Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Perhaps the most revealing portion of Election Night 2010 coverage came when MSNBC pundits Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell asked one specific question that towered above all others.

The Republican right, the exclusive control mechanism of the party, had during the entire campaign leading up to Election Night coverage drummed over and over the point that if elected fiscal responsibility would be restored.  The era of high spending would end.

The Republicans were spurred on by the newest and most vocal element of their constituency, the Tea Party.  At scores of rallies held throughout America big government spenders were told that their days were numbered.  Tea Party members were, in the words of Peter Finch in the great seventies' hit film "Network", "mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore."

Two major Republican figures from the House of Representatives were asked the same question.  They were Tea Party favorites Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and forthcoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Barack Obama has cited his current tax bill as an example that Democrats and Republicans can work together.

Of course they can.  This type of deal making was always available.  The current tax proposal is capitulation being packaged as compromise.  Republicans are always delighted to see capitulation.  

Only a Barack Obama would have the gall to stand before America and proclaim that outright surrender constitutes a grand triumph of the American political system.

Take your bow, Mr. Obama.  The top 1 percent of Americans possess better than 90 percent of the nation's assets.  More Americans are working longer hours for less pay.  When was the last time that the minimum wage was increased?  

"The time is always right to do what is right"~~ Martin Luther King, Jr

I just finished calling Congressman Jim McDermott, my representative in Seattle.  I expressed my strong opposition to President Obama's caving in to Republican blackmail in agreeing under the guise of "compromise" to providing an extension to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

Progressives owe a debt of gratitude to Dan Bartlett for expressing the truth even if the intention was to boast about a "victory" that has been a tragic loss to the middle class and poor and a victory for the super privileged of American society.  

Bartlett was chortling over the Republicans having put one over on the Democrats when it came to the initial act whereby such irresponsible cuts would be imposed.  It was not done in a normal fashion through legislation but as an add-on and as such the cuts would thereby expire.

This was but phase one of the strategy.  The intent at that time was for those tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans to be extended.  This is certainly the present intention of Senate and House Republican leadership, spearheaded by Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman and soon to be Speaker of the House John Boehner.

The reigning corporate plutocracy's game plan could be succinctly summarized by paraphrasing a famous song of yesteryear.

"Praise the Lord, pass the ammunition and give me my tax cuts!" is reflective of what passes for current day philosophy of the New World Order, neoconservative right inhabited by the likes of George W. Bush, Tea Partiers, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Karl Rove.

How much better it would be for America as well as the rest of the world if the angry Boehner refrain regarding Obama's health care legislation of "Hell no, you can't!" and the angry frustration embodied in it represented an accurate assessment of where things really stand in current day America.

In the overall scheme of events the Obama campaign refrain that Boehner was mocking is far more indicative of how the New World Order neocons are faring than any kind of accurate prediction of where Obama's forthcoming administration would take America.

In the most up front admission yet that the 2001 deficit-ballooning tax cuts were a sop to the mega-rich but created a fiscal (plus political) time bomb, the former Communications director for the Bush presidency, Dan Bartlett, is gushing:

"The fact that  we were able to lay the trap does feel pretty good, to tell you the truth."

On the 10-year auto-expiration, he says, "We knew that, politically, once you get it into law, it becomes almost impossible to remove it."

"That's not a bad legacy."

In an interview with Howard Kurtz of the DailyBeast, chief of staff Andy Card concurred with Bush's communication chief, explaining that the non-permanent, sunsetting tax change allowed it to win passage without having to muster an impossibly high 60-vote threshold for approval. (It was approved in 2001 with 58 aye votes, and the Democrats didn't stop it by filibuster.)

So how can the Democrats pull out of the trap now?

This morning, Senate Republicans filibustered the bill that would continue tax cuts, except in full for millionaires.

The GOP senators aim to hold out for full tax cuts for the wealthiest, at an extra tack-on of $700B to the debt.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated last week that, while a national unemployment figure of roughly 10 percent nationally is alarming enough, the figure is better than double that figure for those Americans without college degrees.

While America stands at a dangerous crossroad with a disparity between the super rich and the rest of Americans having reached the level at which revolutions occur, we see a situation where Rand Paul is elected to the senate in Kentucky, then promptly declares himself to be an advocate of the rich.  He states that they create jobs and as a result Americans should be kinder to them.

Paul's senior colleague from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, recently appeared on "Meet the Press" and needed to be schooled by the program's host, David Gregory, on what constitutes a tax increase.  McConnell posited the idea that if a tax cut that those Americans making over $250,000 per year and up is not extended that the result is a tax increase being imposed during a turbulent economic period.

Gregory refused to let McConnell off the hook.  He pointed out the difference between the lapse of a tax cut and a tax increase.  The removal of a tax cut, while increasing the tax burden of the payer, encompasses what a person would have been paying but for the lessened amount.  Hence, removing a tax cut means that a former decreased status has been removed and the obligation level that would have otherwise been payable is now in vogue.

Barack Obama as an Illinoisan who is also America's first African American president could be expected to be absorbed by Doris Kearns Goodwin's historical work on Lincoln, "Team of Rivals".

An impressive entry on Obama's student resume was serving as president of the Harvard Law Review.  In that situation he needed to assume a collegial posture and weigh positions on issues regarding potential articles.

Obama has carried the aforementioned instances into an unrealistic expectation that as president he can deal in a Lincolnesque or Harvard Law Review context with the likes of Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman John Boehner.  The only way that historical significance has relevance is if there are enough common facts to establish viable comparison.

Republican Senate Minority Leader McConnell delivered a message after the recent midterm election that should have provided Obama with a strong enough indication to recognize that his grand objective of compromise in the national interest was no more than wishful thinking without practical merit.  

Many Bush critics make the mistake of underestimating him.  This is one area where he has surprised with his ability to take a presumably bottomed out status and bottom it some more.

Bush's latest return with the same brash cockiness that has been a staple item recalls the words of a professor of his at Harvard, where he pursued a master of business administration degree.  

What the professor found in Bush's behavior, which included coming to class equipped with chewing tobacco and spitting pieces of it into a cup, was not so much a fundamental deficiency of intelligence but a glaring absence of parental development.

His father, George H.W. Bush, was criticized for a spoiled patrician's manner.  Critics said that he resembled someone who had been born on third base and was convinced that he had hit a triple.

Alfred Brewer of Wichita, Kansas had no right to show up and vote in the primary in August. So says the GOP nominee for Secretary of State, Kris Kobach. That's because, Kobach has said, records show Brewer died in 1996. Kobach fears the voter rolls are rife with mistakes that will encourage voter fraud.

Reached Thursday at his home where he was raking leaves, Brewer, 78, was surprised some people thought he was dead.

"I don't think this is heaven, not when I'm raking leaves," he said.

The zombie voter would be a victim of 2 mixups, one a birthdate issue when Brewer originally registered decades ago with just "age" (in years) instead of DOB. Those legacy registrations produce a placeholder birth date of 1/1/1900 in the records. Second, Brewer has the same first and last name as his Dad, who died in 1996.

Question: if Republicans are expecting such a wave, why should GOP candidates need rightful voters purged from the election rolls?

This is the most troubling of election seasons.  A New York Times Poll released this week underscores this tragic fact.

At a time when the Republicans are beset by Tea Party candidates whose serious behavior overwhelms the most conscious satire efforts constructed by writers of Saturday Night Live, a situation that would traditionally redound in favor of Democrats, we have instead a silly season where some of the most unfit candidates ever foisted on the public are enjoying leads in the polls.

Two recent classic cases, both from the West, jump out for inspection.  Meg Whitman, a woman who has unleashed her E-Bay executive millions in a bid to buy the governorship of California, used some of her money to purchase time for an ad where she inadvertently salutes her opponent.  

Whitman is seen and heard longing for the past, for that wonderful California of 1980 when she and her husband moved to the Golden State in pursuit of the good life.  

Recent Wikileaks disclosures underscore what so many have been saying that there is an obligation of the Obama Administration to investigate and, if warranted by the evidence, take action.  

Many political officeholders and strategists have long contended that it would be absurd and impractical to ignite a political time bomb such as investigating and potentially recommending that criminal action be taken against members of the Bush Administration.  

This grave issue should not be decided based on political expediency.  International law and the United States Constitution mandate action if the evidence warrants it.

Let the Republican-Tea Party members, not necessarily in that order, scream at the tops of their lungs.  The louder that they shriek the greater the indication that justice is being served.

We have 5 days of early voting in Nevada, more than 82,000 ballots are banked. So it's time to update our earlier tracking that showed no voter fatigue in either party. First, the registration update for Sept. yielded a "huge spike"  of 14,700 voters added, double the number in Aug. The breakout shows: 5061 D,  4026 R and  4040 I.

Now to the early voting. Nevada's 2 largest counties report turnout by registered affiliation.  From Clark (pdf) and Washoe together, since Saturday 37,107 registered Dems have voted and 33,471 registered Republicans.  And 12,366 non-partisans.  Translating to:   45% D, 40% R, 15% I.

We don't know how they've voted, of course. But the turnout lines up with each group's registration ratio. Again, Nevada is not being swung by a turnout gap.

Last week on the network talk show The View guest Bill O'Reilly was subjected to a walkout by two of the program's interviewers, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg.

Was the walkout justified?  By examining O'Reilly's comment that triggered the exit the logical conclusion to be drawn by examining the facts is that not only were the walkouts justified; Behar and Goldberg should be heartily commended.

The walkout was triggered by a comment that O'Reilly made that was consistent with anti-Islamic bigots who have spoken out on the topic.  O'Reilly opposed the building of an Islamic center near ground zero.  

This opposition exists despite the fact that the imam supporting the measure has been the quintessence of inclusive thought in the religious sphere.  The FBI has used him to brief agents as part of their sensitivity training.  He has interacted regularly with figures from the Christian and Jewish communities.  

We still have the senate and the presidency, so let's focus on the future.

Back in the 1960s British Cosmologist Fred Hoyle, who coined the term 'Big Bang', wrote a series of papers theorizing that life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere) began out in the seeming void of deep space. His peers thought he was delusional.

Until along came Lew Snyder, then of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. He asserted that Hoyle had the right idea and that prebiotic molecules (molecules believed to be involved in the processes leading to the origin of life) could not only evolve in deep space, but could also be distributed throughout the universe enduring the unimaginable torment of interstellar travel.

Furthermore, he could prove it.

Seems that many compounds have a unique and identifiable radio-wave signature - something that can be detected with the use of radio telescopes.

With this method, they theorized, you could point radio telescopes at the cosmos and by measuring the radio-wave signatures you could determine the molecular compounds that exist in the targeted region. This would tell us if complex, organic and prebiotic compounds are created and endure in deep space.

Sure enough, in 1969 they discovered interstellar formaldehyde - a complex, prebioitc compound. Since then, astronomers have discovered more than 150 molecules in deep space. Most interesting of these found is acetonitrile, a molecule structurally similar to glycine - one of the building blocks of biological proteins.

All this is profoundly important as it sets the stage for validating a once-absurd theory - that life on Earth (and perhaps throughout the universe) may have been seeded from deep-space chemical reactions.

This cold-sounding theory of our origins clearly runs counter to cherished beliefs that we are God's children or that we have a special place in this universe. Such a possibility could prove profoundly unsettling to many to say the least.

But there is no worry here. Not because the possibility doesn't exist. It does. The reason not to worry is that people en masse tend to see only what is in front of them and only that which is most emotionally comfortable.

For most people, such things are far too arcane and intangible to seriously consider. What they see before them and what they've been taught growing up is all that they know and all that they care to know.

And that is the way it is with most things - with evolution, with global warming -- and so it is with ideology and politics.

Whatever is before us is all that there is. The economy is a disaster.  There's a war in Iraq. The jobless situation is devastating. The housing market is in shambles. Obama is the president. And the Democrats are in charge.

That leads to an obvious conclusion for most - that Obama and the Democrats have brought this upon us - that they are the ones who must pay the price for our pain.

 
Glenn Beck and Karl Rove and Swift-Boat financier Bob Perry who is sending hundreds of thousands to Susana Martinez, are not just trying to prevent New Mexico from, for example, participating in the new health care exchange that will bring competition for the first time into health insurance coverage. Their goal is not nearly so limited.  These men, Beck and Rove, and women like presidential contender Sarah Palin, and senate contender Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, are not about now. They are explicitly--they say so outloud--about reversing all the gains of the 1930s New Deal and even before. They want to forget the passion and suffering that brought about a century of liberal reform.

Who cares! Let the GOP win the House tomorrow

We don't need no stinkin' House majority.

What have the Democrats done for us anyway?

Sure, Time Magazine says that the Democrats have implemented "the most ambitious energy legislation in history... ...pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."

Oh, and it also said that, because of Obama and the Democrats, "There's $8 billion for a high-speed passenger rail network, the boldest federal transportation initiative since the interstate highways. There's $4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants to promote accountability in public schools, perhaps the most significant federal education initiative ever -- it's already prompted 35 states and the District of Columbia to adopt reforms to qualify for the cash. There's $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and errors caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls that initiative the foundation for Obama's health care reform and "maybe the single biggest component in improving quality and lowering costs."

But they just keep going on and on and on about all that... ...boring.

And then there is Rolling Stone that made the extensive case that Obama "Averted a Depression", "Sparked a Recovery", "Saved the U.S. Auto Industry", "Reformed Health Care in America", "Cut Corporate Welfare", "Restored America's Reputation", "Protected Consumers", and "Launched a Clean-Energy Moonshot".

So what!

The latest rage - or outrage - on the right is this Newsweek Poll. You know, the Newsweek poll - the one that said that Obama has a 54% approval rating and that 48% of registered voters prefer to vote for a Democrat, while only 42% lean Republican.

That Newsweek Poll.

Seems the Repuglinuts don't like that poll because it doesn't fit their teabag revolution narrative. They slant their brows in angry scowls, slam their hammy fists and declare the poll an outlier, unfit for human consumption!!!

"Look at Real Clear Politics," they insist. "Their totally and completely non-partisan analysis of polling numbers shows that the Newsweek poll is a fake, a lie, a CONSPIRACY - all designed by the VLWC to raise the specter of Republican failure only days before the greatest and most important election of forever."

Oh, what a world!

Hmmmm.

So what about that Newsweek poll? Was it an outlier? Was it in any way valid? Are we desperate for a sprig of hope? Are we totally delusional?

After all, that Newsweek poll totally disagrees with all those other, much, MUCH more  legitimate polls that show Obama with a -0.0% likey-likey rating and a generic ballot that suggests a pickup for the Republicans somewhere between 1.2 million and infinity seats in the House.

The Reality is that these pollsters sometimes have a difficult time adjusting to a thing we all refer to as "Progress". Say it with me Pro-gress.

Well, the day has come and gone. Some were grateful to have the day off from work while ALL school children were psyched to have the day free from school.

But I think it's time to find something else to celebrate in October, as I'm sick of having the day off in the name of a shameless, murderous, tyrant. Aren't you?

I'm sure you've heard by now -- your first grade elementary history lessons were crap - lies your teacher told you in order to perpetuate a fairytale that Columbus was a hero.

To get a taste of Christopher Columbus' real character, It's best to hear the story in his own words. So let's start with this journal entry, written by Columbus himself. (Source: Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States).

The entry is Columbus' reaction to the innocence, and hospitality of the indigenous Arawak population of his `new world'.

When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

"They... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

Have you ever heard an idea that was so brilliant and clever, so simple and beautiful that it rang right through your being - an ideological love-at-first-sight? On every level it made total sense and triggered "Why didn't I think of that".

Well, I heard such a thing the other day - some guy somewhere on the radio (so I'm not trying to take credit for the idea), but the guy sounded so damn sensible that I thought I should share the idea.

Okay, okay... so let's set the stage.

Here we are, over seven years into the invasion of Iraq. The cost has been incalculable in terms of loved ones lost, families broken, international respect dissolved, trust in government undermined.

Financially, the invasion's cost has had both short and long-term destructive consequences. CostofWar.com estimates the to-date cost of the Invasion at $737 billion - a bargain by most other estimates. The Washington Post insists that the true cost of the war is at least $3 trillion -- this compared to the Bush Administration's projection of a laughable $50 billion.

HA!!!

But the joke is on us. After all, we knew he and his cronies were lying when they lied us into Iraq. All the objective evidence pointed to one thing - that Saddam was a paper tiger with no program of 'weapons of mass destruction' and no means or intent to begin one, yet here we are. ALL the goddamn evidence pointed to that.

by Cody Lyon

Changing hearts and minds is sometimes best left to moments like this horrible tragedy in the Hudson when a young and gifted soul felt he had to leave this earth.  The brutal evidence of society's intolerance often shows up in the most hurtful events. This appears to be one of them.

Not quite the narrative du jour. Nevertheless, it is the most likely scenario to evolve. True, Republicans will make gains - major gains, but they will fail to overtake the Democrats in either house of congress.

That Republicans will make gains is no surprise. The party out of power - and in this case way out of power --  nearly always benefits in the midterm elections. And, as we wade through the muck of destruction left in George W. Bush's wake, we must also expect that those currently in charge will take a hit for the current state of the nation, regardless of whom was responsible for it.

Also no surprise is that the minority party will be the party with greater 'passion' and thus the most 'likely' voters. The frustration of powerlessness is a great motivator.

Thus the media narrative of which we are all familiar.

There are, however, some elements to this year's election cycle that might be surprising, some things that run counter to the narrative that Republicans will take the day. These are things that will deny the GOP their fantasy of a congressional majority.

And here they are, conveniently bullet-pointed for your perusal:

Top 9 Reasons the GOP Will Fail to Take Either the House or the Senate

We... ... as in humans. And no, not all humans, but many millions of humans - particularly those with the fewest resources who live in the world's most vulnerable conditions - are at risk of absolute destruction.

All because of the long-term effects of global warming.

A little overdramatic? Maybe for you, but not for them.

We've known about the greenhouse effect and human-induced global warming for decades, yet we've done nearly nothing to stifle its progress.

The global warming 'skeptics' - aka: the greedy, the misinformed, and the willfully ignorant among us who find some reward in questioning scientific consensus or fantasizing about environmental conspiracies - are a large part of the problem. But so are the rest of us. We are the adults who rightfully talk down to these people. We know and accept the reality of the situation and the daunting prognosis that shadows it. We know the threat posed and even the steps necessary to mitigate and eventually halt the warming process.

Yet we do nothing as a society. We still drive our SUVs, buy cheap crap from China, leave lights on all over the house, and drink water out of plastic throw-aways.

Glaciers recede, the Arctic melts, deserts grow, oceans acidify, weather patters go haywire and storms intensify.

Political will for action is cowed by constant campaigns and elections and by electorates more concerned about the heft of their pocket right now than the likely condition of the world in which their grandchildren will be raised.

But why?

It's a tired theme. Take the massive heap of Republican failures and affix them firmly to the top of Obama's head. Draw a big, fat target, and take aim.

Puh - lease.

Now, I expect Republicans to run with this nonsense. They've got nothing else. But as for you Democrats and Independents... Really? Are you going to fall for that?

Don't accept their nonsense. Stand up for yourself. For your ideology. For your president.

When someone asks you how Obama could possibly have the nerve to create such huge deficits in such tough times, please remind them that the historic budget surplus left by Clinton was unapologetically morphed into an ungodly deficit by G. W. Bush thanks in large part to a war based on lies and multiple tax cuts to the richest of the rich.

An appeals court in the United States suspended a ban imposed last month on federally-funded research involving embryonic stem cells. The court in Washington placed a temporary stay on an earlier decision by US District Judge Royce Lamberth. Judge Lamberth had ruled that the research violated US law because it involved destroying human embryos.

President Obama lifted a ban on federal funding for stem cell research in March. Critics say the ban, which was kept in place by Mr Obama's predecessor, George W Bush, impeded the fight to find treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a statement saying it was resuming its stem cell research program, which includes evaluating applications from external scientists wishing to receive public funding for their research.

We should've been so lucky as to have genuine single-payer, universal healthcare here like the dangerous and frightening socialists abroad.

We would've been ecstatic to welcome ALL of our soldiers back from desert wastelands to our beloved fields of grain and purple mountains majesty.

We could've sighed with relief as those who built the catalyst for financial collapse were brought swiftly and brutally to justice.

But reality got in our way.

In particular, we met a pipsqueak, congressional minority eager to abuse the power of filibuster, a belligerent foe willing to fill the void of a U.S.-less Iraq, a resurgent Taliban, and an economy that would cease to exist without a functioning banking system.

With all that, with all the obstacles, with all the critics (from both sides of the aisle), Obama was still able to fulfill the key promises of his campaign.

Below, I've compiled what I believe to be the presidents most important promises fulfilled.

Top 9 Obama Promises Kept (So Far)

1) Funded Stem Cell Research

Cell therapy is the medicine of the next century. It's the approach that has the potential to be the most game-changing medical advance since the introduction of antibiotics. George W. Bush's halt to federally funded stem-cell research, delaying progress for nearly a decade, was a crime against humanity. If there is any issue upon which Obama has restored hope, it is here, and we should all be eternally grateful.

Numbers two through eight are after the jump.

The Myth of the Free Market
by Craig Barnes

Millions of Americans are today unemployed because the free market is not working for them. Millions of Americans have lost their homes because the free market did not work for them or for the banks.  Before the health care bill passed last January millions could not get health care because the free market worked for them when they were healthy but often did not work at all when they needed care.

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress...but then, I repeat myself."~~Mark Twain

Two of the world's richest men and the Spanish government have pledged $150m (£101.7m) to battle disease and improve health in Central America and Mexico. Carlos Slim and Bill Gates are to fund a project jointly with Spain aimed at improving nutrition and maternal health and fighting dengue fever and malaria. The two men and Spain's Princess Cristina announced the project in the Mexican capital, Mexico City. The project also aims to reduce infant mortality and boost vaccination rates.