economy.

It's also one of the least regulated, and most influential, profitable and unaccountable industries in the nation, answering to no federal agency and regulated by a nation of mostly weak state agencies. It is exempt from federal anti-trust laws. Most state insurance departments have little ability to control insurance rates. With few exceptions, these departments have neither the funding nor political will to exercise proper control over this industry, save its main regulatory job - to prevent a company's insolvency. Policyholders have very little protection otherwise. The result is an industry that can make extraordinary claims and demands on lawmakers that go nearly unchallenged.

Indeed, it is an industry capable of threatening major damage to a state's economy. It usually gets what it wants. I recall that back in 1986, all five West Virginia medical malpractice insurance companies threatened to pull out of the state unless insurance industry regulatory laws were repealed. The state Supreme Court stopped them but the legislature capitulated anyway and repealed these laws.

This kind of power has made states incredibly slow to act when it comes to regulating insurers. The one big regulatory success story - Prop. 103 in California - came about in 1988 when voters, tired of inaction by the legislature, rose up in the face of massive insurance industry spending and voted in strong regulation. (See the Consumer Federation of America's report finding years later that California was the top-performing state for keeping rates down and providing comprehensive consumer protection.)

But then look at Illinois, one of the least regulated insurance markets in the nation. When Illinois lawmakers passed their clearly unconstitutional "cap" on compensation for medical malpractice victims a few years ago, they also passed insurance reform with strong rate oversight and new transparency requirements. Suspecting the "cap" would be invalidated (almost guaranteed since two prior "caps" had been struck down), the industry demanded, apparently with the backing of the medical lobbies, that a "non-severability" clause be added. That meant that if the cap were struck down, the industry regulatory laws would be thrown out as well. This happened last month.

The real tragedy is that the Illinois Division of Insurance believes that these new insurance reforms (and not the cap) so greatly improved the medical malpractice insurance environment with expanded coverage and lower premiums for doctors, that it is now practically begging lawmakers to repass it.

Why don't doctors get this? They complain, correctly, that they are being price-gouged by their medical malpractice insurers, but refuse to join with consumer groups to push for strong insurance industry regulation. I once asked the then head of the American Medical Association, Dr. Donald Palmisano, about this - on live television. I said politely, "I do not know why people like Dr. Palmisano and the rest of the AMA do not join with consumer groups like ours to advocate for strong reforms of the insurance industry." He responded by attacking us and complaining about the U.S. legal system - as usual. Medical societies do a tremendous disservice to their members by taking such a view.

Unfortunately, this attitude continues to pop up. In Kansas, for example, there is a case right now before the state Supreme Court challenging a broad and brutal "cap" on compensation that has been in effect since the 1980s. No one really knows what will happen but the Kansas Medical Society is getting ready - and not in a good way. Instead of reacting like the Illinois Division of Insurance and focusing on insurance reforms that could actually increase competition and stabilize rates for doctors, the medical society announced they will work to change the state's constitution. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising since a Kansas Medical Society affiliate insures most Kansas doctors.

It might be a good idea for doctors in Kansas to listen to a few insiders, though. In 2002, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) repeated some illuminating industry quotes on the Senate floor, like one from the American Insurance Association: "[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings." These quotes reminded us of an even earlier remark from the Assistant Vice President for State Farm, who in 1986 sent a letter to the Kansas Insurance Department warning that premiums won't drop because, "[W]e believe the effect of tort reform on our book of business would be small. ... [T]he loss savings resulting from the non-economic cap will not exceed 1% of our total indemnity losses." Didn't matter. The "cap" passed.

The property-casualty insurance industry exercises political clout with impunity because of its dominant position in the economy and because lawmakers are intimidated by its power. It is going to take strong political leadership to rein this industry in. We hope someone tries.

This is a big piece of momentum for real health care reform advocates.

As the Progressive Change Campaign Committee continues to whip Senators on passing a public option with reconciliation, Democratic Senate candidates in Arkansas and North Carolina are taking a populist tone as they start campaigning on the public option. Mother Jones published a piece on this yesterday morning:

Full disclosure, I am consulting on Elaine Marshall's campaign. But as you can see, it's easy to work for candidates who are willing to take strong progressive stands.

Elaine was the first candidate in the country to sign onto this letter and is proud to join other health care progressives like Bill Halter. She remains the only candidate in the race who is running toward and on the public option -- and this isn't the first time she's made it a point in her campaign.

She's spoken about it several times on Daily Kos, and even launched a petition in October calling the Senate to pass a public option right away. Here is an excerpt from the petition:

The current health care bill being debated in the U.S. Senate is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make real, effective change for America.

Elaine understands what real health reform looks like and isn't afraid to push forward and do what's right for the people she represents. I hope you'll join me in supporting her as North Carolina's next Senator.

Reuters - The Senate on Wednesday passed a $149 billion package of jobless aid and tax breaks, as Democrats continued efforts to lower the 9.7 percent unemployment rate before congressional elections in November.

While all of Washington is in a frenzy over ex-Representative Eric Massa's groping and tickling, some actual news (and actual progress, one would like to hope) is being made on the subject of ethics in Congress. Sure, it's more fun to watch Massa's implosion on nationwide television, or to come up with headlines that just write themselves (how about: "Weapon of Massa Self-Destruction"?), but we shouldn't allow this sideshow to distract us from what could shape up this year as a contest between Democrats and Republicans over who can denounce earmarks the loudest. And not just denounce -- but actually ban the practice.

House Democrats, led by Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Norm Dicks, have just announced that for the upcoming budget, no earmarks will be allowed which are directed to a specific for-profit company. This will ban the practice of steering Pentagon money to singled-out companies in individual districts -- which are essentially no-bid contracts outside the Pentagon's fiscal control.

This is not as much of a "giant step" in ethical earmark reform as it might initially sound, once you decode the parsed language. Earmarks are generally defined as line-items in budget bills which direct money to be spent for a very specific purpose. They are usually inserted by individual members of Congress to benefit entities in their state or district. These entities can be governmental, non-profit, or for-profit.

From a press release by Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Today's proposal totally bans corporate earmarks -- critical reform that addresses concerns that many Americans have. It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on Members of Congress. This ban will ensure good stewardship of taxpayer dollars by the federal government across all agencies.

To prevent any conflicts of interest, this initiative will empower the Defense Department -- not Members of Congress -- to choose which businesses and projects will receive funding. It will open the doors of the Pentagon to small start-ups with no inside connections. It will also require federal agencies to audit 5 percent of all earmarks directed to non-profit entities, to help ensure that non-profit earmarks go for their intended purpose.

In other words, we're only banning corporate earmarks, not all the rest of them. And it started out as only a one-year (coincidentally, also an "election-year") ban, so you'll have to forgive me if I take a wait-and-see approach to what actually happens in the future. Republicans are still figuring out how to respond to this opening bid, and one of the things they're reportedly discussing is to come out against all earmarks. In other words, they're considering raising the ante in this game.

I should point out that this is all happening only over in the House, at least so far. The Senate isn't particularly interested in banning earmarks, mostly because senators generally get bigger earmarks into the budget than representatives. Neither party in the Senate is likely to embrace banishing earmarks completely, or even partially. This, if the House is successful in any sort of ban, could set up a inter-house budget battle later this year.

This is all to the good, as far as I'm concerned. To have both parties trying to outdo each other on who is going to clean up the lobbyist swamp faster is the type of debate I'd certainly like to see more of from Washington. And one which could resonate deeply with the voters. Because the alternative is to stand firm with lobbyists and a corrupt system, which is not going to be very defensible on the campaign trail this year, I'd wager.

Nancy Pelosi certainly deserves some credit on ethics reform. The Democrats passed a sweeping ethics reform law when they came into power in the House, and they got the House ethics watchdog committee working again (it had been completely broken by the Republicans, previously). But the House ethics panel is simply not good enough to take on the inherent problem. Because every single politician in Washington firmly believes something which is absolutely untrue -- that campaign contributions never (never never never!) buy any influence or access or favoritism when it comes time to write legislation. This is so laughably not the case that it's not even work the ink (photons?) to rebut here.

For instance, here is the House Ethics Committee itself, on its investigation into seven members for their use of earmarks to get carve-outs from the Pentagon budget for their favorite donors (this investigation likely spurred today's announcement by Democrats, by the way):

Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions.

And if you believe that, I've got a "bridge to nowhere" to sell you. Here's how the story ran in the Washington Post, for contrast:

The House ethics committee, in an investigation of five Democrats and two Republicans on the subcommittee that funds the Pentagon, found that the seven lawmakers steered more than $245 million worth of earmarks to clients of a single firm and collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from the firm's lobbyists and its clients in little more than two years. Most of those clients were for-profit contractors, several of whom told congressional investigators that they thought believed [sic] their donations made it possible for them to win support for their projects.

Even as the Justice Department continues a criminal investigation of this practice, the ethics committee found no "direct or indirect link" in the earmarks-for-contributions allegations, saying the lawmakers each made their decisions independently of the donations. Democratic leaders effectively rejected that ruling Wednesday by declaring the need to forbid such earmarks, although some are pushing for further steps.

Politicians in Washington are used to this doublethink being unquestioned and unquestionable truth -- that campaign contributions buy nothing from them, and that they simply are never influenced by any donor on any issue whatsoever. The fact that it is sheer bunkum escapes them.

But it doesn't escape anyone else. And picking a fight on who can ban more earmarks right now has the possibility of turning the subject into a major campaign issue this year. It feeds into the whole "deficit-hawk" and anti-corruption feeling out there. Personally, I wouldn't mind in the least if every politician being interviewed anywhere on the campaign trail had to answer the question: "Are you for banning all earmarks, and if not, why not?" Because it would force them to defend the practice, which (again) politicians in Washington see as normal behavior, but voters see as rank and rancid corruption of the political process.

John McCain did try to make this an issue in the last presidential campaign. But then, during last year's budget process, the press got confused and tried to hold President Obama to McCain's promises. The net result was earmarks were banned from one budget bill, but not from all of them (making it a shell game, in essence). But McCain had a point. The process is utterly and completely out of control. In one year's budget, thousands of earmarks are now routinely inserted. This isn't the way it used to happen -- earmarks used to be comparatively rare.

Because the process is so absolutely out of control -- and because it is so obviously institutionalized corruption -- the only answer may be to just ban the whole process itself. While Democrats have made an interesting opening bid in this political game by banning all for-profit corporate earmarks, I will be interested to see where the issue goes from here. I would thoroughly approve of an all-out bidding war between Democrats and Republicans on who can ban the most earmarks, and who can make the ban more permanent. It might not help much on the overall size of the budget (earmarks are actually a pretty small fraction of the total budget, in dollar amounts), but ethically and symbolically (and, not least, politically) it would be the right thing to do. For both parties.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

New York Times

More: continued here

Kos is threatening Dennis Kucinich, of all people, with a primary if he doesn't vote for health care "reform."

Let me get this straight, Kos wants to primary one of the most reliable and principled progressives in Congress (perhaps the most principled one) because Kucinich doesn't want to vote for a bill which will force Americans to buy crappy health insurance from private companies?

First they came for Massa, and now, not being able to find any dirt on Kucinich, they're putting the pressure on, and Kos is going along with it?

Because, lord knows, what progressives should spend their time and money on this year is primarying someone like Kucinich. What they should do is start a left wing fucking civil war so that Obama, Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel can sit back and laugh as the left wing tears itself apart over a bill which, whether you want it passed or not, no one who is on the left wing should think is better than mediocre.

Be very clear, if "progressives" like Kos want to primary Kucinich, many other progressives will defend him and fight for him. So, instead of picking up new seats, we'll be wasting time and money fighting over a seat already held by a progressive.

Those who want to go after Kucinich are acting as Obama and Rahm's heavies. Acting as enforcers for a President who believes in indefinite detention without trial, who has expanded the war in Afghanistan, gutted civil rights and who wants to force every American to buy health insurance from private companies.

It's time for Kos's 15 minutes to end. The man's stupidity, hubris and willingness to be used by a president who is objectively a conservative means he is now doing more damage to the left than good.

BY PETER SCHEER--As California voters begin the process of selecting the next Governor of the ungovernable Golden State, the leading candidates owe them a demonstration of their commitment to government transparency.

For Republican candidate Meg Whitman, the test will be whether she decides to release her tax returns. For Attorney General Jerry Brown, presumptive democratic nominee, the test will be whether he opens wide the door to the records of his previous governorships.

Whitman thus far has resisted journalists' requests for a copy of her tax returns. She is, of course, within her rights, legally, in doing so. But in 2010 that is not a right on which a candidate can stand and still expect to be competitive in an election for high office.

Voters' interest in a candidate's tax returns is not just voyeuristic. In the case of a wealthy candidate like Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, tax returns can be a window on her character, showing, for example: whether she is generous with charitable contributions and who benefits from her giving (her alma mater? people in need?); whether she has been aggressive in the use of tax shelters to avoid tax; and how her tax rate compares with the rates that most voters pay.

These data points are both revealing and a matter of legitimate interest to voters. Disclosing tax returns is part of California's political culture for governors. Schwarzenegger has released his taxes. So did Gray Davis and Whitman's fellow eBay millionare, Steve Westly. If Whitman's tax returns contain information that is embarrassing, all the more reason to release them now, before public attention focuses on the governor's race. An embarrassing tax return can even be spun positively--for example, as proof that Whitman is a true outsider who never planned to enter politics.

But disclose the returns she must.

As candidate for Governor, Jerry Brown has left a long paper trail. Not just his years as AG or as mayor of Oakland, but also his two terms as Governor from 1975 to 1983. But don't go looking for the records of his governorship, which are stashed in an archive at University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Under an obscure provision of the Public Records Act (Gov Code section 6268), governors, once they leave office, have the option of locking away their gubernatorial records for a "period of 50 years or the death of the Governor, whichever is later."

Jerry Brown has exercised this option, which means that all the public records of his governorship-including the anti-tax groundswell that resulted in Prop 13, Brown's opposition to the death penalty, his battles with California's oil companies over tax and environmental issues, and much more-are exempt from the Public Records Act.

Put aside for a moment the absurdity of California's 50-year secrecy rule (the records of US presidents, by contrast, are closed off for only 12 years). Brown's pledge of government transparency can't be taken seriously as long as he continues to invoke the Public Records Act's exemption for his gubernatorial records-records which were public while he was governor, which were paid for by taxpayers, and which are now more than 27 years old.

In fairness to Brown, he is willing to pry open the door to these documents on a case-by-case basis. In response to the First Amendment Coalition's record request, Brown, through his lawyer, offered to "waive the fifty-year access restriction . . . as to" the organization's executive director, and he has done the same for several reporters. But the point is that no government official should get to pick and choose who can see public records.

Selective access to information and freedom-of-information are mutually exclusive.

The test for Brown is whether, in advance of the election, he will waive-for the public generally-the 50-year exemption for his gubernatorial records, giving access to all (subject, of course, to the exceptions in the law that apply to any public records). Brown can do this with a stroke of the pen, just as he invoked the exemption in the first place.

If he refuses, voters will not only have reason to doubt Brown's open-government credentials. They will wonder if there's something in the archive that he is trying to hide.
----
Peter Scheer is executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization advocating free speech and government transparency.

Hey Alabama, first off, congrats on the stellar season the Crimson Tide had. Wow. That defense is nasty. I spent some time in Alabama when we shot Talladega Nights. We stayed in Birmingham. I had what may have been the best ribs ever and also found a great restaurant that made amazing mojitos.

We shot during an actual race at Talladega and I'll never forget that massive crowd and the crazy fun of the infield and the parties they had.

So clearly you're a state that loves America, believes in hard work and God. I got the sense that Alabama is a place where people don't want handouts and don't much care for people talking out of the side of their mouth.

So here's my question: why do you keep electing Senator Shelby?

I know that with all the news being owned by big corporations it's hard to get real information. And with having to work or look for work it's even harder to search for the true story so that's why I thought I'd let you know what Shelby's been doing in the Senate Banking Committee. Currently he's doing everything he can do to kill the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This is a watchdog agency that would be created to make sure working people don't get ripped off by big Wall Street Banks and credit card companies.

So why would Senator Shelby fight against the interests of the people of Alabama? Simple. Cause those same banks and credit card companies are the ones who give him a ton of cash. Here's a list of his biggest donors.

I can't imagine any person I met in Alabama being cool with their elected official doing the bidding of giant financial institutions over the working families he's supposed to represent.

Now I know some of you might think I'm some liberal Hollywood type but that's also not true. I was born in Colorado and grew up in Pennsylvania with family in Texas and Oklahoma. The big banks and credit card companies, and health insurance companies have spent billions trying to get you to dismiss truths like this by dismissing it as liberal agitating.

If you don't believe me please call Shelby's office and ask -- (202) 224-5744. They might tell you he is supporting creation of a financial protection agency but they're not being completely truthful. Shelby and Democrat Evan Bahy from Indiana both want the agency to be under the control of the Federal Reserve which is made up of...you guessed it, the very same private, for-profit banks the agency is supposed to regulate. Sneaky shit, eh? Ask them why they think that will work. At the point they will give you some answer about the Federal Reserve being an institution of integrity. Then you know they'll BS'ing you. Tell them you're from Alabama and for them not to treat you like a fool. Then say the magic words: if Senator Shelby doesn't support an independent Financial Protection Agency I won't vote for him.

A few dozen calls will get his attention.

The other problem is that we the people don't have billions of dollars to fight for this. All we have is our vote. But it's powerful. Without it Senators like Shelby and Bayh and Leiberman and McConnell have to go home.

One other question you may have is "why do you care Mr. Hollywood?" Well once again, I've only lived in Los Angeles for five years and I care because I have kids and I love this country. If these banks and credit card companies keep raising rates and charging crazy fees our country will go into another great depression. That means people will be out of work and we as a whole will suffer. That's why I care.

Please forward this to other people in Alabama. America needs you.

Or feel free to forward videos we made to get this message out with a few laughs attached.

None of us were paid a dime to make this and several of the participants were Republicans as well as Democrats. This is a right vs. wrong not a right vs. left issue. And if we get Shelby to wake up on this issue, when we make Talladega Nights 2, I'm buying the ribs and beer.

Democrats can win the mid-term elections and re-build a stable, long-term governing majority -- if they want to.

Whether they do is another thing. To chose just one issue: they've bungled the health care debate by talking about equity, cost reduction, the cost of quality of care, and how to cover the uninsured, when the winning argument is... jobs.

That's right. Our overseas competitors for contracts big and small are eating our lunch because they don't have to pay their employees' health care. And every contract an American firm doesn't win because they have higher overhead means lost American jobs.

Ever hear a Democrat make that argument? Of course not. Democrats are too busy responding to phony GOP claims about death panels and socialism to make a strong case for crucial legislation.

What about the Great Recession? The broad consensus is that it was caused by weak-to-no regulation under the Bush Administration -- especially of the financial sector -- combined with the cost of servicing the $12 trillion national debt created by Republican tax cuts. Even now, Republicans are insisting the cure for what ails us is less regulation, and lower taxes.

Do we hear Democrats blaming Republican ideology for wiping out $14 trillion in household wealth, causing the worst unemployment since the 1930s, triggering the slow-mo foreclosure crisis, creating mountains of debt for our children to re-pay, and tipping the political balance in favor of corporations? Not really.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party -- or what's left of it -- is not only dug in on the wrong side of history on almost every issue; it's marginalized itself almost out of existence. In a recent Gallup Poll, only 23 percent of the electorate admitted they were Republicans, compared with 34 percent who confessed to being Democrats. Its governing right wing has driven every moderate voice out of their party and is still purging itself of suspicious characters like John McCain and Kay Bailey Hutchinson. And it's adopted postures that almost guarantee the party permanent minority status, because most of America's African-Americans, Hispanics, women and gays will never vote for one of their candidates.

To make things more interesting, that rump GOP is under pressure from really extreme groups to its right -- groups that insist the party adopt their platforms or else. The Tea Party is just one such example. Meanwhile, every right-wing assertion, however ridiculous, gains credence and apparent immortality in what Robert Byrd deliciously called Glenbeckistan. In fact, it's not much of a stretch to claim that much of what calls itself the Republican Party today actually lives in a sort of Bizzaro World in which no hysterical claim is too extreme -- as long as it's made about Democrats.

This is the party that expects to sweep the this Fall's elections -- a party that believes it represents the majority of Americans, and gets stronger as it gets smaller. It's really a shame, because you can't have a two-party system without two major parties.

But do we hear anything about these delusions from Democrats? Noooo.

And while some Democrats might think that Woodrow Wilson gave the right advice when he said you should never kill a man who's committing suicide, the Democratic leadership might also consider that the main reason for rank-and-file disenchantment is a real hunger to shoot back at the Republicans, instead of wasting time singing Kumbaya. There are even rumors around Washington that the Republican leadership is only interested in victory.

In fairness to what's left of the Republican Party -- not that they deserve it -- all this hysterical rhetoric is just an attempt to dodge blame for all the problems they caused with their so-called ideas. They know they can't defend their record, so they're trying to change the subject.

Luckily for the Democrats, Republicans are trying to do that with blatant lies, easily exploded. Screaming that Obama's deficit spending saddles future generations with debt, when $11 trillion of that $12 trillion debt was created by Republicans, is only one.

Why we don't hear more about this from Democratic officials -- not to mention more Democratic columnists -- is a mystery to me. It's almost as if they're suffering from a legislative version of battered wife syndrome -- afraid to leave, but afraid to fight back.

Republicans have chosen to become a shrinking, aging party. They seem to long for the America of pre-1960s Hollywood movies. And they seem to think that to get there, they need a party unsullied by most gays, most African-Americans, many Hispanics, and all pro-choice women -- plus people who live in this universe. In sum, they've renounced any danger they may have had, after the Bush years, of being able to claim possession of a ruling majority.

Looking at this train wreck, the reasons Democrats and their supporters in the media are only banging on these subjects soto voce is puzzling, at best. After all, it alienates their own constituencies, who want more than anything to take the fight to the Republicans, and are beginning to suspect that Hillary Clinton would have made a better president, after all. History, the issues, and the facts all favor the Democrats, but they can't seem to man up for the job.

Why not, I can't say. But maybe it's not that important. It's not like the future of the country is at stake.

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore" -- the celebrated mantra of the 1976 film, Network, kept going through my mind as I read about New York congressman Eric Massa's announcement that he would not run for reelection, followed by his decision to resign "due to health reasons." Yes, he had another bout of cancer in December, but his resignation comes as the House Ethics Committee is scheduled to investigate a male staffer's allegations of sexual harassment!

Attracted by this retired military man's anti- Iraq and Afghanistan war positions, my husband and I supported Massa financially, and my husband raised money for his campaign.

Attracted by John Edwards's focus on poverty and universal medical coverage, we supported him generously, and helped his presidential primary fundraising efforts.

We were also strong supporters of Elliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton.

Many Republican donors must feel the way we do. Shortly after Massa's announcement, California State Senator Roy Ashburn, a vehement opponent of gay rights, was arrested for drunk driving with an unidentified man in his passenger seat -- after leaving a gay nightclub.

While Democrats mostly get caught cheating on their wives with girlfriends or prostitutes, Republican sex scandals tend to be on the more seedy side. For example, Congressman Jon Hinson was arrested for having sex in a House Men's Room after a previous arrest for exposing himself to an undercover police officer. Republican Senator Larry Craig pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in an airport men's room.

More in the Democratic sex scandal tradition, South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanders, married and father of four, was caught having an affair with an Argentine woman.

All these men, and others like them including Gary Hart (D), Mark Foley (R), James E. Mc Greevey (D), David Vitter (R), to name only a few, risked their careers and betrayed the people who helped them get elected.

Why? Is it all about testosterone?

Research indicates a two-way relationship between testosterone levels in men and the attainment of power and dominance. Higher levels of testosterone lead to increased dominant and aggressive behavior. Higher levels of power and dominance, in turn, lead to increases in testosterone levels. Because higher testosterone levels are also linked to increased sex drive, powerful men are likely to be particularly sexually driven.

Higher levels of testosterone are also a factor contributing to the self confidence and hubris -- the belief that one can get away with anything including supporting anti-gay legislation while trying to pick up men in toilets, or having an affair while presenting oneself as the caring and devoted husband of a woman with terminal cancer -- that so many politicians exhibit. When Edwards confessed to his affair, he explained, "I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic." -- psychoanalytic jargon for a bad case of hubris.

Are some politicians driven to go beyond the risk inherent in illicit sex and take extreme risks to further enhance their enjoyment?

When Republicans like Hinson or Craig expose themselves to strangers, or solicit sex in men's rooms, they are taking risks far beyond the risk of having an illicit affair. Spitzer didn't just have extramarital sex, but went to call girls. Since he himself had passed anti-prostitution legislation in New York State, he had to be aware that his removal from office -- highly desired by his political enemies -- was a certainty if his illegal Empire Club escapades ever came to light.

From a young age, many boys and men are drawn to adrenaline raising risky behaviors. Engaging in life-risking sports and dangerous driving are among the factors that lead to much higher male than female accidental deaths rates. Men are more likely to be compulsive gamblers and to engage in impulsive violent behavior. A 2005 Merrill Lynch study concluded that when it comes to stock investments, men tend to take more risks than women, which leads them to make more mistakes.

It is likely that the history of the last 20 years would have been radically different were it not for political sex scandals. Gary Hart, not George Bush, might well have been our 41st president, were it not for his affair with Donna Rice. If so we may have been spared the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush. Did the distraction of his politically motivated "Lewinsky impeachment" lead Bill Clinton to not focus as much as he might have on Al Quaeda? Could 9/11 have been prevented? Wouldn't a scandal-free Clinton presidency have led to Al Gore becoming President?

Sex scandals lead to the nullification of voters choices. Spitzer was widely admired as a reformer and was elected governor of New York by 70% of the electorate -- an extraordinary vote of confidence. Many of his reforms have been nipped in the bud as a result of his resignation, and New Yorkers became saddled with a governor they did not vote for.

I am all in favor of the European attitude towards sex and politicians -- as long as it's legal and not contrary to their stated political positions, their sexual behavior concerns only them and their mates. While it wouldn't take care of sex scandals a la Spitzer or Craig, it would represent a giant step in the right direction. But that's not about to happen. There's no way the media is going to refrain from seedy and steaming news that attracts readers and viewers.

And so my husband and I have agreed -- no more risk taking with our political contributions. From now on we will support women candidates exclusively.

According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared a hotel room while on leave during the first Gulf War. "Stuart's at the edge of the bed," Clarke says Borsch told him at the time, "and [Massa] starts massaging him. Massa said, 'You'll have to get one of my special massages.' He called them 'Massa Massages.'" Ron Moss, a Navy shipmate and Borsch's roommate, confirmed that Borsch told him this story at the time.

Last week, I wrote a piece about the tea party movement and the obvious through-line of race, race-baiting, racism and the use of the Southern Strategy within the movement. The responses were mostly positive and supportive, while the responses from the far-right and tea party people were predictably obnoxious, contradictory and fact-free.

The dominant theme throughout the most outraged responses was, essentially: We're not racists, but here's why we're pissed about blacks and immigrants. For example, here's a particularly illustrative e-mail, reprinted as it was received:

Smart. I have dozens more just like it. Several of them tell me I'm an idiot for suggesting there's a racial component, followed closely with a line about how I should "go back to Cuba or Africa." Nope. No racism there. Nevertheless, no matter how unhinged the above message might be, it proves an important point -- my point.

Each topic abstractly hinges on race.

The insistence that the tea party movement is more about taxes, big government and personal freedoms is partly true. And many tea party people honestly believe it. But if you dig below the surface into the details underlying these banner themes, it's not difficult to find that, yes, it's about taxes -- taxes on the rich to finance the extravagant lives of layabout welfare queens, or big government "ramming health care down our throats" as a means of slavery reparations to African Americans, and personal freedoms being stripped away by a liberal fascist Nazi who wants to give money and handouts to minorities in the form of health care subsidies and mortgage relief. You know, typical Nazi behavior. If I had a dollar for every Nazi who wanted to funnel government cash to immigrants and minorities...

It's the subtext that gurgles just below the surface of these three topics that composes the tea party version of the Southern Strategy.

Developed by Republican strategists like Harry Dent and Pat Buchanan during the rebuilding of the GOP in the post Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act era, the Southern Strategy's goal was to win over southern whites by demonizing blacks using subterfuge, dog whistles and coded language. As I mentioned last week, the late Republican mastermind Lee Atwater described the use of the Southern Strategy as being all about the use of "abstract" issues that imply race without explicitly using direct racial epithets or even the words "black" or "white."

Atwater described some of the abstract issues of his era as "forced bussing" or taxes, and framing these issues in a way that subconsciously fuels white resentment towards blacks, and serves to coalesce white votes around Republican candidates. After all, Republicans will readily admit that trying to win over black voters has been a lost cause since LBJ, so why not exploit that loss by playing to white racial bias and thus locking down larger chunks of the white vote?

When Atwater was discussing this issue with political science professor Alexander P. Lamis (reported by Bob Herbert in the New York Times), the topic was Reagan and his cuts in food stamps and legal services in urban communities. Even though the Republicans had already won over the South, Atwater explained, these Reagan-era moves tended to reinforce white turnout and Wallace types. Again, it's not about direct racism, but it's borne out of a racial component.

That's the Southern Strategy. It's as old as the Civil War and the Southern white "fire-breathers," but only in the last 40 years has it become a significant subheading in the fear chapter of the Republican Party playbook.

In other words, this isn't a figment of my imagination or a wacky far-left conspiracy theory. The Southern Strategy was and still is very real. Look no further than the Willie Horton ad. The White Hands ad. The 2006 "Harold! Call me!" ad which set off white dog whistles in Tennessee about a black candidate having sex with a clearly naked blond white woman. Not ancient history by any stretch, nor have been the various attempts to fuel racial animosity against President Obama during and following the campaign.

Likewise, no one in charge of the tea party movement, save for obvious racist Dale Robertson (he of the pirate form of "niggaaarrrr"), is out there gathering members while sporting white headgear and spouting off obvious white supremacy slogans. This would backfire, as Atwater said during his Southern Strategy remarks. The subconscious racial element would suddenly become obvious and scare away supporters who aren't necessarily racist, or who are in denial about their racism. Instead, they rally supporters around issues like taxes, big government and personal freedoms. But with a not-so-hidden Southern Strategy wink.

The flimsy and contradictory policy arguments only make the winking racial subtext more obvious.

For instance, the president cut taxes for the middle class. According to the CBO, a full third of the projected national debt -- $3 trillion over the next 10 years -- is due to the president retaining middle class tax cuts and rolling back the alternative minimum tax so it doesn't absorb middle class earners. Tax cuts. So how, then, can the tea party reasonably claim that President Obama is all about taxing the middle class "to death," as some e-mailers argued?

For the tea party leadership, it's all politics, and politics is power. It's about saying "join us" so we can oppose "them" and their taxes to pay for the poor (wink, we mean blacks) and their health care handouts (for reparations to blacks, wink). Consequently, tea party organizers and their PR wing at Fox News and on talk radio are able to consolidate political and financial power.

Glenn Beck, this week, was at it again, suggesting that the U.S. Census was scheming to give lopsided representation to minorities. This on top of his ongoing line that President Obama hates white people and that health care reform is all about reimbursing black people because of slavery. Yeah. He's not so "abstract," as Lee Atwater once said.

In Beck's case, sure, he spends a considerable amount of time talking about freedom and something about red phones and assembling acronyms that spell out non-words like "OLGIARHY." But the race argument is ever present. As obvious as it is, he doesn't say that he hates black people or immigrants. He probably doesn't. But he's clearly stoking white resentment for ratings and financial gain. Beck, like it or not, is a major player in the tea party movement, as is Fox News Channel. Together, they've spent countless sums of cash promoting tea party rallies and endorsing tea party causes. They are inextricably linked. And the use of the Southern Strategy right out there in plain view.

To date, for all of their protests and e-mails, I have yet to hear or read about any tea party participant who has denounced Beck. Or denounced Limbaugh for his daily race-based grabassery (yesterday is was a pun about Eric Massa, Governor Patterson and the racial epithet "massa"). Or denounced the scores of people who turn up with witch doctor signs and other racially-insensitive agitprop.

And finally, no. I'm not implying that everyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist. Hell, I disagree with him on a number of issues. And no, not every member of the tea party movement is an outright racist. There are surely some earnest, decent (though politically misguided) people who are unaware of the race-baiting that's happening around them, and it's reasonable to suggest that there are more than a few people who simply don't recognize racism when they see it. But it's clear that a major component of the tea party movement -- the movement -- is the use of race, anti-immigrant sentiment and abstract racism as a strategy. Naturally, it wouldn't be used if there wasn't anything to gain. Sadly, however, the target demographic for the tea party movement are low-information white middle class voters who have a tendency, no matter how subconscious, to respond to dog whistles.

No matter how loud and obnoxious they might become, the urgency is to make sure the tea party isn't taken any more seriously than its backwards and contradictory positions on the issues, its phony Astroturfing, and its Southern Strategy politics. This is essentially a corporate-driven assembly of angry white people gathered around abstractly racial issues for the purposes of venting rage while financially benefiting the far-right power elites who are pulling the strings. The broader conservative movement, say nothing of anyone who takes seriously the issues confronting the nation, would do well to stay away from the tea party, leaving it to flail in the margins where it belongs.

-
Correction: Atwater's discussion took place with Alexander P. Lamis, and was first reported by Bob Herbert.

Listen to the historical the Bob & Elvis Show presented by iClips. Thursdays at 10 a.m. EST.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

*Scroll down for photos*

It's that time of year again! On Wednesday, Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presented the 2010 International Women of Courage Awards at the State Department in Washington.

The first lady wore purple (just like last year) and made an entertaining slip in her opening remarks.

Let me thank my dear friend, Senator -- Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.) I almost said, "President Clinton." (Laughter and applause.) But let me thank you for that kind introduction, and most of all thank you for your friendship, thank you for your support, and thank you for your indispensable advice in getting me through this first year and helping me figure out how to get my family settled in our new life in D.C.

Full remarks below.

Here they are presenting the award to to Sister Marie Claude Naddaf of Syria. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

FULL REMARKS:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the First Lady

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release March 10, 2010

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY

AT THE INTERNATIONAL WOMEN OF COURAGE AWARDS

U.S. Department of State

Washington, D.C.

3:35 P.M. EST

MRS. OBAMA: Well, thank you. This is indeed a pleasure and an honor to be here with all of you today. You all look fabulous. (Laughter.) This is a wonderful occasion.

Let me thank my dear friend, Senator -- Secretary Clinton. (Laughter.) I almost said, "President Clinton." (Laughter and applause.) But let me thank you for that kind introduction, and most of all thank you for your friendship, thank you for your support, and thank you for your indispensable advice in getting me through this first year and helping me figure out how to get my family settled in our new life in D.C.

I think it's fair to say that this woman here set the standard in her last post in a presidential administration -- and she's once again setting a terrific standard doing outstanding work as the Secretary of State for the Obama administration. (Applause.)

I also want to recognize Ambassador Melanne Verveer for her extraordinary work as our Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues. Melanne. (Applause.)

And again I have to thank Andrea Jung and Reese Witherspoon. That's a tremendous contribution on the part of Avon. Thank you for being with us, thank you for your commitment and your dedication and your words here today. It's just an exciting opportunity.

It's hard to believe that it's been 15 years since Secretary Clinton spoke those words that inspired women across the globe to think differently about themselves and about their place in the world, and to demand that others think differently, as well: "Women's rights are human rights" is what she said; the five simple words that weren't just a statement of fact, but a call to action. (Applause.)

And we're here today to honor 10 women who have devoted their lives to answering that call in just tremendous ways.

You've heard about them, but, again, there's Ann Njogu who left a comfortable job as chief legal officer at an insurance company because she couldn't bear to stand silent in the face of corruption and violence against women in Kenya. And even after being arrested and assaulted by the police because of her work, she continues to speak out.

Then there's Colonel Shafiqa Quraishi of Afghanistan who began her career with the Afghan National Police. And today, as an official in the Ministry of the Interior, she's fighting to ensure that women in the police force get the promotions they deserve and that women get the benefits they need to do their jobs.

And then there's Dr. Lee Ae-ran who spent eight years of her childhood in a North Korean prison camp. And after a harrowing escape to South Korea, she became a tireless advocate for North Korean refugees and the first defector to run for Korea's National Assembly. (Applause.) Upon receiving an award for her work, she replied, very simply, "I was only doing what I was naturally supposed to do."

These are the kind of battles that women we honor here are fighting all over the world. They're educating girls. They're getting more women into the workforce. They're working to end human trafficking, labor abuses, discrimination against minorities. And they're giving women a voice in the courtrooms and in the parliaments, helping to change laws and transform lives in every corner of the globe.

Now, there are certainly easier paths these women could have taken. Much easier. They could have chosen to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. They could have shrunk their aspirations to fit the expectations of others -- and accepted the place reserved for them on the sidelines and in the shadows.

But instead, they decided to stand up for what they believed in and for what they hoped. They decided to say the things that no one else would say and take risks few others would endure. As a result, they've faced hardships that few could bear.

Jestina Mukoko of Zimbabwe was abducted from her home, she was tortured, she was interrogated for hours while forced to kneel on gravel -- all for the simple act of speaking out about the government's human rights abuses. Yet, she emerged unbroken. And as she put it, "I came out of this experience not a bitter person, but a better person." That is the thread -- (applause) -- that's the thread that runs through all of our honorees' stories -- that ability to draw strength from suffering, the determination to not just advance their own lives, but the lives of others, as well.

That's what makes these women so extraordinary -- that they not only refuse to be victims of injustice and oppression, they also refuse to be bystanders.

And that's one of the reasons why we've invited some young women to join us today -- the young women from the White House girls mentoring program, along with young women from the Bell Multicultural School, to join us today. Okay, ladies, raise your hand. Let's see where you are. (Applause.)

You're here for a reason. We love you dearly, but we also want you to learn from these women, and we want you to be inspired by these women's lives. So listen carefully. Listen to their stories. We invited them because we wanted to say to these young girls -- to you, young women, like so many girls across the country -- that if these women can become lawyers and journalists and military leaders, if they can run their own organizations and run for office -- then surely you can find a way to follow your own dreams and be the leaders in your own communities right here in America. That's what we expect from you. (Applause.)

Listen closely, because if these women can endure relentless threats, brutal violence, and separation from their families as they fight for their causes -- then surely, you all can keep going when you face struggles and obstacles in your own lives.

If these women can start developing their passion for justice as teenagers, if Sonia Pierre could stand up and protest and demand better conditions for migrant workers at the age of 13 -- an act for which she was arrested -- (applause) -- then none of you are too young to start making a difference. Right? (Applause.)

And if these women can make so many sacrifices to help so many people -- then the least we all can do in this room, in this country is to shine a light on their work and honor their contributions. (Applause.)

That is the purpose of these Women of Courage awards. We know the difference this kind of recognition and encouragement can make. It really matters.

I'm thinking of a story that I heard, of Ginetta Sagan, a human rights activist who was first imprisoned during World War II for helping Jews in Italy escape from the Nazis. And during her time in jail, she was brutally beaten, raped and tortured with electric shocks. And then one day, one of the guards threw a loaf of bread into her cell. And inside that loaf was a matchbox. And on that matchbox was written the word -- one word in Italian -- "corragio" -- and it was courage. Ginetta spent the rest of her life working to free prisoners of conscience. And every time she came across prisoners who had started to lose hope because they feared that no one knew of their plight, she thought of that moment in that cell.

And so today, we say to you women, our sisters, we say "corragio" -- courage. (Applause.) America stands with you. We are so incredibly proud of you and your contributions. And know that we are praying for you and we are thinking about you every day. And we have young women here who are going to follow in your footsteps. Right, ladies? (Applause.)

Thank you all so much. (Applause.)

END 3:45 P.M. EST

Your cross-cultural ad of the day comes courtesy of Blancox, the makers of fine laundry detergent in Colombia, where fabric freshness and softness is treasured. In it, Blancox switches the shoes thrown at President George W. Bush by Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zeidi -- Folgers Crystals-style! -- with beautiful bouquets of flowers.

Based on recent lawsuits over the appropriation of identities for commercial purposes, Muntadhar al-Zeidi will now probably sue the makers of Blancox for $100 million.

WATCH:

Iraqi Shoe Thrower Pitching Detergent To Colombians from ANIMALnewyork.com on Vimeo.

RELATED:
Iraqi Shoe Thrower Pitching Detergent To Colombians [Animal NY]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Two opinionated and funny writers, the sort who would have warmed Mark Twain’s heart, will give “A Pen Warmed Up in Hell” series talk Saturday at 7:30 p.m. at Mark Twain House & Museum, 351 Farmington Ave., Hartford.

More: continued here