Quotes of the Day: Noonan, Will, Brooks, and Gerson take down The Newt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The campaign to destroy Newt Gingrich, or at least his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, is well underway.

It's coming from renegades like Ron Paul (who's obviously acting on his own), Capitol Hill establishment types like Pete King (who's obviously playing his part in a more organized campaign), Romney surrogates like Chris Christie (who's obviously doing his pal's bidding), and, of course, from big-time conservative pundits who can see clearly that Newt, an unprincipled egomaniac, would be a disaster for the GOP. For example:

Peggy Noonan: "He is a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, 'Watch this!'"

George Will: "There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich's unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages."

David Brooks: "[Newt] has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with '60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form."

Michael Gerson: "Gingrich's language is often intemperate. He is seized by temporary enthusiasms. He combines absolute certainty in any given moment with continual reinvention over time."

Can you smell the fear? Can you sense the panic? If conservatives of this caliber are going after Newt with such aggressiveness, it's only because he's become such a formidable frontrunner, and because he's gaining such momentum that he may very well be approaching the realm of inevitability.

Quote of the Day: Huntsman calls Romney "a perfectly lubricated weathervane"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Huntsman the Formidable (as I have called him, even if he has been anything but formidable on the campaign trail -- not that he ever had a chance) called out Mitt Romney today on CNN:

Huntsman continued popular criticism of Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, by accusing him of changing his positions on issues including Libya, the debt ceiling and Ohio's bill to limit the collective bargaining rights of union workers.

"You can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day," Huntsman said. "Romney has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership."

"I do believe that the electorate this go around will be looking for clearly defined presidential leadership and I'm not sure we're seeing that," Huntsman added.

We're not seeing any of that on the Republican side (not really even from Huntsman himself, though he may come closer than any of them). And while I'm not sure Romney is any worse than, say, Perry, Cain, or Bachmann in terms of leadership, or lack thereof, Huntsman's assessment of him is spot on.

Of course, there's nothing new in calling Romney some variation of a flip-flopping opportunist who says whatever he thinks he needs to say to score political points, and this view of Romney is pretty much standard conservative fare.

But "perfectly lubricated weathervane" is just so poetic. Nicely done.

Tom Morello: Obama needs to fight for the poor and working class

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via News Corpse, I see that Tom Morello, he of Rage Against the Machine and The Nightwatchman fame (and one of the greatest rock guitarists ever), was on Bill Maher's Real Time on Friday. Morello, you may know, is a serious, impassioned activist for social justice, and particularly for economic justice and the poor and working class. And he's absolutely right about this:

Much like the President, I am half Kenyan. Like the President, I'm a Harvard graduate. Like the President, I'm from Illinois. And, like the President, I've been on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine. I got a message for him. 'Dude, it's time to grow a pair. A lot of people who put you in office put you in office to fight for them; to fight against the Tea Party; to fight against this bullshit in Congress; to fight against those sons of bitches who are attacking the working class and the poor in this country.' And he hasn't done any of it.

At the same time, I'm not waiting for him. I'm with the people in Madison. I'm with the people who are occupying Wall Street. That's what my music's about. When progressive, radical or even revolutionary changes happen in this country, it's come from below. When women got the right to vote, when lunch counters were desegregated, it was people you do not read about in history books who stood up in their place and their time for what they believe."

The problem is, Obama isn't much of a fighter. Sure, he's a great campaigner, a fighter to get election, but, whether in the Senate or in the White House, he hasn't shown he's anything other than an establishment Democrat. Just look at who he's named to the top spots on his economic team -- the same old Clinton-era Wall Streeters and their ilk who were so much a part of the mess to start with, who bear a great deal of the responsibility for the damage that Wall Street has done to the country, and to the world beyond.

Morello and other progressives may end up voting for Obama anyway, given the reality of the choice voters will face next November, but Obama has obviously lost a lot of support on the left, with much of the base he built up fed up and pissed off. He'll need to get some of that support back, some of that enthusiasm, some of the sense of hope that swept him into the Oval Office.

Taking Morello's advice would be a good start. And I, for one, do not think it is too late for the president to rediscover the spirit of '08.

**********

Here's Morello on Real Time:

News Corpse posts a clip of Morello performing "The Ghost of Tom Joad" with Bruce Springsteen. I did that several weeks ago. So here's Morello performing that great song as The Nightwatchman, without Springsteen -- it's a fantastic cover that very much reflects his political activism:

Quote of the day

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan, frequent guest on MSNBC, defending accused mass murderer Anders Breivik:

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

And MSNBC dropped Cenk Uygur because they didn't like his "tone"?

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Quote of the Day: Alan Simpson on Grover Norquist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Will there be a budget deal? Not if Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist has his way -- or, at least, there won't be a deal that includes tax increases (or even just letting the Bush tax cuts expire and returning to Clinton-era tax rates), though it's pretty clear that there's no way the budget problem will ever be addressed seriously without raising revenue (spending cuts alone won't cut it, particularly given how unpopular they are).

I haven't been a fan of President Obama's "deficit commission" -- it proposed some sensible reforms, such as ending various tax loopholes and subsidies, but its overall focus was on keeping government far too small, that is, on advancing a moderate Republican agenda without regard for progressive concerns -- but it's hard not to like, or at least to appreciate, the straight-talking (renegade Republican) Alan Simpson for occasionally telling it like it is:

If you are in thrall to Grover Norquist, this country hasn't got a prayer.

Okay, it's an old quote. He said that in February (though it was reported yesterday). But it still applies. And the problem, clearly, is that almost all Republicans are "in thrall" to Norquist.

Which means the country is in big, big trouble.

Quote of the Day: Alan Simpson on homophobes and hypocrites in the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And, oh, is this quotable. Here's the former Republican senator from Wyoming on Hardball yesterday:

Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says, "Have an abortion! They're wonderful!" They're hideous, but they're a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue.

Then you've got homosexuality, you've got Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have homophobes on our party. That's disgusting to me. We're all human beings. We're all God’s children. Now if they're going to get off on that stuff -- Santorum has said some cruel things -- cruel, cruel things -- about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul.

Now if that's the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, "Stick with your folks." But, I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values -- while you're diddling your secretary while you're giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.

No one ever accused Simpson of being verbally delicate, and while he doesn't really have anything to lose, he deserves a lot of credit for telling it like it is. It's just a wonder he still calls himself a Republican. Because, let's face it, there's an awful lot more he could have said.

Here's the clip:

Sarah Palin: "I am not going to shut up."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Alas.

(All she's doing now, in defending herself by being aggressively partisan, is trying to avoid taking any responsibility for doing anything at all that might have contributed to the right-wing culture of violence that pervades American society and provided the context for the Arizona shooting. And, typically, she's making it all about herself, even a tragic event. But what credibility does she have outside of her circle of minions and a dwindling number of worshippers? She's been exposed again, and her political "star" is fading fast.)

Quote of the Day: Dana Milbank on Republican hypocrisy (and worse)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the Republicans take over the House, it's time for some perspective. And Milbank's got it:

For incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his House Republicans, something strange happened on the way to Wednesday's "Opening Day" of the new Congress.

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues campaigned against high deficits. Now, in the new majority's first major act, they plan to vote to increase the deficit by $143 billion as part of a repeal of health-care reform. [Ezra Klein has more on this.]

For two years, Cantor and his colleagues bemoaned the Democrats' abuse of House rules to circumvent committees and to prevent Republicans from offering amendments. Now, Cantor confirmed on Tuesday, Republicans will employ the very same abuses as they attempt the repeal.

For two years, the Republicans complained about unrelenting Democratic partisanship. Now they're planning no fewer than 10 investigations of the Obama administration, and the man leading most of those has already branded Obama's "one of the most corrupt administrations" in history.

For two years, the Republican minority vowed to return power to the people. Now the House Republican majority is asking lobbyists which regulations to repeal, hiring lobbyists to key staff positions and hobnobbing with lobbyists at big-ticket Washington fundraisers.

Not that we could have seen this coming or anything. Right, American voters?

Happy New Year! Happy 112th Congress! Enjoy reaping what you have sown!

Quote of the Day: Arlen Specter on Justices Roberts and Alito

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ex-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted to confirm both John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but the outgoing Democrat, in his last speech on the Senate floor, rightly took aim at both:

The Supreme Court has been eating Congress' lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedent.

Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising -- thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote. Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.

Specter was referring to the notorious Citizens United decision, a 5-4 ruling (with the conservatives, including Kennedy, with the swing vote, in the majority) that essentially opened to the door to unlimited corporate spending on election advertising. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

In other words, the decision paves the way for the corporate takeover of American politics -- as if the system weren't already corporate enough.

Of course, Specter could not have known this when he voted for Roberts and Alito, but he knew full well that such right-wing judicial activism was likely. If nothing else, he should have known after Bush v. Gore that what drives conservative judges these days is not adherence to the letter of the Constitution, as they self-righteously claim, but adherence to a generally partisan right-wing agenda and to a view of the judiciary as a key instrument for enabling the implementation of that agenda.

Yes, Specter should have known this, and maybe he did, but at least he's saying the right things on the way out.

Quote of the Day: Andrew Sullivan on Republican "dickishness"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've got to hand it to Andrew Sullivan. I may not always agree with him (and his small 'c' conservatism), but he's immensely quotable and, when it comes to what's wrong with American conservatism and the Republican Party, is right on:

What we've observed these past two years is a political party that knows nothing but scorched earth tactics, cannot begin to see any merits in the other party's arguments, refuses to compromise one inch on anything, and has sought from the very beginning to do nothing but destroy the Obama presidency. I see no other coherent message or strategy since 2008. Just opposition to everything, zero support for a president grappling with a recession their own party did much to precipitate, and facing a fiscal crisis the GOP alone made far worse with their spending in the Bush-Cheney years. There is not a scintilla of responsibility for their past; not a sliver of good will for a duly elected president. Worse, figures like Cantor and McCain actively seek to back foreign governments against the duly elected president of their own country, and seek to repeal the signature policy achievement of Obama's first two years, universal healthcare.

Read the whole post.

Scarborough slams Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Far be it from me to heap any praise on Joe Scarborough -- I generally consider him a slimy creep -- but sometimes, you gotta admit, he's right:

Republicans have a problem. The most-talked-about figure in the GOP is a reality show star who cannot be elected. And yet the same leaders who fret that Sarah Palin could devastate their party in 2012 are too scared to say in public what they all complain about in private.

Enough. It's time for the GOP to man up.

I hate the phrase "man up," but otherwise this is a solid assessment of the current state of the GOP. For all the anti-Obama obstructionism and right-wing ideology, it's basically the party of Sarah Palin (and "Sarah Palin"). She's become the de facto leader of the party, and, while I do think some of us (yes, I include myself) spend too much time on her, it's important not to give her, or her party, a free pass.

And, actually, I would prefer that she remain a prominent, if not the most prominent, Republican -- because I think Scarborough is right. She could very well "devastate" the party. I still don't think she'll run for president, but even being a prominent player -- a kingmaker, of sorts, the one will anoint the 2012 nominee -- could be enough to derail the party (as if its extremism isn't enough).

This is the woman, after all, who backed such utterly un-electable candidates this year as Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, not to mention Joe Miller and John Raese. Some of her chosen candidates won, like Rand Paul, but they probably would have won anyway. Her record, simply, has been poor, largely because she gravitates towards those like her, bitter, resentful, extremist outsiders who resonate with the Tea Party but not so much with the GOP establishment, let alone with independents or conservative Democrats.

Anyway, Jonathan Chait is right to note that some Republicans have already challenged/criticized Palin: Karl Rove, Peggy Noonan, Barbara Bush (for what that's worth), and The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash. The "manning up," in other words, has already begun. Other than Rep. Spencer Bachus, though, who blamed the Republicans not winning the Senate on Palin (which is a bit of a stretch, but not much), "elected Republicans, and especially Republican presidential candidates, have shied away from attacking Palin on the record." That presumably was part of Scarborough's point.

And as long as Palin remains so popular with Republicans, specifically with the two main components of the base -- social conservatives and teabaggers -- elected Republicans, particularly those in the House who may want her endorsement in 2012 (whether she runs or not) and those eyeing the presidency, won't dare come out against her in any significant way. Her wrath, channelled through Facebook and Fox News, is enough to scare any self-regarding Republican into submission.

And there, if you're a Republican who actually cares about the future of your party as something other than a repository of right-wing insanity, is the problem.

Quote of the Day: Colin Powell on the "Ground Zero mosque"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The one-time possible president, on The View:

The terrorists win if we become terrified and... change who we are and what we are.

In other words: build Park51 where it is planned to be built, near but not at Ground Zero, and don't give in to the bigots and haters, including those who say the community center (not, strictly speaking, a mosque) should just be moved uptown a bit but who are really expressing broad anti-Muslim sentiment.

And, I would add, Park51 has nothing to do with the planned Quran burning in Florida. Terry Jones, the pastor of that despicable church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, spent today trying to connect the two, and trying to dominate the news, suggesting that he would refrain from burning the Quran if Park51 were moved. Park51 is intended to be a peaceful center for Muslims and for outreach to non-Muslims, whereas the Quran burning is intended to be an expression of Christian supremacism, an expression of hatred. In this sense, Park51 is deeply American, while the Quran burning is deeply un-American. Jones is spinning his bigotry as patriotism, and there is indeed a dark side to patriotism, but burning the Quran and expressing this sort of vilification of the Other runs counter, I would argue, to the core ideals that America purports to hold dear.

Thankfully, some major media outlets, including Fox News and the AP, have stated that they will not cover the Quran burning, should it take place on Saturday. Sure, the media have been drooling all over this story, just as I and many other bloggers have, but it's good to know that such bigotry would not be given the sort of attention that Jones so clearly desires.

Quote of the Day: Anthony Romero of the ACLU on Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Romero's had it, and rightly so:

I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by. It's not a personal attack.

What specifically?

It's 18 months and, if not now, when?... Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There's no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don't see it.

Many of us don't see it, and Romero of all people is in a good position to know what's going on, and what hasn't changed since Obama took office.

Quote of the Day: Arnold Schwarzenegger on Arizona

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Governator was in top comedic form in his commencement address at Emory University in Atlanta today:

I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me. 

Now that, my friends, is funny, a poignant smackdown of Arizona's draconian new anti-immigrant law.

Quote of the Day: Dick Durbin on offshore drilling

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Durbin, today:

There's a lot to be learned by members and perhaps new standards when it comes to off-shore drilling. I don't think we're going to eliminate offshore drilling in the future, but any future offshore drilling is going to be held to much higher safety standards.

Higher safety standards are the least that can be expected from this (man-made) disaster.

I appreciate Durbin's concern, and I wish him well, but the real lesson here is not that there need to be higher standards, which is pretty obvious, but that, if at all possible, there shouldn't be any offshore drilling at all, and that the only way to avoid not just this sort of disaster in future but environmental destruction generally, not to mention to slow down climate change, of which our reckless oil consumption is a leading cause, and stabilize global temperatures, is to shift to alternative and renewable energy sources.

Last time I checked, solar panels and wind turbines don't have quite the catastrophic consequences as, say, an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico does.

Quote of the Day: Linda Greenhouse on Arizona's new immigration law

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the "Opinionator" blog at the Times:

I'm glad I've already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I'm not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

*****

The intent of the new Arizona law, according to the State Legislature, is "attrition through enforcement." Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.

I've never been to Arizona and, alas, I've never seen the Grand Canyon. I'd really like to someday, but I'm in no great rush and, more to the point, have no desire to visit what has become, under Brewer and her Republican ilk, a good ol' right-wing paradise simmering in its own venomous bile.

Who's the socialist?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Billy Wharton.

Who's Billy Wharton?

He's co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, the country's main socialist political party, the main successor to the Socialist Party of America.

So he's a guy who knows a thing or two about socialism, and about whether, as conservatives allege, Obama and his agenda are socialist. Well...

We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama, and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.

But what about what conservatives are saying?

It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is.

Now, to be fair, socialism isn't monolithic, and different socialists believe different things. Even CNN seems to understand this. But Wharton's point is right. People hurl the socialism/socialist label around without much of a clue as to what it actually means.

Indeed, it's rather amusing that, judging by the tone of its article, CNN seems really surprised to have learned that there is already a good deal of socialism, broadly understood, in America: Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's almost like CNN can't quite believe it, and so the article, valuable in a way but also profoundly stupid and deeply ignorant despite its citations of experts, contains a mixture of curiosity and repulsion. And, given where CNN is headed, it's hardly surprising that the final section of the article focuses on a single teabagger who, by all indications, is even more profoundly stupid and deeply ignorant.

Regardless, Wharton is quite right. Neither Obama nor his agenda is socialist. Like so many reformers before him, he is simply trying to save capitalism from itself.

Quote of the Day: John McWhorter on Sarah Palin (and her all-American toddler-speak)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This, it seems to me, is spot on:

Palin is given to meandering phraseology of a kind suggesting someone more commenting on impressions as they enter and leave her head rather than constructing insights about them. Or at least, insights that go beyond the bare-bones essentials of human cognition -- an entity (i.e. something) and a predicate (i.e. something about it).

*****

What truly distinguishes Palin's speech is its utter subjectivity: that is, she speaks very much from the inside of her head, as someone watching the issues from a considerable distance. The there fetish, for instance -- Palin frequently displaces statements with an appended "there," as in "We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there..." But where? Why the distancing gesture? At another time, she referred to Condoleezza Rice trying to "forge that peace." That peace? You mean that peace way over there -- as opposed to the peace that you as Vice-President would have been responsible for forging? She's far, far away from that peace.

*****

This reminds me of toddlers who speak from inside their own experience in a related way: they will come up to you and comment about something said by a neighbor you've never met, or recount to you the plot of an episode of a TV show they have no way of knowing you’ve ever heard of. Palin strings her words together as if she were doing it for herself -- meanings float by, and she translates them into syntax in whatever way works, regardless of how other people making public statements do it.

*****

The modern American typically relates warmly to the use of English to the extent that it summons the oral -- "You betcha," "Yes we can!" -- while passing from indifference to discomfort to the extent that its use leans towards the stringent artifice of written language. As such, Sarah Palin can talk, basically, like a child and be lionized by a robust number of perfectly intelligent people as an avatar of American culture. And linguistically, let's face it: she is.

Ouch. It doesn't exactly say much for American culture -- and the American people -- that it's essentially personified, linguistically, by Sarah Palin.

But something has to explain her ongoing popularity, at least on the right -- which, let's face it, is child-like (and not in a good way, and I don't mean to insult children) -- and this at least partly does.

She's one of you, my American friends. Like it or not.

Quote of the Day: Obama on himself

By Michael J.W. Stickings

To Harry Smith of CBS's Early Show, yesterday:

I can go to my right, but I prefer my left.

He was talking about basketball, not politics -- obviously.

Quote of the Day: David Axelrod on Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Obama Prepared to Move Agenda Forward With or Without GOP," headlines ABC News.

The odds for "with" are probably so high that a responsible bookie wouldn't even take a "without" bet.

Anyway, here's Axelrod:

I haven't given up on Republicans. I do believe that there are Republicans of good conscience who want to work together on issues.

Really? Name five of them. Seriously. Start with five "of good conscience." Then "who want to work together on issues."

Snowe or Collins? Nope. Brown? Not likely, though maybe here and there. Graham? Maybe on climate change, sort of. Cao? Only because he wants to win re-election a Democratic district. Who else is there? Once upon a time, maybe McCain, but no more, not with him veering ever further to the right to ward off a right-wing primary challenge back home.

But that's about it. Look what they did, unanimously, on health-care reform.

I'd say that Axelrod is full of shit, but of course he's not. He knows full well that bipartisanship isn't possible with the Republicans the way they are.

But I suppose he has to say the right things, what with the media's love-in with bipartisanship, and he certainly doesn't want the White House, and his boss (who's certainly smart enough to know what's going on and who plays up bipartisanship because he knows it plays well with the American people -- and if it works, it works, but if it doesn't, the Republicans look bad), to come across as intransigently partisan.

In the end, Democrats will have to go it alone, as they did on health-care reform. You have to be ignorant of political and ideological reality to think otherwise.