A Conservative Method

Who: Paul Constant
What: "Mitt Romney Needs More Time to Finish His Taxes, Goddamnit", Slog
When: April 13, 2012

Noting that Mitt Romney has filed for an extension on reporting his taxes that would suggest a mid-October release of the candidate's 2011 financial information, Paul Constant speculates on the reasons:

I can't understand what the Romney campaign's motivation is in holding off on this. It seems like they'd just want to tear the Band-Aid off now, while the race is still heating up. Maybe they're afraid that releasing the 2011 taxes will incite more calls for previous years of Romney's taxes? But it seems like you'd want that controversy to happen as far away from Election Day as possible, wouldn't you? Maybe they're hoping the economy will flatline between now and then, because Romney's great personal wealth could again seem like a positive. Do they really think the press will forget about this? Why are they waiting to release these taxes?

We should remember that a tactical favorite of conservatives is to stir up a controversy and then complain about the fact that there is a controversy. We've seen it most recently and apparently in the GOP's War on Caterpillars.

Wait, wait, wait. It's not caterpillars. War on ... uh ... war on ... I don't know. The GOP's War on Something Important, but after GOP Chair Reince Priebus made that delightful joke about fuzzy-wuzzy caterpillars, I'm just too charmed to remember.

Or something like that.

But you know how it goes: Pass a bunch of stupid laws; say a bunch of stupid things. When everyone else gets pissed off, complain that ne'er-do-wells are mudslinging a manufactured controversy.

Having Romney's taxes come out in October would simply set up his campaign to pitch to the exceptionally gullible among that curious bloc that calls itself "independent voters" and whine about how the evil liberals are manufacturing a controversy to take everyone's attention away from the real issues.

True, it sounds almost unbelievably simplistic and stupid, but there is nothing about the transparent cynicism Team Romney has shown thus far that suggests intellectual exercise.

Malpractice Insurance: Trudeau on the GOP War of the Sexes

Who: Michael Cavna
What: "'Doonesbury' creator Garry Trudeau discusses divisive strips about abortion", The Washington Post
When: March 11, 2012

Michael Cavna of The Washington Post recently interviewed Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau about an upcoming week of controversial strips covering the American reproduction debate revival:

In my 42 years with UPS, the "Silent Scream" week was the only series that the syndicate ever strongly objected to. [Syndicate president Lee Salem] felt that it would be deeply harmful to the feature and that we would lose clients permanently. They had supported me through so much for so long, I felt obliged to go with their call.

Such was not the case this week. There was no dispute over contents, just some discussion over whether to prepare a substitute week for editors who requested one [which we did].

I chose the topic of compulsory sonograms because it was in the news and because of its relevance to the broader battle over women's health currently being waged in several states. For some reason, the GOP has chosen 2012 to re-litigate reproductive freedom, an issue that was resolved decades ago. Why [Rick] Santorum, [Rush] Limbaugh et al. thought this would be a good time to declare war on half the electorate, I cannot say. But to ignore it would have been comedy malpractice.

A Conspiracy, or, What Else Could It Be?

Who: David Horsey
What: "Herman Cain and the liberal media conspiracy", SeattlePI.com
When: November 30, 2011

Because it's always a liberal conspiracy, you know ....

This conspiracy goes back much farther than the brief months of Cain's campaign, of course. It began back in the 1960s when the liberal media elites identified a Kenyan-born baby with an American mother; a child they could groom in secret to become their tool to destroy Christian America. They arranged a fake birth announcement in Honolulu's newspapers, indoctrinated the boy in the Muslim cesspool of Indonesia and, when the time was right, brought him to the exotic, multiracial pleasure garden of Hawaii where he could easily fit in and begin his surreptitious climb to power ....

.... Why, you may ask, would media companies that are deeply enmeshed in the capitalist system and run by rich families and Wall Street investors be so devoted to replacing American free enterprise with Kenyan anti-colonial socialism? And how, you may also wonder, could they be so prescient, so forward thinking that they could plot the rise of a Kenyan baby to the White House, yet not notice until it was too late that Craig's List and Google were stealing all their business?

All the Subtlety of a Newtron Bomb

Who: KCRW
What: To the Point
When: December 5, 2011

Figuring the subtleties of Newt Gingrich is a bit like getting beaten by an angry Pillsbury Doughboy. That is, for all it might hurt, it is hard not to laugh at the absurdity of the proposition; and it is probably something one ought not undertake without first ingesting some sort of hallucinogen.

Still, though, Warren Olney and his panel of guests put in a pretty good effort at trying to explain the Newtron Bomber:

Something About Truth and Power

Who: Bob Engelhart
What: "Who???", Hartford Courant
When: November 21, 2011

If you'll recall, W, in a typically moron Republican move, cut taxes without cutting spending and then waged two, count 'em, two wars. It happened on his watch, and don't forget it. The corporate bailouts happened on his watch, too. I know the GOP doesn't like us to remember that, but unlike their brain-dead elephant and constituents to match, we remember.

Famous Last Words?

In June, I offered up for friends and associates an analysis of the Republican presidential field in the context of Newt Gingrich:

When Democrats compete to challenge an incumbent Republican president, liberals tend to regard seemingly hopeless candidacies, such as the Rev. Al Sharpton's 2004 run, or even the respectable but wildly unsuccessful effort by former Sen. Caron Moseley Braun, as issue advocacy campaigns.

With the GOP field this year so presently disorganized, it is hard to figure who falls where. In some cases, such as former Sen. Rick Santorum, it is easy enough to figure; he is playing to and for the social conservatives—clearly, barring some apocalyptic collapse of the American political structure, Santorum cannot win. One might suggest the same of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, if she declares as expected.

Some consider Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty the foremost "serious" candidate, with the adjective taken to mean someone who actually can compete in the general election.

Which leaves a tier of candidates like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, who bring leagues of devoted fans and followers to the contest, and certainly have a penchant for headlines—thus posturing them as significant players in the early rounds—who cannot win the general election.

One could easily suggest that these will be relegated to the advocacy tier, but American politics is also so chaotic that Palin or former House Speaker Newt Gingrich could seriously unsettle a candidate like Pawlenty as the Republican Party moves toward its convention in Tampa at the end of August, 2012.

It is astounding how wrong I was. Tim Pawlenty is out. Newt Gingrich is running third.

It would be best, I figure, if I don't try to revise that analysis, and simply remind that anyone trying to tell you what conventional wisdom says is probably wrong. We'll see what the New Year brings, but come on ... really? Newt Gingrich is running in third place? Behind a book tour, and the guy Republicans seem determined to avoid?

Yeah, we'll see how they feel about Romney when the calendar turns to 2012 and the primary season kicks off. But the preseason so far has been an exercise in confusion.

The Obvious Question

Who: Steve Benen
What: "The growing acceptance of the 'sabotage' question", Political Animal
When: November 7, 2011

At first glance, it is just one of those things. Everybody has a certain line they won't cross. It is a line of human decency. And it's not that they won't commit this or that atrocity but, rather, a point beyond which they cannot believe "normal"—a highly subjective word, especially in this context—people would tread. It is a point which other people's cynicism can encompass, but no, one says, not me: I cannot believe that other people should behave that way, or that respectable folk would let them get away with it.

But it's been a question in the back of political observers' minds since the midterm election, if not before.

The New York Times editorial board had a piece today on the importance of unemployment benefits, and made an observation in passing that stood out for me.

"Tragically," the editorial said, "the more entrenched the jobs shortage becomes, the more paralyzed Congress becomes, with Republicans committed to doing nothing in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012."

The point was made in passing, but it's nevertheless striking. As far as the editorial board of the nation's most important newspaper is concerned, it's simply accepted as fact that congressional Republicans want to hold back the economy, on purpose, to undermine the Obama presidency.

Benen's analysis of the question shows such attitudes are a minority, to be certain, but only barely. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll put Obama up against Congressional Republicans, with the result that 50% sided with Obama.

This comes less than a week after a poll in Florida found that 49% of voters statewide believe congressional Republicans “are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected.” The WaPo/ABC poll is, as best as I can tell, the first national poll to consider the same issue.

To be sure, the wording of this new poll isn’t ideal, and is far less direct than the poll conducted in Florida. But the takeaway is still pretty clear: half the country is inclined to believe GOP officials are killing efforts to boost the economy for purely political reasons.

Still, though, such a cynical gamble might work. Albeit with some minor exceptions, the American political system is a two-party arrangement.

A conservative associate recently pointed out to me that in 2010, the Republican margin was actually closer to fifteen percent, because the GOP one 14.77% more votes than Democrats. And it's true: the difference does equal 14.77% of the Democratic vote total. But what, really, does this half-witted fluffing of the margin really say? One would think the similarly-calculated 15.88% margin for President Obama, and the 20.66% congressional numbers (peaking at 25% in the Senate) would say even more in those terms. Yet what it has earned the nation is stonewall obstructionism from the GOP. Were those 14.77% more voters than Democrats hoping to duck out on the national debt? Were they hoping state houses would start tinkering with their zoning regulations to close specific medical facilities? Were they really voting for another round of the culture war as we see coming from the right?

What, really, is the likelihood of that 14.77% more voters than the Democrats won actually got what they were hoping for out of the deal?

Still, though, my associate's determination to convince me that all this obstructionism spells doom for Obama is not unfounded. There is a strong likelihood that it could work:

Though in theory, it should, this won’t necessarily give President Obama a boost. The degree of national cynicism is so intense, many Americans may simply assume Republicans are sabotaging the national economy, but take their frustrations out on the president anyway. As Greg noted, “The number who see Obama as a strong leader is now upside down (48-51), suggesting yet again that even if Americans understand that Republicans are deliberately blocking Obama’s policies, they may conclude that his failure to get around them just shows he’s weak or ineffectual.”

Voters’ understanding of the political process is severely limited, and many Americans likely fail to appreciate the role Congress must play in policymaking. There are no doubt plenty of voters thinking, “Sure, Republicans are sabotaging the economy, but why can’t Obama just go around them?” unaware of the fact that, on a grand scale, this isn’t an option.

Still, it is telling, at the very least, that the question of whether Republicans are deliberately stonewalling the economy in hopes that voters will punish Democrats should even be something we might have to take seriously.

Terms of Payment

Who: David Horsey
What: "Separating the truly scary from the bogus frights", SeattlePI.com
When: October 27, 2011

The last time America picked a president without resorting to a campaign filled with false accusations and trumped up crises was probably in 1796 when an unopposed George Washington won a second term.

By 1800, the compulsion to do battle over bogus issues had kicked in and, since then, many a campaign has been built on manufactured fear. Campaign 2012 is no different.

Watching the Republicans' serial presidential debates, one would think the most fearsome problems confronting Americans are high taxes that are killing economic activity, onerous regulations that keep businessmen from creating jobs, illegal immigration, gay marriage and a president who is too weak to confront Islamic terrorists and dictators.

Well, if you say something often enough and loud enough, people may begin to think it's important, but, outside the realm of boilerplate conservative applause lines, there are far more worrisome threats facing the country.

Halloween is a year-roud enterprise for some. While many criticize the American political circus for its histrionics, and plenty will attempt to sound sage while pointing out that it happens on both sides of the aisle, there is a fundamental process at work that often goes unnoticed for its subtlety.

And it is true that subtlety in politics can be counted as anything short of a twenty-five mile crack in the ice shelf. One sometimes wonders at the psychological processes governing voter perceptions, and whether the phrase cognitive dissonance has not actually been beaten to death in recent years.

Because Their Blacks ... er ... um ... Right

Who: Karl Frisch
What: "Less Vetting Than the Average Godfather's Pizza Delivery Boy", The Cagle Post
When: November 3, 2011

Democratic strategist Karl Frisch sort of states the obvious, and it's hard to know where to start. Of course, the obvious ought to be pretty much ... well ... blatantly obvious to begin with. So let's go with this:

... [Y]es, I realize conservatives assume facts have an intrinsic liberal bias just like the media, science, weather, letters, numbers, and shapes.

At 11:20am on Monday morning, Cain told Fox News, "If the restaurant did a settlement, I wasn't even aware of it." That is essentially the same thing he told the National Press Club not two hours later when he said, "I am unaware of any settlement. I hope it wasn't for much, because I didn't do anything" indicating that he not only had no knowledge of any agreements but that he also had no knowledge of the amount of any agreements if they actually existed.

By 6pm that evening, Cain's story was beginning to change. This time he told PBS, "I was aware that an agreement was reached."

Before calling it a night, Cain appeared on Fox News again at 10pm to completely contradict himself saying, "We ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement, quite frankly … Maybe three months' salary or something like that."

In less than twelve hours, Cain went from being clueless about the whole affair — pardon the pun — to knowing quite a bit more than he'd let on about.

Don't for a second assume that Cain and his team first heard about these accusations when they read them in Politico — they had been contacted several times over the course of nearly two weeks in advance of the publication of the story by reporters requesting comment in writing and in person.

Since the story broke, a third woman has come forward, telling the Associated Press that she had received "a private invitation to [Cain's] corporate apartment" and that the future presidential candidate had made "sexually suggestive remarks or gestures" towards her.

Few people know exactly what happened between Cain and his female employees and only one person has been free to discuss the story openly: Herman Cain.

Since Cain has proven himself unreliable, perhaps the National Restaurant Association should free these women from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell their side of the story.

Then, and only then, can this blame game end.

Boiling Oil

Who: Eugene Robinson
What: "The GOP is fed up with its choices", The Washington Post
When: August 22, 2011

In theory, Democrats should be nervous about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's decision to enter the presidential race. In practice, though, it's Republicans who have zoomed up the anxiety ladder into freak-out mode.

To clarify, not all Republicans are reaching for the Xanax, just those who believe the party has to appeal to centrist independents if it hopes to defeat President Obama next year. Also, those who believe that calling Social Security "an illegal Ponzi scheme" and suggesting that Medicare is unconstitutional might not be the best way to win the votes of senior citizens.

Perhaps it seems a curious test of the nation, or, at least, the Republican Party. As ideological extremists battle for control of the GOP, there is an emerging sense that the party's presidential field is pandering so hard to the right wing that independent and moderate voters will find them inaccessible.

This argument, though, presumes an abstract political center, and that might be an error.

Cold Tea

Who: David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
What: "Crashing the Tea Party", The New York Times
When: August 16, 2011

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party's "origin story." Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party's supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What's more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek "deeply religious" elected officials, approve of religious leaders' engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party's generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann's lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry's prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

Campbell and Putnam actually open with a consideration of numbers; the Tea Party tide is waning right now, with approval numbers over the last fourteen months holding more or less steady, and opposition to the movement more than doubling.

The paragraphs quoted above are their answer to a proposition: "... the trends would seem to favor the Tea Party. So why are its negatives so high? To find out, we need to examine what kinds of people actually support it."

And they may have a point.

(Photo by Pargon.)

Horsey on Perry: "Twice the Texan"

Who: David Horsey
What: "Rick Perry is George W. Bush on steroids", SeattlePI.com
When: August 16, 2011

Rick Perry is the perfect man for this moment. Executive experience, a fine head of hair, a handsome jaw line, a Bible under his arm, a flag on his lapel, a take-no-prisoners campaign machine and a political philosophy that would comfort Jefferson Davis—how can today's Republican Party not fall in line behind this man from Texas?

The Long, Long Trail A-Windin'

Who: Nate Silver
What: "G.O.P. House Majority at Risk", FiveThirtyEight
When: August 12, 2011

There has been various circumstantial evidence that the public's dissatisfaction with the performance of Congress, particularly during the debt ceiling debate, could threaten the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Disapproval ratings for the Congress are at record highs, as are disapproval ratings for the Republican Party. Other polls show record numbers of Americans saying that their representative should not be re-elected, that most members of Congress should not be re-elected, or both.

What we haven't had, however, are polls comparing Democrats against Republicans in a direct way. That's why the poll that Gallup published Friday ought to concern Republicans. It shows a 7-point Democratic advantage on the generic Congressional ballot — meaning simply that more Americans told Gallup they plan to vote for a Democrat for Congress next year. Although the generic ballot is a crude measure, it is probably the best macro-level indicator of the direction that the House is headed in.

Last year, Republicans won the popular vote for the U.S. House — essentially what the generic ballot is trying to measure — by 7 percentage points. So a poll showing Democrats 7 points ahead instead is a pretty significant swing.

But does it mean that Democrats are now favorites to take over the Congress next year?

No, not exactly. Instead, it points toward control of the House being more or less a toss-up. There are three structural issues that Democrats will have to contend with that take a little bit of the sheen off this poll ....

While it is true that the polls savaged Congress, and battered Republicans far worse than Democrats, the question of whether or not a generic ballot poll over a year before the election really tells us anything is a dubious inquiry. Largely, the problem is that American voters are notoriously fickle, and, furthermore, the way scandals break, spread, and reshuffle public opinion is dangerously unpredictable.

Ironic Indoctrination

It is a strange axiom in American politics that all things are, eventually, the same. To wit, a certain degree of corruption and dishonesty is expected of politicians, but does the fact that "all politicians lie" insofar as campaign promises are rarely fulfilled really justify escalation? That is, if one advocates unflinchingly a false assertion of fact in the face of evidence to the contrary, is it really the same as a failed campaign promise?

This, of course, is very general, but our history is littered with examples.

Is pointing out that a politician says one thing and does another really an equally offensive act as character assassination? That is, would someone pointing out the inconsistencies of Mitt Romney discussing Massachusetts' credit rating during his tenure as governor compared to the fact that he advocated that improved rating with higher taxes really the same as what Karl Rove and the Republicans did to Max Cleeland in 2002? After all, it seems only logical doesn't it? A guy who gave three limbs to the Vietnam war, who then opposes the blind and irresponsible war-cry after 9/11 must necessarily be a traitor, right? That's the only explanation. If only we could understand that, we would also recognize that the Republicans weren't really being sleazy, they were just being honest.

But it goes on, over and over again. Sometimes it's a bit subtle. Or maybe not. Three items worth considering:

1. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a presidential candidate, apparently explained in 2002 that public education will lead to genocide. "It's already here," Bachmann warned, "and it's something that we have to deal with."
2. Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) argued recently that public education wants to twist children's minds according to some sinister plot: "Of course, the government wants their hands on your children as fast as they can .... They want your children from the womb so they can indoctrinate your children as to what they want them to be."
3. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has demanded an investigation into whether the Obama administration cooperated with director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal, both acclaimed for their work in the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker in the scripting of a film about the assassination of Osama bin Laden. "The movie is scheduled for release by Sony Pictures Entertainment in October 2012," explains Larry Margasak, "which also has caused conservative media outlets to claim the film is being timed to help Mr. Obama's re-election bid."
4. Really Big Coloring Books, Inc. has published a coloring book for children, about 9/11 and the assassination of Osama bin laden. "In a world of constant motion and instant media," the company explains, "this coloring book will focus an individual, no matter the age, directly onto the events of September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11, depicting, lest we never forget, the facts of that day and beyond, including the basics of freedom." A page transcript is included below.

Being the elusive character that he was, and after hiding out with his terrorist buddies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, American soldiers finally locate the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. Many people had helped secure his safety for nearly 10 years.

Dubbed code name Neptune Spear, the operation lasted 88 minutes, included some 23 Navy SEALs and a dog named "Cairo", no one wanted detainees. Once athe American military confirmed and identified Bin Laden, President Barack H. Obama had previously issued a kill order to SEAL Team Six to shoot him. In Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan, Osama used his wives and children as shields as he tried to get away from the American Military. But the coward Bin Laden could not escape. He was killed hiding behind the dress tail of a young woman. On May 1, 2011, Bin Laden was shot dead, and the American Military wrapped him in a white blanket and buried him at sea by throwing his body overboard. Throwing his body into the sea showed him more respect than he showed to the people who died on 9/11.

Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE. We must be prepared to know and understand the truth. America is FREE. Ask your mother and father, your teacher, your preacher, what this really means. What does it mean to be FREE? Why are we a FREE people?

We are free to think, free to be honest, free to write, free to live as we wish. We are America. America does not hate other people in the world, but we love the world in which we live and will defend our way of life. On the remaining pages of this book we talk about our freedoms and our way of life.

While Michele Bachmann worries about the politics of mathematics, it seems few if any on the right wing are distressed at the prospect of indoctrinating children into conservative political history.

Some call this irony. Others might use harder words, like hypocrisy. In the end, though, all one really needs to say is that it is, after all, Republicans.

Fine 'Tooning: Republicans and Jobs

This week's 'toon comes from Jim Morin, of the Miami Herald:

The Quixotic Right Wing

Who: David Harsanyi
What: "Sorry, Guys, There Are No More Kings", RealClearPolitics
When: August 10, 2011

Right wing ranter David Harsanyi raises an interesting question:

The sight of a crumbling Cult of Obama—and with it the end of the progressive presidency—has many on the left so frustrated that they simply dismiss the very idea of ideological debate. To challenge the morality and rationality of Obamanomics only means you're bought, too stupid to know any better or, most likely, both. A slack-jawed hostage-taking saboteur.

What in the world is he talking about?

The thing is that we are supposed to treat everyone involved in the political discourse with an certain measure of respect. In this case, we are for some reason obliged to regard Harsanyi's delusion as real.

We hear this from conservatives all the time, disparaging talk of "Obamassiah" or "The One". The so called "Cult of Obama" has throughout been a conservative fantasy.

The idea that conservatives should tilt windmills is hardly new. However, perhaps it is time to ask ourselves how long we are obliged to take this kind of behavior seriously. Perhaps it is impolite, but at some point it becomes necessary to tell the right wing to hush and let the grown-ups talk.

Michele Bachmann Stimulates Minnesota

Who: Steve Benen
What: "How about a Bachmann-inspired stimulus?", Washington Monthly
When: August 10, 2011

Nothing to see here, folks. Go on about your business.

In public, Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann spends much of her time railing against government spending. In private, Bachmann spends quite a bit of time requesting government spending.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Huffington Post with three separate federal agencies reveals that on at least 16 separate occasions, Bachmann petitioned the federal government for direct financial help or aid. A large chunk of those requests were for funds set aside through President Obama's stimulus program, which Bachmann once labeled "fantasy economics." Bachmann made two more of those requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, an institution that she has suggested she would eliminate if she were in the White House. Taken as a whole, the letters underscore what Bachmann's critics describe as a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker. Combined with previous revelations that Bachmann personally relied on a federally subsidized home loan while her husband's business benefited from Medicaid payments, it appears that one of the Tea Party's most cherished members has demonstrated that the government does, in fact, play a constructive role — at least in her life and district ....

.... What's more, the phenomenon certainly isn't limited to Bachmann — all kinds of right-wing lawmakers who swear public investments are fundamentally evil, including plenty of this year's radical freshman class, have spent a fair amount of time pleading for more public investment in their states and districts, insisting the spending would be good for the economy ....

If Only ....

Who: Pat Garofalo
What: "Boehner Claims S&P Downgrade Happened Because Democrats Blocked The GOP's Attempt To Eliminate Medicare", ThinkProgress
When: August 10, 2011

If only those dirty, lowdown Democrats would have let the GOP destroy Medicare ....

Ever since the credit rating agency S&P downgraded U.S. credit to AA+ on Friday night, Republicans have desperately trying to pin the blame on President Obama, even though, as National Journal put it, "it's hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans." S&P called out the GOP for using the debt ceiling as a political football and for its flat refusal to consider new revenue as part of any plan to reduce long-term deficits.

Earlier this week Rep. Allen West (R-FL) claimed that the S&P downgrade "has nothing to do with increasing revenues," while some Republicans have said that passing a Balanced Budget Amendment would have prevented the downgrade, both of which S&P disagreed with. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday jumped into the same pool, saying that the downgrade could have been avoided if only Democrats had embraced the House Republican budget and its plan to eliminate Medicare:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blamed President Obama and the Democrats Tuesday for the recent downgrading of the U.S. credit rating, saying that if Democrats had joined with Republicans in passing the GOP budget, which the House passed in April, "it's unlikely anyone would be talking about the United States being downgraded today." [...] "S&P said in its own report Friday that entitlement reform is the key to long-term financial stability. We passed a budget through the House in April that includes entitlement reform, and cuts more than $6 trillion. The Democrat-controlled Senate and President Obama have prevented most of those reforms from happening. And that's why we have a downgrade, Boehner said in an excerpt of his prepared remarks obtained by The Hill. [...] "The President and the Democratic leadership in Washington are trying to blame the tea party, because they know this downgrade is on [the Democrats]. When we took the bold step of proposing entitlement reforms, they reacted not by embracing them and joining us, but by demonizing those proposals for political gain," Boehner said.

Reich Sounds Off on S&P

Who: Robert Reich
What: "Why S&P Has No Business Downgrading the U.S."
When: August 5, 2011

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich reiterates his inquiry of Standard & Poor's:

S&P's intrusion into American politics is also ironic because, as I pointed out recently, much of our current debt is directly or indirectly due to S&P's failures (along with the failures of the two other major credit-rating agencies — Fitch and Moody's) to do their jobs before the financial meltdown. Until the eve of the collapse S&P gave triple-A ratings to some of the Street's riskiest packages of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.

Had S&P done its job and warned investors how much risk Wall Street was taking on, the housing and debt bubbles wouldn't have become so large – and their bursts wouldn't have brought down much of the economy. You and I and other taxpayers wouldn't have had to bail out Wall Street; millions of Americans would now be working now instead of collecting unemployment insurance; the government wouldn't have had to inject the economy with a massive stimulus to save millions of other jobs; and far more tax revenue would now be pouring into the Treasury from individuals and businesses doing better than they are now.

In other words, had Standard & Poor's done its job over the last decade, today's budget deficit would be far smaller and the nation's future debt wouldn't look so menacing.

The problem, of course, being that while many would suggest Reich is simply pressing sour grapes, the question of political implications does seem valid.

Republicans and Jobs

Who: Arin Karimian
What: "Employment during the economic recovery", Economic Policy Institute
When: July 6, 2011

The next time you hear a Republican complaining about jobs, asking the president where are the jobs, prattling on about the "job creators", or accusing the Obama administration of destroying jobs—essentially, whatever—remember this:

Or, as Steve Benen explained this week:

Layoffs at the state and local level were mitigated in 2009 by the Recovery Act, which saved thousands of jobs that would have otherwise been eliminated. Those funds have since been exhausted, and the public sector is back to making severe layoffs.

This is what David Leonhardt recently described as "an unforced economic error" — with all of the problems we can't control, this is one problem we know exactly how to prevent. We just choose not to, thanks to the Republicans' ideology.

Indeed, it's important to remember that these job losses are, in the eyes of Republicans, a positive development. Under the GOP economic model, the public sector is supposed to lose jobs, and as part of the party's austerity agenda, this is a problem that must get worse on purpose.

Earlier this year, for example, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was asked about his spending-cut plans and the fact that the cuts would force thousands of public-sector workers from their jobs. "So be it," the Republican said.

In other words, deliberately making unemployment worse wasn't seen as a problem. This is a feature of the GOP model, not a bug

The conventional wisdom is obvious: If the jobs outlook is poor on Election Day, Obama is in for a difficult run.

But the corollary, that the Republicans thus have an interest in keeping unemployment high seems somewhat severe, does it not, in the context of accusation?

But what is it that we see? Policies Republicans are fighting for that have the effect of hurting the employment outlook.

It's okay to tell yourself this is not really happening, but keep it in mind the next time you hear a Republican say anything about jobs.