Jerry Brown elected California Governor, heads of pundits and reporters begin to explode

One thing I admit I am going to enjoy during Jerry Brown's Governorship is watching the heads of reporters and pundits explode trying to figure out what to make of him. Voters don't have that much trouble. But this Los Angeles Times piece is fairly typical: Cathleen Decker, Brown's history, personality lead to victory Los Angeles Times 11/03/2010.



The standard press script for Brown is that he's "quirky"; actually he's a Jesuit seminarian who went into politics. This article is also typical in focusing on the horse-race sports coverage and theater-criticism hot air ("authenticity"). From this piece, you would never know he took popular stands like promoting green jobs and defending immigrants' rights. The "authenticity" part is cute. A computer-generated character would have had more "authenticity" than eMeg Whitman, a complete empty suit.

In fairness to Decker, Jerry's campaign manager Steve Glazer has been using the "authenticity" line with the press, and after all, our star reporters are there to perform stenography.

It's going to be fascinating, if not exactly entertaining, to see how the press will flounder around for the next four years trying to find a suitable "script" for their coverage of Gov. Jerry Brown. Already a meme is well under way that Brown won for all kinds of reasons except for one of the most painfully obvious: he ran as an unapologetic Democrat!


How frozen in stone are the favorite scripts of our sad excuse for a press corps? This report had to work the "Gov. Moonbeam" thing in somehow. Voters Give Brown Return Trip As Governor KCRA.com 11/02/2010:

Democrat Jerry Brown has capped a political journey in California that began the year man landed on the moon, defying an era of term limits to return to the office he held 28 years ago.

It was the late Chicago columnist Mike Royko (1932-1997) who is credited with the "Gov. Moonbeam" label. This report by Zach Christman of NBC Chicago, Royko's Love/Hate Relationship With 'Gov. Moonbeam' 03/7/2010, is very telling:

Royko had a well-known distaste for California and its politics -- once calling it "the world's largest outdoor mental asylum," according to the Times, but he eventually grew to respect Brown and his politics. It happened in 1980, while Brown was making a bid for his party's presidential nomination. After his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Royko wrote, "the more I see of Brown, the more I am convinced that he has been the only Democrat in this year’s politics who understands what this country will be up against."

Royko went on to regret the Governor Moonbeam nickname he gave Brown, declaring it "idiodic" and begging people to stop using it. That never happened, but Brown doesn't seem to mind. He's embraced it, giving it yet another meaning -- this one all his own.

Being called Governor Moonbeam means he's "creative and not hidebound to the status quo," Brown said after recent Republican references to the nickname. "Moonbeam also stands for not being the insider ... but standing apart and marching to my own drummer. And I've done that."

Back in the days when pundits and columnists were actual journalists, the famous Mike Royko regretted coming up with that nickname, "declaring it 'idiodic' and begging people to stop using it". But today's Pod Pundits, star reporters and those who aspire to join their ranks, the fact that it's an idiotic thing is a recommendation to keep using it. Such is the state of mainstream journalism in the US.

Tags: establishment press, jerry+brown, mainstream media, mainstream press

Lakoff and Krugman on not doing the other Party's work for them

Linguist Georg Lakoff seems to be taking his own advice, constantly reinforcing his "framing" of his advice to the Democratic Party. In What the election pundits missed Berkeley Blog 11/05/2010, he gives a good summary of that advice:

First, conservatives have an extensive, but not obvious communications system, with many think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of spokespeople linked by talking points, and bookers booking their people not just on radio and TV, but in lots of civic venues. This system is active not only in elections, but 24/7/365. Democrats have no comparable system.


Second, demographers report that the big swing in this election was among "independents." What are called "independents" are actually bi-conceptuals — people who have both conservative and progressive conceptual systems in their brains, each inhibiting the other and usually applying to different issues. When such voters hear messages from one side but not the other, that side’s moral system becomes active and is made stronger. That happened all over the country in this election.

Third, voters vote on the basis of their morality and their sense of self, which is a reflection of their moral values. In this election, conservatives reached the bi-conceptuals over the past year and a half preaching their morality (e.g. freedom — government takeover; life — death panels). The Obama administration only countered with policy, which goes in one ear and out the other. No moral leadership via messaging. [my emphasis]

My main difference with Lakoff on this is that his presentations downplay the link between messaging and real policy. The Democrats' messaging problem is linked with the Party's thoroughly unhealthy attraction to the neoliberalsim of "free trade", deregulation and financial buccaneering. The Republicans sell their Predator State policies with false advertising, but they implement the Predator State policies they promise.


The most significant part of Lakoff's theory is his analysis of the "bi-conceptuals", aka, independent voters. The conventional wisdom that sees the swing voters and/or independent voters as "the center" is more of a sign of hardening of the arteries in the brains of our star pundits and reporters that it is real political analysis. Lakoff's approach is a way of understanding the perspectives and behavior of the so-called "independent voters" without using the dogmas of High Broderism.

He includes in that summary another critical part of his advice to the Democrats, "When such voters hear messages from one side but not the other, that side’s moral system becomes active and is made stronger." He calls it framing, which is a very useful term. But you can also call it setting the terms of the debate. He warns the Democrats to avoid reinforcing Republican terms of the debate (framing) by using notions such as "entitlements" for Social Security and Medicare, because they terms is used by the Republicans to suggest that they are welfare programs for the undeserving, lazy and non-white.

Paul Krugman in The Focus Hocus-Pocus New York Times 11/04/2010 gives a current example of the Democrats making that mistake.

I felt a sense of despair during Mr. Obama’s first State of the Union address [in 2010], in which he declared that "families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same." Not only was this bad economics — right now the government must spend, because the private sector can't or won't — it was almost a verbatim repeat of what John Boehner, the soon-to-be House speaker, said when attacking the original stimulus. If the president won’t speak up for his own economic philosophy, who will? [my emphasis]

That Obama quote comes from this passage in the 2010 SOTU, in ehich he builds up the announcement of the Catfood Commission, which is due to report this December 1 and will almost certainly recommend the phaseout of Social Security, though they will use a different marketing label for it:

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.) [my emphasis]

Instead of framing his economic program as a determined effort to create jobs and pull the economy out of a terrible recession that threatens to turn this decade into a Japanese-style "lost decade", Obama preached the Republican doctrine of budget-balancing - which the Reps preach but neither believe nor practice - and made a pitch for the bipartisanship he could already see the Republicans had no intention of practicing in domestic affairs:

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept. [my emphasis]

How about, let's try fighting for the Democratic program you got elected to implement?

For the White House at the moment, that unfortunately seems to be not just a novel but downright bizarre concept.

Tags: barack obama, democratic party, george lakoff, us economy

Blue Dog Dems: what are they good for?

Digby has a good statement of the progressive Democratic position against the Blue Dogs in Using The Party As A Fire Hydrant Hullabaloo 11/03/2010

I think when you run against your own party in this age of polarization you are begging the electorate to vote for your opponent. We aren't in an age of ticket splitting and the parties are breaking pretty clearly along ideological lines (even if the Democrats haven't figured that out yet.) They do have the money chase in common, but the next few years are going to see a split there as well, with one party coming up with a convincing rationale for why they are a party of whores and the other one being forced by the structural nature of parliamentary politics to take the other side. (I'm not entirely convinced at this moment that it will break the way we might assume.) In any case, if you don't clearly identify with the party to which you ostensibly belong, people will figure there must be something shifty about you. When you see the two national parties in pitched battle all the time, you are right to wonder why in the world you should continue to support someone who can't --- even if they wanted to --- adequately represent your interests.

This new era is going to require more partisan cohesion to get anything done and to stop the things the Party doesn't want done. This seems like a good thing to me. Fewer Blue Dogs means fewer saboteurs within the party creating the illusion that there is a progressive governing majority. And that means that if the Republicans want to pass their destructive agenda, they will have to take sole responsibility for it instead of passing it under the rubric of bipartisanship --- or worse as Democratic policies --- and then blaming the Democrats when their policies don't work. Responsibility/accountability are much clearer when the parties are philosophically distinct. [my emphasis]

Tags: blue dog democrats, democratic party

Jerry Brown's demographics

From Dan Walters, Non-white, less affluent voters gave Brown an edge Sacramento Bee 11/03/2010:

Brown captured nearly two-thirds of the Latino vote and an even larger share of black voters, according to Edison Research's interviews with voters after they cast ballots either in person or via mail. He also ran up strong majorities among among voters younger than 45 and among those with incomes under $100,000 a year.

Brown, a former two-term governor, often framed his duel with Whitman, a wealthy former corporate executive, as a struggle between classes, accusing her of wanting to help the rich while hurting the poor.

Let's see. Brown campaigned as an unapologetic Democrat, pro-labor, pro-immigrant-rights, pro-green jobs. And the Democratic base turned out and voted for him!

How did he come up with such a clever, sneaky idea? How? How? How?

Tags: jerry brown

Robert Reich's advice to Obama for the next two years

"On the Republican playing field, Republicans always win."

- Robert Reich, Why Obama should learn the lesson of 1936, not 1996 Berkeley Blog 11/03/2010

Tags: barack obama

My suggestions for post-election reading for Democrats

John Amato and David Neiwert, Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane (2010) Dave Neiwert’s journalistic speciality for the last two decades or so has been following the Radical Right in the US. In this book, he and John Amato look at the flourishing of Radical Right activity and the continued mainstreaming of such ideas into the Republican Party. At present, there seems to be every prospect that this process of radicalization will continue, at least as long as Obama remains President. John Amato is the creator and manager of the blog Crooks and Liars, Dave is the editor, and they both post there regularly.

Andrew Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War (2010) Bacevich is an historian and former career military officer who has been writing for years about the military overreach of the United States. In this book, he analyzes a development that happened without a lot of people noticing that something remarkable had taken place. During the Cold War, we had a permanent war economy and something very much like a permanent state of psychological war mobilization. But with the Afghanistan War now in its tenth year with no end in sight, the Iraq War still going on also with no end yet in sight, with war in everything but name in Pakistan and now expanding combat operations in Yemen, war (in Bacevich's words) "not a cold war; but engagement in actual hostilities - [is] establishing itself as the new normalcy".


Max Blumenthal, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party (2009) The Christian Right – essentially white conservative Protestants – are the main voting base of today’s Republican Party.


But long after that became a reality, most of the traditional media still does a pitiful job reporting on that movement and the organizations and individuals who lead it. Max is a good example of how a journalist can be both partisan and an excellent reporter. This recent study of the Christian Right focuses on Republican Party politicians closest to that movement but he also looks at the rank-and-file, coming up with a provocative observation about the role that the "politics of personal crisis". plays with Christian Right voters.


Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton (2000) Investigate, slander, pimp pseudoscandals: the Republicans pursued these methods throughout the Clinton Presidency. From their point of view, they were successful and justified. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recently explained that the problem was that they didn't focus single-mindedly enough on wrecking the Democratic Presidency. We’ll see more of the same, much magnified by the Republican Noise Machine including FOX News, but also by a mainstream media happy to play along. Perhaps the most important aspect of this book is the way it explains how the traditional media outlets took a serious dive in quality circa 1992. And they haven’t hit bottom yet, e.g., ABC News inviting white racist propagandist Andrew Breitbart to be an election commentator. Joe's work appears in Salon and the New York Observer. Gene's column normally appears on Thursday in the Cagle Post.


John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment (1992) This book by the late Kenneth Galbraith is nearly two decades old. A lot has changed in American politics since then, not least of which is the appalling drop in quality of the traditional news media, especially TV news. But a lot remains the same, including the central framing concept of this book: in a political system where only about half the eligible voters actually go vote even in Presidential election years, and those voters are demographically considerably more affluent on average than non-voters, American politics revolves largely around comforting the comfortable. The main difference in that regard is that the Republicans focus on comforting the already very comfortable. This results in considerable neglect of consequential problems of both the short-and long-range kinds. Galbraith’s rather pessimistic conclusion on the immediate prospect of breaking out of that framework are even more sobering now with the experience of two disastrous wars and an economic collapse that looks like the beginning a depression having occurred, our politics appear to be even more locked in the comfort-the-comfortable mode - even though the teapartiers theatrically claim to be more than uncomfortable. In fact, the outrage of affluent older whites at the policies of the Obama Administration is exactly the sort of attitude he discusses in this perceptive work.


James Galbraith, The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too (2008) The subtitle provides a short summary of the theme. Conventional wisdom – a phrase popularized by his father J.K. Galbraith – insists that in the early years of what looks a lot like an economic depression, we should be applying Herbert Hoover remedies: slashing government outlays, balancing the federal budget, phasing out Social Security, etc. Galbraith the Younger explains why those are terrible ideas. His discussion of the relation of the federal budget deficit, private savings and the trade deficit is especially interesting.


Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (2006) A clear-headed journalistic account of the Christian Right based on extensive interviews and field work. As the subtitle suggests, she focuses heavily on the nationalism and militarism of the Christianists, but also on their theocatic ambitions. The degree to which forms of Christian dominionism influence the Christian Right and the Republican Party today are not generally well understood. Michelle writes, "The things so many Islamic fundamentalists hate about the West ... are what the Christian nationalists hate as well. And so, in a final grotesque irony, we come full circle and see defenders of American chauvinism speaking the language of anti-American radicals."


Al Gore, The Assault on Reason (2007) The late astronomer Carl Sagan used to worry that as American society became more and more dependent on science and technology, that we might wind up with a huge portion of the population walking around clutching their crystals and trying to read their auras while lacking even a basic understanding of the science on which our civilization increasingly depends. Al Gore has a similar worry. But his focus in this book is how pseudoscience, bad information, irrationality and the manipulation of religious fundamentalism affect important areas of public policy and represent a real threat to American democracy.


Chris Hedges, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002) After the First World War, there was a famous exchange of letters between Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein that was published under the title, "Why War?" Chris Hedges looks at that question in this thoughtful and provocative book. Chris has the unusual combination of experiences of having been a war correspondent and also a trained theologian. His book is a reminder that war is a chronically seductive weakness of the human race.


Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., War and The American Presidency (2004) A collection of essays from the late historian's last years. In one of them he quotes Hegel, "People and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it." Schlesinger himself doesn't go that far. But he does argue that people need to keep both a sense of skepticism and hope for the future, based on a realistic understand of what we know about ourselves. A large part of the book deals with the issues of war and Presidential power and the danger they represented to American democracy. "The American president as the world's self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner? - the road that lead straight to Abu Ghraib." Sadly, Obama has claimed Executive power in foreign and military affairs that in some cases exceed those of his immediate predecessor.


Tags: 2010 elections, democracy

News from the Catfood Commission

David Dayen in Cat Food Commission Will Get Busy After Elections FDL News Desk 11/02/2010 interprets the tea leaves offered in this article about the work of the President's Catfood Commission (officially named the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform), which is heavily stacked with let-Grandma-eat-catfood advocates who want to phase out Jacki Calmes, Social Security: Debt Panel Pauses Until After Elections New York Times 11/01/2010.

Despite the hype about the alleged vital need to reduce the deficit - something Republicans care absolutely nothing about and neither should the Democrats at this point - the Catfood Commission has always been about Social Security Phaseout. And Calmes' article confirms this is still its main focus:

While Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson will propose health policy changes for the commission’s deliberations, Social Security is getting more of the members’ attention. Republicans are more inclined to scale back future retirees’ benefits than are Democrats, especially since liberal groups have mobilized in opposition. Especially controversial is the idea of raising the retirement age for full benefits; currently it is being increased gradually to 67 under a 1983 law.

Other options include less generous formulas for both initial benefits and annual cost-of-living increases for retirees in future decades. Democrats say any compromise to assure Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years would have to include increased payroll tax revenues as well as changes in benefits. The likeliest revenue option would raise the cap on wages subject to payroll taxes, now $106,800.

Both sides agree that they cannot make enough cuts in all other federal spending — the “discretionary” spending that Congress decides annually — to make a big dent in projected deficits. That category is smaller than entitlement programs as a share of the federal budget, is growing more slowly and yet covers the full range of government operations from education to warfare.

This is about phasing out Social Security. A bad, bad, extremely bad policy idea. And won that is virtually certain to be a disaster for the Democratic Party if President Obama embraces Social Security Phaseout. And it's his commission, his appointees. Congress declined to set it up, but Obama proceeded to do so by Presidential action.

Tags: catfood commission, social security

Republicans and the art of the hissy fit: Obama's "enemies"

Republicans are just better at it than the Democrats are. Throwing a hissy fit, I mean.

As I've been posting here, FreedomWorkds head and Tea Party sugar-daddy Dick Armey said on This Week Sunday that Democrats were obsessed with the effort to "destroy America", and the star pundits on hand didn't seem to bat an eyebrow. Ted Nugent goes on stage at a rally for West Virginia on behalf of Republican Senate candidate John Raese and rants about the "rats" we've let into the White House and Nancy Pelosi and says it's time to "fumigate the rats".

But, as all our Pod Pundits know, extremist rhetoric is a problem causing by "both sides", the left and the right. So how does the "left" side of this work? Well, Aamer Madhani reports in Obama Backs off calling Republicans "Enemies" National Journal 11/01/2010 that our allegedly (alleged by Tea Party Republicans) Marxist Kenyan America-hating President said something shocking, just shocking I tell you!

In an earlier interview with Univision radio, Obama said: "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying 'We're gonna punish our enemies, and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us' — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think its going to be harder. And that's why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd."

Yes, in this mild appeal for Latinos to go vote, he used the common-as-dirt phrase about politics involving rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies.

Republican Senate Leader John Boehener knew this was a moment to do a WATB hissy fit:

Obama's comments come ahead of House Minority Leader John Boehner’s closing campaign speech tonight in which he was planning on taking the president to task for the comment.

"Sadly, we have a president who uses the word 'enemy' for fellow Americans, fellow citizens. He used it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government," Boehner said, according to prepared remarks released in advance of his speech.

Do I even need to say how Obama responded?

President Obama backed away from comments he made last week in which he suggested that Republicans are "enemies" of Latinos.

In a radio interview on Monday, Obama tried to clarify comments in which he suggested Latino voters should "punish our enemies" for their stance on immigration reform.

"Now the Republicans are saying that I'm calling them enemies,” Obama told the Michael Baisden Show. "What I'm saying is you're an opponent of this particular provision, comprehensive immigration reform, which is something very different."

And there you have it: incivility on both sides!

The Republicans are just flat-out better at the WATB hissy fit.

And Obama just doesn't seem to get it that it makes him and the Democratic Party look weak to back down from such a petty criticism. I've come to believe that he really thought that he would be able to achieve some new bipartisan love fest with today's Republican Party. And from his statements in recent weeks, including his weekly message Saturday, he hasn't given up on it yet. The fact that

This is one reason it's such a pleasure to watch Jerry Brown campaigning for Governor here in California. If he had been tossed a WATB criticism like that, he would have brushed it off like a speck of dust and proceeded to lambaste the Republicans for acting like enemies of Latinos with their racist ads, their xenophobia and their embrace of "papers-please" segregationist laws. And thrown in something about how un-Christian their attitude was, to boot. (Yes, Jerry pulls that one off as well as any Democrat I know.)

Tags: barack obama, democratic party, jerry brown, republican party

Taylor Marsh: "Truth isn't subjective"

Taylor Marsh makes some very good points on false political equivalencies in Rally to Restore Sanity an Ode to Independents 10/31/2010. While she sees a real need to mobilize indepedent voters and win them to the Democratic side, she points out the problem with pretending for the sake of an image of "moderation" that "both sides do it" when, in reality, it's mainly one side "doing it." It, in this case, being promoting violence, racism and hatred. She writes:

Truth isn’t subjective, however, which I’m reminded of every day. Sometimes one side is absolutely wrong, like when Sarah Palin talked about "death panels," or when Rand Paul talked about private business owners being exempt from the Civil Rights Act. That would have been worth Stewart or Colbert pointing out. Pres. Obama and the Democrats were wrong not to fight for the public option, but also a stronger finreg bill, should have stood strong for women instead of selling us out. But that's a hell of a lot different than Sharron Angle’s charge that Second Amendment remedies should be used, which is not a way to solve differences. There is no one on the left suggesting such dangerous notions, which should have been said. No one on the left had a reporter handcuffed, like Joe Miller did in Alaska, or threatened to take a reporter out as Carl Paladino did in New York. These things matter, all of which Stewart and Colbert ignored for drawing false equivalents to the right and left. ...

Unfortunately, by amplifying left and right equally Stewart and Colbert did a disservice to the truth, which is not subjective.

If Jon Stewart truly believes that the left talking softly while the right wields a big rhetorical stick can get the job done he’s not been paying attention to his own show this year and should review the tapes, starting with the ones featuring Fox. [my emphasis]

And, as we've seen this last two years, the Republican version comes not just in the form of a metaphorical big stick, but in head-stomping (Kentucky), arresting a reporter for asking questions (Alaska) and variety of "Tea Party" nastiness. Oh, and various kinds of lethal far-right terrorism here and there, to which the Republican Party has largely responded by ignoring it and complaining that people who notice it are trying to unfairly connect Republicans with them.

Tags: 2010 elections, democratic party, radical right

Dick Armey on the treasonous obsessions of the "Democrat Party"

Ted Nugent wasn't the only Republican talking smack this past weekend. On ABC's This Week one of the Roundtable guests was former Texas Congressman Dick Armey, now head of FreedomWorks, one of the main corporate front groups funding "Tea Party" events. Discussing Tuesday's elections, he said:

ARMEY: No, I think what's going to happen is they're going to -- there's going to be the continuing contest in the big issues. Will the government be in control of America, which will ultimately destroy America, which is right now the obsession of the Democrat Party with their progressive core that controls the entire party, or will it be, in fact, restrained and responsively responsive to the desires and the needs of the American people. [my emphasis]

None of the other panelists nor host Christiane Amanpour made a peep about the fact that a senior Republican Party figure and "Tea Party" bankroller said outright that the "Democrat Party" (Republican grammar) was obsessed with trying to "destroy America". Once upon a time, it was considered sleazy and generally unacceptable to accuse individual candidates, much less the entire opposition party, of treason. It's now become so routine for the Republicans to accuse Democrats of treason that respectable TV pundits pretend not to notice.

Tags: radical right, tea party

Extremist rhetoric - being generated by "both sides"? Ted Nugent edition (UPDATED)

Juan Cole points out in Ted Nugent vs. Jon Stewart: Fumigating the Democrat Rats vs. Can’t we all Get Along? Informed Comment 11/01/2010, one side's rhetoric is sounding considerably nastier than the other's.

He passes on the news from CNN about one-time rock star Ted Nugent used explicitly eliminationist language against Democrats at a rally for the Republican Senate nominee in West Viriginia, John Raese, in a closely-contested race. Republicans love to whine that the mean libruls are trying to take away their freedom of speech. But anyone who wants to imitate Nugent's rant might want to check on the law first. As a general rule, a call for civil violence is protected under the 1st Amendment if it's not an immediate and specific call for violence, as in "Kill that guy in the blue hat right there!" Nugent actually mentioned specific names of Democrats who needed to be exterminated. I'm sure that if he mentioned the name of someone like the President currently under Secret Service protection in that context, he would get a not-very-friendly visit from them. People do go to prison for threats to kill individual politicians. Update: After listening to the full CNN tape, he mentions Nancy Pelosi by name, and it's hard to see how anyone could hear what he says here and not think he's referring to Obama as one of the "rats"; he talks about the White House and then about how we the public let the rats move in. I actually would be surprised if the Secret Service didn't at least take a close look at that.

Our star pundits seem to agree that "both sides" in American politics are contributing equally to extremism. If our Pod Pundits agree, I suppose it must be true. Still, things like this have to make you wonder. Ted Nugent is within the mainstream of today's Republican Party. Where he gave this speech was at a rally for the Republican Senate candidate in West Virginia, in a tightly contested race. Nugent is also a favorite speaker at NRA conventions - the NRA that Tea Partiers think is dangerously *moderate* on gun issues.

Tags: 2010 elections, radical right