Submitted to a Candid World
Economy
“Of Course She’s Not Ready!”
Says Lawrence Eagleburger (note: you can’t make a name like that up!) of Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Palin concedes the economy, and asks voters to remember national security… and McCain concedes Bush’s groundbreaking 72-hour get-out-the-vote strategy, re-allocating money to advertisements.
Can You Catch Socialism from Kissing in Your Swimming Suit?
Republican rhetoric is at defcon-1/terror-level-red hysteria, throwing around “socialism” as if the word were the finger in the dike of a cracking, disintegrating campaign … Oh, wait, it IS that finger! Well, no need to panic, brave Republicans, socialism is alive and well in the U.S. It has been since, um, … the beginning, with the acknowledgment in the Constitution, no less, that Congress has “the Power to lay and collect Taxes” for the “general Welfare of the United States”. Socialism is central to core American values that weave through both Palin’s “real America” and the icky, unreal chunks.
Join me, comrade, below the jump …
Value Voters: Redefining “Priorities Fail”
I have a hard time not grimacing every time I hear the phrase “values voter.” Like the evangelical appropriation of the term “pro-family” to mean “pro-straight family, but rabidly and violently opposed to gay families,” the far right’s usage of the term “values voter” takes a valence issue and twists it into a narrowly partisan term, with the insulting implication that anyone who doesn’t share their values doesn’t have any values.
In fact, it strikes me that the opposite is true. As the old saying goes, “hate is not a family value.” Neither is blackmail. Nor do I think it particularly pro-family to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term – since she can always put it up for adoption! – and then stop a gay couple from adopting the child. On the other hand, I think tolerance, compassion, and separation of church and state are fairly important, fundamentally American values.
But the hypocritical redefinition of “values” is neither here nor there. It’s an old grudge, and one that I’m sure many of you share, but it’s not particularly interesting. What is interesting is watching the degree to which, in this election, “values voters” (largely lower- and middle-income) seem torn between their pocket book, served by the Democrats, and their patriarchal notions of “faith,” served by Republicans like Sarah Palin. It’s a genuine conflict of interest, and as I’ve said,
The [Republican] Party’s greatest trick – the Reagan Realignment (although it’s fair to say it was begun by Nixon) – came about when the Republican Party adopted its current vaguely theocratic/culture-war platform to convince lower- and middle-class voters to vote against their pocketbook.
In tough economic times, that coalition starts to look vulnerable. Perhaps, in past elections, it’s been easy for values voters to overlook their financial interest and vote their heart over their mind. But, as Fivethirtyeight has noted, with the economy in dire straits, and the blame (rightly or wrongly) on the Republicans, even racism seems like a luxury (“ma’am, we’re voting for the n****er.”).
Indeed. It’s not a good climate for Republicans, they say. It’s arguably not a good climate for narrow “values voter” issues, either. After all, with the economy in the tank, who can justify spending $500,000/year on abstinence education that nobody wants? With the temporal City of Man crumbling around them, traditional values voters could be expected to find it harder to pull the lever for the City of God, to the detriment of their country’s financial interests. But for campaigns like this:
Campaigns that are, apparently, working: per Gallup, as voters increasingly distrust McCain on real issues, like foreign affairs and the economy, they increasingly rationalize their support for him based on his personal beliefs. Forget about waning American hegemony, dismal economic prospects, and the deaths of our soldiers abroad. Faith (fundamentalist Christianity ONLY). Family (straight ONLY). Life (embryonic ONLY). That’s what really matters.
How sad. In a world where real-life issues matter “now more than ever,” millions of Americans are set to throw their vote away, just to prevent the tenuous psychic harm of watching two men hold hands. These people aren’t just willing to die for their faith; they’re willing to watch their country die for old prejudices that they call their faith.
America doesn’t need another President beholden to fundamentalist interests and blinded to reality. Real patriots think of their “country first” – even if that means putting the culture war second.
The Boring Truth Behind Obama’s 2001 Redistribution “Bombshell”
When Barack Obama talks about “redistribution” in the context of court orders, here’s what he’s talking about (shamelessly ripped from Slate): “In 1964, law professor Charles Reich wrote a hugely influential article called “The New Property.” Reich’s idea was that some benefits, once conferred by the government, couldn’t be taken away without some sort of legal process. [. . .] In 1970, the Supreme Court picked up on this idea in the context of welfare benefits. In a 6-to-3 decision, Goldberg v. Kelly, the court said that the state could not terminate those benefits without giving the recipient a hearing.”
A Lot Can Change in Eight Years (The Evolution of a “Maverick”)
Here’s the question of the day: is John McCain a maverick? Well, let’s define our terms, gentlemen. If by “maverick,” you mean, “politician willing to break with conventional party knowledge, just to serve the greater good,” then…
No. John McCain is not a “maverick.” Or at least he isn’t anymore. He’s even taking his talking points from President Bush.
Case in point: the rantings and ravings coming from the McCain/Palin ticket, about how Barack Obama is a “socialist” for favoring progressive tax policy, are not bolts out of the blue. In fact, McCain has a record of characterizing his opponents’ tax policies as “class warfare.”
Just normally, it’s for the other side.
In fact, accusations of “class warfare” during a presidential race have a storied past. Eight years ago, John McCain warned that Governor Bush’s tax plan, by increasing the rich-poor gap, threatened “class warfare,” marking McCain’s first mention of the term. McCain of 2000 thought that “class warfare” meant helping the rich, and ignoring the poor.
But he lost. The talking point didn’t work. George W. Bush won the primaries largely because he favored tax “relief” for the rich, and he went on to the general election. But Bush took McCain’s talking point, and ran with it – in the opposite direction. At the presidential debates, Bush accused Gore of waging “class warfare” by focusing on tax cuts for the middle class instead of the rich. Bush turned McCain’s fear of “class warfare” on its head, and used it to “win” the Presidency.
Today, McCain is pushing Bush’s version of the “class warfare”/”socialism” argument, indicating nothing less than a complete abandonment of everything he used to stand for. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Take John McCain’s… and his far-right critics (below the line).
So, to repeat the question: is John McCain a maverick? Well, if by “maverick,” you mean, “erratic politician willing to compromise his principles just to get ahead,” then…
Yes.
(1) Equal ≠ Equitable, (2) Flat Tax = Suck
Ames’ Note: please welcome didionsmommy to the writing team here! In an election with such an intense focus on the economy, she brings a great attention to detail, a superb knowledge of the economy, and her time and effort. Please make her feel welcome. Wait; let me rephrase. Make her feel welcome, or I eat your fambly.
Flat-tax supporters (usually upper-middle- and upper-class earners and, strangely, many Republican white males who are not in those higher income brackets) are correct when they say a flat tax treats tax payers equally. It does, on paper. Assigning an income tax rate of 15% on every dollar earned by American workers treats every dollar (and every worker) equally. It does not, however, treat every dollar and every worker equitably. And the United States is founded on the ideal of equity.
Pictures and (ped)antics after the jump …
Better Minds Report on the 2001 “Redistribution” Smear – Consensus: It’s Undeniably FALSE
Today, an unholy coalition of Matt Drudge, PUMAs, far-right kooks, and John McCain joined forces to push one big lie summed up in one big headline: “2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT ‘REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT.” The problem? It misapprehends the meaning of “redistribution.” Recall that Obama spoke then not as the candidate, but as the law professor. On this issue, trust the interpretation of Cass Sunstein over Joe the Plumber:
Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net — to things like education and welfare.
Done. I’ll take a conlaw giant interpreting an interview about constitutional law over the judgment of educational lightweight John McCain any day. And, watch a Fox News anchor get owned for her coverage of this fake controversy:
Forgive me for an unoriginal post, but it has to be said repeatedly.
Pre-Empting Dishonest Spin
Republicans, at the insistence of Matt Drudge, may begin pushing a 2001 radio clip in which Obama discusses the legal theories behind “redistributing wealth” from the bench. While GOP adds may stop there, honest listeners should wait to hear Obama disclaim the redistribution of wealth on functional grounds.
McCain Begging from Investment Bankers: Potential for Humor
If John McCain sent you a prepaid & addressed return envelope, attached to a solicitation for donations, what would you send him? This is the problem faced by Phil (h/t philfiles), whose friend, a Wall Street financier, just got hit up for donations. You know your campaign’s in trouble when (1) you’re asking for money from employees of a firm you just voted to bail out, and (2) you can’t trust your supporters to be excited enough to pay for postage.
OMG RUN ON THE BANKS
Just kidding. Don’t. Seriously. Unfortunately the Republicans torpedoed the bailout package, no thanks to John McCain, and Wall Street panicked. Obama took the chance to look presidential and project calm; McCain, shockingly, stooped to insults. Stand by.
