A Mormon, a nutbag and a lunatic walk into a bar…

 

274px-Rick_Santorum_-_Caricature wikimedia DonkeyHotey

 

The low quality of Republican candidates continues to haunt the party. Each remaining contender for the nomination is wildly weird, each more hooker than prom date.

First up, the strangely robotic Mitt Romney (R—Finance Industry). Kind of out of touch, Romney is a strong proponent of bankruptcy, layoffs, and the joys of firing people. To his credit, he’s the only potential nominee not owned by single rich guy. Of course, he is one.

But to evangelicals, Mitt is a devil-worshipping Mormon. Hence the public code language. When they say “he’s not a true conservative” they mean “he’s not a Christian.” In speaking to the New York Times, the Reverend R. Philip Roberts, president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (until last week,) put it this way:

“The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”

The evangelical dilemma: do I vote for a Mormon because he can beat the Black Muslim? Both get their benefits package from the Devil right? One can just imagine how that conundrum bounces around and around in the mind.

If that wasn’t enough, Mormons also believe God’s has a wife, who they call the Holy Mother. And they baptize dead Jews. No kidding. Newsweek asked Mitt if he had baptized any dead Jews. Sure he said, but not lately.

So it is no surprise that a Gallup poll found one in five Americans simply won’t vote for a Mormon. One can imagine that’s mostly the in league with the Devil thing, but for at least some of them, the baptizing dead Jews thing probably accounts for some of it.

Then there is Rick Santorum (R—Dirty Industrials) He’s everything an evangelical could want. Except that he is a Papist. You may not know what that quaint, archaic word means. But in evangelical Christianity (like in the Church of England in the 1700s) “Papist” is used as a derogatory term for people who worship false gods (specifically the Pope, all those saints, and the Virgin Mary.)

That said it is fair to say that evangelical Protestants are OK with Santorum’s Bible-dominated plan for U.S. government. Santorum recently said that the French Revolution was a failure because it focused on “fraternity” rather than “paternity” – paternity meaning God, not your dad.

Still, nearly all conservative women use birth control and Santorum is on record being against family planning because – and I’m not kidding – sex is not supposed to be fun. The anti-sex constituency, though, is very, very small. Women voters of all kinds are divided into two groups, those that enjoy sex and those that wish the sex was better. Men are divided into those that enjoy sex and those that enjoy sex but wish they were better at it.

Santorum now believes he can extricate himself from this problem by claiming his birth control views are personal and that he would never enforce them on others. But this ignores the possibility that most Americans believe anyone who opposes sex being fun is, well, is kind of a moron. Nobody wants a moron in the White House.

There is not much left to say about Newt Gingrich (R—Vegas Casinos.) He still has an outside chance but Gingrich is kind of off the radar unless he finds more money. He was able to compete up to now because of his casino mogul, Sheldon Adelson. Shelly is saying privately that he’ll either drop support for Gingrich or maybe give him one more round of funding in order to hurt Rick Santorum. One of America’s preeminent Zionists, Adelson is apparently OK with the whole baptizing dead Jews thing.

Gingrich’s narrative has been written for him. He is pursuing a personal vendetta against Romney, it goes. And this personal-grudge campaign has clearly worn out its welcome.

The more we get to know these guys, the more they come up short. I guess that’s why independent voters have shifted to President Obama by 17 points since January.

Art courtesy of DonkeyHotey. First published on Technorati as A Mormon, a Nutbag and a Lunatic Walk Into a Bar…

Posted in Conservative, Election, Topical | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Constitution: the Bishops don’t get a veto

A civics lesson for John Boehner and the Bishops

The first thing you need to know is that bishops don’t get a veto. Given the hyperbolic rhetoric now spewing from the likes of Boehner, Gingrich and Santorum, you could be forgiven for believing that churches have constitutional protections. They don’t. If anything they are disfavored in constitutional law. Wikimedia-NB Flickr-cerwidren remix

Cornell University Law School, in its well-regarded annotation of the US Constitution tells us that the Supreme Court unanimously found in Everson v. Board of Education, “that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ‘aid one religion’ or ‘prefer one religion over another,’ but as well those that ‘aid all religions.’”

What about the First Amendment you say? The Bill of Rights (and its ten amendments) applies only to individuals, not denominations. Again, this is not an opinion, it is settled constitutional law. According to The Freedom Forum (which underwrites Vanderbilt’s First Amendment Center), “The First Amendment affirms the freedom of the individual.” Further, the Supreme Court itself recently reaffirmed in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment was an “individual right.” The Bill of Rights protects only to the rights of individuals (as was the expressed intent of its writers back in 1791.) They have not, so far, conveyed Citizens United style rights to churches.

So how does this translate regarding today’s issue du jour? When John Boehner says Congress will pass a law to confer veto power to religion, he is showing how little he cares about our founding documents. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty darn clear. The Federal government may rightfully consider the view of Catholic Bishops when crafting law but only insofar as they are equal in stature to the 98% of Catholic women who use birth control. Bishops, in their professional capacity, have no special legal standing specifically because they represent a church.

Our Constitution guarantees that individuals be free from religious coercion. A church may cajole, threaten, beg, bother or excommunicate a member regarding these choices, but it can’t – in the USA – interfere if the individual chooses to ignore his, hers, or someone else’s religious dogma. The government is simply not allowed to bend to the will of any religious hierarchy for any reason. To do violates the oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Further, while an individual conscience exception is allowed, no such right exists for a church. If it ever did, churches would be above the law – including churches run by the likes of David Koresh, Terry Jones, Jim Jones and Omar Abdel-Rahman. Imagine if some nutty, snake-dancing pastor decided that death by fire was part of God’s plan, and so refused to install sprinklers in his mega-church. It’s not so farfetched.

But in fighting this fight, the bishops seek to have the government legislate what they have failed to inculcate. Almost all Catholic women have used birth control for family planning. Arguably most of their partners – good Catholic men among them — are complicit. So what the bishops hope to do is to rectify a pastoral failure – the near one hundred percent rejection by their own flock. Having failed in the use the tools of religious teaching – faith, fear and persistence – they want to fall back on the Feds to do it.

Yet there is a compelling public health interest in birth control. Ninety-nine percent of women want it. Of men, one in three is using condoms. And according to the National Institutes of Health, 700,000 women choose sterilization each year, most after a successful delivery. Yet all would be banned in a world where religious leaders have a veto. In some religions, women even lose the choice about whether to have intercourse or with whom.

There are more than six million pregnancies in the US each year, about half of which are unplanned. Planned pregnancy improves a woman’s earning power, general heath, and family well-being. Smaller families are more able to help children go to college. And smaller families are less costly to our safety net when things go wrong.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, one in five pregnancies is entirely unwanted. That’s as many as 1.3 million children highly likely to end up as wards of the state. We’d all agree that every child should have loving parents who want him or her, right?

So in the end, there are two important lessons to be taken from the Bishop’s attempt to veto. One, laws enforcing religious dogma are unconstitutional. And two, if you’re for Planned Parenthood, you need to get up off the couch about birth control. The decoupling of politics from women’s health is ongoing.

Posted in Conservative, Election, Government, Topical | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mainstream pundits join the War on Stupid

Maybe the War on Stupid entered the mainstream last year when Chris Matthews began losing patience with silly campaign rhetoric and rolling his eyes. Lately he has begun to call Santorum_dunce1 300xout the stupid-speak during interviews, an almost unheard of practice on cable news. And he’s not alone.

Over the years, people who call heads on stupid have taken a lot of guff. Critics complain even when the target is stupid ideas not stupid people. Apparently, the word makes people uncomfortable.

But whether it is calling health reform “socialized medicine,” blaming unionized workers for the failures of management, arguing that faith ideology should be taught in science classes, or blaming poor people for a sour economy, stupidity in politics is epidemic. In each case the claim is made simply to demonize, distance or distract. The socialists, trade unionists, godless heathens and lazy leeches are something different from you and dangerous to you. Or so the ruse goes.

No recent example better embodies the use of stupidity than Rick Tyler, a Gingrich surrogate who sought to defend his candidate’s racist comments by repeating over and over that Black people should vote for Republicans because “democrats abort their babies.”Whatever you think of democrats, you’d be hard pressed to give an example of them rounding up black women for abortions. Yet Tyler thought this was a good response to whether Gingrich was pandering to South Carolina racists.

The substantive question – is the candidate racist – is obscured by the ridiculous assertion – democrats murder babies. See how it works?

To some degree, we only have ourselves to blame. During the 1960s we began to believe that every person had value and this later morphed into a willingness to let people believe that their superstitious, wild-assed guess had the same importance as well-reasoned analysis. And modern journalism – until recently – presented opposing views as equal; even if one was factual and one was entirely made up. Then Ronald Reagan told uneducated people they were actually smarter than college grads. “Intellectually elite” – something every World War II vet hoped his son or daughter would be – became a pejorative.

But now more mainstream pundits and pols have taken up our War on Stupidity. Last fall, Paul Begala wrote The Stupid Party for Newsweek. Among Begala’s points, “today’s Republican Party is more the party of Sarah Palin’s defiant know-nothingness than the brainy conservatism of Bill Bennett. The GOP is a party of ideologues, not ideas.”

“It’s about emotion and scapegoating and finger-pointing,” continues Begala, “And so even the smart Republicans – and I do believe most of the candidates in the GOP presidential field are intelligent – have to at least play dumb.”

Just a few weeks later, Tim Dickinson penned The GOP’s Crackpot Agenda for Rolling Stone. Dickenson’s long-form piece outlines (in excruciating detail) a GOP platform well to the right of most Americans. Along the way he quotes yesteryear’s farthest righter, televangelist Pat Robertson, “Those people in the Republican primary have got to lay off. They’re forcing their leaders, the front-runners, into positions that will mean they lose the general election.”

If you thought Crazy Pat was the only Republican who was worried, you’d be wrong. The most recent conservative to jump on the anti-stupidity bandwagon is syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker. While Parker doesn’t quite have a fully formed understanding of toxic stupidity – she still imagines Gingrich is smart – she does get the point. Writing in The Palinization of the Republican Partyshe notes, “The big tent fashioned by Ronald Reagan has become bilious with the hot air of religious fervor. No one was more devout than the very-Catholic Buckley, but you didn’t see him convening revivals in the public square. Nor is it likely he would have embraced fundamentalist views that increasingly have forced the party into a corner where science and religion can’t coexist.”

Lastly, In These Times contributor and University of Michigan professor, Susan J. Douglas, writes (in a piece called It’s the Stupid Republicans, Stupid), “Various commentators have resorted to the word ‘sideshow’ to characterize the truly bizarre parade of serial Republican front-runners who brandish their ignorance like Olympic medals and promote the most extremist, numbskull policies to be heard in years.” Douglas continues, “This election year’s mantra should not be, “It’s the economy, stupid,” but, “It’s the Republican Congress, stupid.”

Begala summarizes the fight, “As with everything in politics, know-nothingness will succeed until it doesn’t.” Finally the war on stupidity is gaining new (and influential) allies. So this may be the beginning of the end.

Bottom line? All ideas are not equal. Some are just dumb. So the next time you hear someone try to derail a substantive policy discussion with a ridiculously stupid idea, stand up and yell “Horseshit!” as loudly as you can.

Art courtesy of Mario Piperni.

Posted in Conservative, Election, Government, Seminal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

That’s a wrap, Evangelicals

Evangelical politicians are the guys who gather up money and power by claiming God speaks to them. They prefer to be called “social conservatives” as if they are not entirely thats a wrap cross wikimedia sodacan pddriven by religious fundamentalism. They have had a pretty sucky week. After a long string of victories, Evangelicals feared they were losing a second presidential nominating process. TO MORMONS FER CRISSAKES! So they met in Texas to pick a candidate.Case closed, they imagined. We still matter, they assumed.

Not so fast…

These leaders thought they were watching the nomination slip away because of dilution of influence. Some supported Perry, some Santorum, and some Gingrich. Pick one guy, they thought, and we’ll be running the show again.Work separately, and THAT MORMON will get the nomination.

When last we visited the meeting, I predicted quite emphatically (foolishly?) that evangelical leaders knew Rick Santorum is unelectable. Santorum is on video opposing birth control, a position that surely makes him icky to women of every political stripe. But darned if they didn’t pick Santorum anyway; silly me.

They never imagined the real reason for Romney’s march might be that courting the evangelical vote no longer matters.

These guys are not the kind of pastor you might find at your neighborhood church. They are more like that TV pastor who will send you a free plastic packet of “blessed healing water.” “Drink it if you have cancer. If you are blind, pour it on your eyes. AND BE HEA-LED!”we’re told.

They guys seek to use the bible to make people give them money. Then they invest their collection-plate earnings with despots and dictators proffering the logic that if God didn’t want them to do it, he’d stop them. I’m reminded of the old joke which ends, “I just throw all the money up in the air and I figure God will take what he wants while it is up there.”

In other words they are self-aggrandizing fatheads. They use God to con suckers. They’ve built a power base in the Republican Party by delivering votes through inflaming the delicate sensibilities of simple thinkers — particularly in places like South Carolina.

So they were completely blindsided. They met, they chose and their choice – Rick Santorum — didn’t gain a single point in the polls. Santorum simply went nowhere. On January 1, the Gallup Daily GOP Tracking Pollput Santorum at 13. On January 11 he was at 13. Today, he’s at 13. It’s a Gingrich/Romney race.

Let me offer an alternative explanation for the waning influence of the Republican Party’s evangelical vote-wranglers. They no longer matter. Now that money men can spend as much as they want on elections, they no longer have to pander to religious conservatives. They no longer have to accede to the wishes of the evangelicals in order to get their votes.

Just as Gingrich was trounced in Iowa by negative ads – forcing him to go find his own rich guy – moneyed interests in the Republican Party now realize they can win any election simply through the force of paid advertising. Votes are forgone. They are the inevitable result of a negative, saturation-advertising campaign.

TV cuts out the middle-man. It has to be liberating for the money boys. They can simply spend as much as they want. They no longer have to pretend to like the snake oil salesmen.

Post Citizens United, it’s a great time to be rich, eh?

Posted in Conservative, Election, Topical | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shattering the Class Warfare taboo

Today, most Americans see conflict between the rich and us

The United States has always had a culturally-enforced taboo: don’t speak ill of the rich. If anyone thought or said that the rich don’t play fair, they were simply a sore loser. This Mitt_Romney_Matthew Reichbach wikimedia 300xtaboo lasted much longer than it should have, owing mostly to the Republican practice of using “class warfare” as a bludgeon. “That’s class warfare!” they’d scream. How un-American.

Then Occupy Wall Street arrived, spoke the unspeakable, and shattered the glass wall. In fairness, the stage was set the day we were presented with the ridiculous premise of Citizens United. But tents in town squares broke the long prohibition on asking why – in a land founded on equality – the wealthy are so pampered and coddled.

A new poll from Pew Research Center confirms that Americans are thinking a lot about class disparity. And now that they are talking, it turns out that most Americans think the deck is stacked in favor of the rich. Liberals and socialists, you might be thinking? Sure Democrats and Independents weighed in with equal and broad majorities, but more than half of Republicans also agreed.

The numbers look good for an Obama election strategy focused on representing the middle class. They look bad for the Romney’s “corporations are people” strategy. According to Pew’s research, a solid two thirds of Americans might be inclined to think that the so-called “job creators” are actually self-dealing pricks. “I like to fire people,”plays right into this, not because of the context, because of the “like.”

If President Obama can win the case that he represents middle-class families and workers, a solid two thirds of Americans will support him. In fact, the “class conflict” between the rich and middle class (according to Pew) is now thought by most Americans to be much more severe than racism, ageism and nativism.

The view cuts across all common economic strata from incomes below $20,000 to incomes above $75,000. Even those who realistically aspire to cross class lines are likely to believe that the upper-income class will conspire to keep them out. In three years, Pew found, the majority who believe that middle and upper earners are in conflict has risen by 24%.

This should be an earth-shattering bit of data to anyone planning to run on the “pamper the rich for your own good” platform. When Mitt Romney defines success by how much money you amass, he ignores the contributions of firemen, teachers, nurses and the guy who makes sure your car’s wheel stays on. Those folks are now openly questioning his greed-logic.

Still, the survey didn’t find an interest in getting even with the wealthy. Americans may envy the rich, but not in the resentful way Romney would have you believe. Roughly half of respondents thought wealthy folks earned their money. Only half thought they didn’t.

But with such a plurality of agreement that class tensions exist, it could be inferred that average earners will be less likely to let themselves be taken advantage of by the rich. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? If the numbers continue to increase, it can only lead to a realignment of political views to disfavor – or at least more equally favor – the rich.

The new prevailing view also crosses age groups. Young people acknowledge the class conflict by over seven in ten, but 64% of their parents agree and 55% of their grandparents. Another interesting fact from the Pew poll is that the belief in class conflict comes mostly from white people coming into agreement with black and Hispanic Americans. Black and brown people were ahead of the curve. But since 2009, the gap between black and white views on this subject has narrowed from 23 points to nine.

So what does it all mean for our upcoming presidential election? It means that class disparity will continue to be an election issue. It means that the Occupy Wall Street message has resonated with Americans. It turns out that OWS said what people were already thinking.

It also means that a subject that America’s oligarchy and their Republican handmaidens have sought to keep taboo is now going to be freely discussed in bars and around dinner tables. That may not keep Mitt Romney out of the White House, but it surely makes his association with and advocacy for rich folks that much more of a millstone around his neck.

Even still, Obama will contend with a bad economy, Republican attempts to limit voting, SuperPACs, and the usual amount of white racism. But the overreach by the rich (and their R-Party spokespeople) looks to have created a big opportunity for the incumbent. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

Posted in Conservative, Economy, Election, Government, Science, Topical | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment