Self-described “liberal” talk show host Ed Schultz helped engineer Rep. Weiner’s resignation due to Weiener’s sexting habits. Schultz spent a considerable amount of time wringing his hands as hard as he could in the days following Weiner’s sexting revelation. My question, as well as that of plenty of other liberals is, “What about Sen. David Vitter, Ed?” I first wrote about this last week and am following up on the story now that new news has come to light.
What’s happened is this: Sen. David Vitter made a bribery offer to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar (whom I have no love for, as evidenced by my writing history, by the way): Vitter will stop holding up $19,600 of Salazar’s pay raise vote if the Interior Secretary can somehow increase the rate of exploratory drill permits for the Gulf of Mexico. Money for action = bribe.
This news came out at ~1:30P ET today as CREW filed an official complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee. Unsurprisingly, I didn’t find any reference to Ed Schultz issuing commentary on the subject yet today. I don’t expect I’ll find any such reference tomorrow or next week. Schultz has left Sens. Vitter, Ensign and Coburn untouched during their respective ethics violations and well-documented illegal behavior.
A Democrat sending pictures of his junk? Schultz feels compelled to hammer home his opinion because TMZ reported on it.
Republicans violating laws and breaking ethics rules? Schultz ignores them because he thinks he can’t generate ratings if he covers them.
Ed Schultz is an entertainer first and a liberal second (at best).
[...] because they “have failed to live up to their supposed potential.”
I’ve never been a fan of Lamborn. Up to this point, I haven’t been much of a critic either since he’s just another example of a privileged white male who thinks the 1650s were the best time in history. Why waste my time on another idiot Teabagger? But this request is batshit insane and I won’t ignore it. Seriously, Rep. Lamborn, what the hell are you thinking?
Actually, I know what Rep. Lamborn is thinking. He’s thinking of the miniscule campaign contributions that he’ll have to take from the dirty energy corporations to help get him re-elected. Because $31,750 in his account is worth more to him than 5,500 highly skilled, well-paid Americans or the $714 million boost to Colorado’s economy that NREL provides (yes, he sells out Coloradans for less than a luxury vehicle. awesome.). As a wild-eyed ideologue, those hard numbers don’t mean a thing. Because his ideology says he needs to whore himself out to corporations on the cheap.
Rep. Lamborn would rather: wreck the stable climate our species has evolved in; keep Americans deployed across the world ensuring regions remain unstable enough to paradoxically justify their deployment; we remain enslaved to carbon-based power using a system that’s over 100 years old instead of de-centralizing and de-carbonizing.
But if you thought the above quote was lunacy, wait until you read this one:
The letter, written by California U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, says: “We should not follow the president’s poor planning in increasing the funding for these anti-energy boondoggles.”
What in the world is an anti-energy boondoggle? Perhaps the biggest problem with Republican Teabaggers is because they’ve never been forced to think things through clearly, they live in a world where stringing together talking points sounds good to them. Built on top of this problem is the corporate stenographer problem: do Yesenia Robles and The Associated Press think simply parroting this insipid quote qualifies as doing their job? Apparently so. The Iraq and Afghanistan invasions/occupations? No, those weren’t boondoggles. NREL is a boondoggle according to McClintock and dutifully parroted by Robles and the AP. The ease with which our democracy is subverted is nauseating.
[Update]: I sent the Post article to a friend. This is part of their reply (I wish I had thought to write it):
Let’ see, where could we begin with NREL’s future impact analogy?…..how about the Internet (NSF), wireless technology (DOE), Polio vaccine (NSF-DHS).
While it’s true that NREL’s potential hasn’t been fully realized as of today, just imagine if we had listened to idiots like Rep. Lamborn in the past. There are good reasons why 1650 wasn’t such a great time.
The assassination of Osama bin Laden generated, as it should have, a considerable amount of coverage from all over the political spectrum. As the discussion progressed, but before hard-hitting questions could be explored, camps inevitably formed. From my perspective, radio and TV pundit Ed Schultz took a lead position in the “Rah-rah” camp. This group decided early on that the President and his advisors should be supported, no matter what. As long as they said things should have been done, that’s pretty much good enough for them. I don’t consider myself to be a member of this camp. I continue to have serious reservations about how the operation was carried out and worry about what kind of a precedent was set for future executives, including Barack Obama in the near future.
As many know, Michael Moore and others also don’t consider themselves members of this camp. For this, they were called out by Schultz and the “Rah-rah” camp. Schultz called Moore and others who expressed their reservations “intellectual hand-wringers”. I personally found it offensive that citizens trying to demand answers from a Democratic President were insulted by a Rah-rah-er. Schultz and other so-called liberals bashed conservatives for years for falling in line behind the Bush Regime and not performing their required duties as American citizens.
By the time Americans see enough economic development to satisfy them, the environment will no longer be able to support them, or the economy for which they wished so hard. The time to act on the environment, especially related to global warming and all its attendant effects, was 30 years ago. Today’s children won’t have a fraction of the economic potential their parent’s had and wasted.
[Updated 25 March 2011 to reflect Bill's association with MSNBC.com, not MSNBC.]
This is the first time I’ve identified an article about anything in the corporate media that I would rate as “superb”.
MSNBC.com’s Bill Dedman has written an article about the potential dangers of an earthquake-caused nuclear power plant catastrophe occurring in the U.S. (The most dangerous plants are east of the Mississippi River, not in California, in case you were wondering). The article truly does reflect the bio under Dedman’s picture: investigative reporter. Mr. Dedman did some serious investigating for this article. It doesn’t engage in the too-typical he-said/she-said b.s. that normally pollutes corporate media articles. Nope, this is a well thought out and presented article that is designed to inform a curious public about the actual threat that U.S.-based nuclear power plants face from earthquakes.
The article presents the same information in a couple of different ways, ensuring that readers with a variety of backgrounds can all grasp the same base information. It also includes a substantial list of resources where the information came from and which are available to the public. This is quite simply an example of what more so-called journalists, but in practice act only as stenographers, should produce.
For the curious, here are the top-10 threatened U.S. nuclear power plants:
Rank. Reactor, nearby city, state: Chance of event each year from 2008 data. Old estimate from 1989. Change in risk. 1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Change in risk: 72 percent.
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Change in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
3. Limerick 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
5. Sequoyah 1, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
5. Sequoyah 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
7. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: 269 percent.
8. Saint Lucie 1, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
8. Saint Lucie 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
10. North Anna 1, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent.
Occasionally, I will read Mike Rosen’s editorials in the Denver Post. Mostly, it’s just to keep the latest right-wing hate messages fresh in my mind. His column always includes lies and innuendo. He usually resorts to name-calling. Like most Teabaggers, he can’t seem to help himself. It is rare, however, that he achieves what he achieved today: multiple groups got lumped into the same hate speech.
The supposed topic is the repeal of the odious, unconstitutional “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy keeping certain Americans from serving their country as proudly as Americans who more neatly fit the idyllic vision of an imaginary America that Rosen and other scared, angry white males hold dear.
First, hatred of women,
When she [former Rep. Pat Schroeder] advocated the removal of restrictions on women in combat, it was to advance the cause of radical feminism.
then the real purpose of this diatribe, Rosen’s hatred of homosexuals:
The same can be said for those gay activists whose main objective was to score a symbolic equal rights victory regardless of its toll on the military.
followed by those durned lib’ruls
Public opinion polls showing support for gays in the military include the views of a majority of people with no military experience and no desire to join — liberal sociology professors, for example, who might make lousy leathernecks.
But don’t worry, Rosen’s warrior-worship tendencies come out shining:
Far more significant will be the damage to careers of soldiers and their officers accused of insensitivity, and retention and recruitment losses of those with a warrior disposition — people we can least afford to lose — who will spurn military careers because of religious, moral or cultural objections to open homosexuality.
Heaven forbid a few bigots don’t join or stay in the military. It would be far better, according to Rosen, if the bigots are allowed to openly display their hatred than allowing Americans who want to volunteer to actually do so. There will be no law preventing bigots from being openly bigoted, although that might do more to improve overall morale.
I have a better idea. Let’s pass a law that keeps white, warrior worshipping, others-hating males from displaying those characteristics in public if they want the privilege of serving their country. Then maybe Rosen will want to seriously address civil rights issues.
This is no longer the 1750s, Mr. Rosen. Most of us are thankful that this country has moved beyond the ownership of certain human beings and the open denigration of one of the sexes. Advocating for the outright discrimination of a demographic is morally repugnant.
I saw some op-eds weighing in on candidates for Colorado’s junior Senate seat.
Steve from Ft. Collins represents your typical hypocritical Republican Teabagger – deficits only matter when Democrats are in power:
How well have his [Sen. Bennet's] votes represented your children and grandchildren, who will be saddled with a lifelong debt due to the reckless spending of this runaway government?
Anyone want to bet that Steve sent in an op-ed when the Bush Regime blew the deficit up from $5 Trillion to $12 Trillion in 8 short years? How about when Reagen blew up the deficit? No, as usual, Steve is trying to use a topic to cover his true concern: a corporatist Democrat who isn’t 100% white is in the White House. If Steve took the deficit seriously, he would fully support both the health insurance legislation that passed this year and push to reduce the bloated war budget. Don’t take Steve seriously.
Scott from Loveland has a good point regarding health care solutions:
These bandages [high-deductible plans and open health savings accounts, espoused by Republican Teabagger Ken Buck] have been available for years and do not address the issue of those citizens who can afford neither.
That’s true. It’s like the Republican Teabagger complaint about tax cuts: would one of you please tell the rest of us where the millions of jobs created by the Bush tax cuts are hiding? The fewest jobs of any president post-WWII were created under Republican Teabagger economic policies. The rest of us are still trying to fix your damn mess. Your solution is ridiculous and has been proven to not work the way you think it works.
Martha from Denver speaks for a lot of progressives about Sen. Bennet:
He has finally come clean and admitted that he will be voting to continue the Bush tax cuts and against the Employee Free Choice Act. [...] He may earn a few Republican votes with his tactics, but when combined with the loss of thousands of votes from registered Democrats, he will lose this election. Be clear, he will lose because he stepped right of center.
Martha argues along the same lines that I have for years – Democrats need to stand for Democratic principles. Not bipartisan principles or Republican principles; Democratic principles. The number of issues which Sen. Bennet not only voted against his base’s wishes but cynically used micro-issues to raise cash and visibility from that base prior to those votes are long indeed. It surprises me that so many Democrats are still willing to support somebody who on too many occasions hasn’t supported them. Oh, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for an evil. Don’t expect a ton of good to come from that.
Baxter from Silverthorne addresses my top issue:
If Ken Buck is like every other Republican in the U.S. Senate, he will fight all attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions with a comprehensive energy and climate bill.
While true, some additional context should be made clear. Sen. Bennet early in 2009 voted to require that climate legislation be subjected to the 60-vote super-majority instead of the 50-vote majority requirement that wins most other contests. What followed was a lot of hand-wringing and lamenting that with the largest majority in the Senate in years, 60 votes just couldn’t be found, gosh darn it. No, it’s not as though Sen. Bennet found global warming to be a leading issue of the day. Let’s not kid ourselves and blindly think Sen. Bennet is a global warming champion. If anything, he found Senate procedure to be more important than any legislative topic. Sure, he started talking about “filibuster reform” after all Senate work had ground to a near-complete halt by mid-2010. It wasn’t like Republicans abused the rule throughout all of 2009 or anything. Heck, it wasn’t even like Republicans told Democrats they would do just that when the session started, right? And after being told this, Democratic Senators still continued to try to bring one, just one, Republican over on bill after bill after bill.
Leading up to voting this year, you should ask yourself this important question: will Sen. Bennet vote to change Senate rules on the first day of business in January, when rule changes only require 50 votes instead of 67 afterward? If Sen. Bennet wins this election and Democrats retain control of the Senate, will the filibuster rules be changed back to what they were historically, or will they continue to ask the Republican Teabaggers to steamroll over them, yet come back to the voters in 2012 and ask for more money, more volunteering, and more votes from us?
I don’t believe the Cons’ would hold true to their recently announced “Pledge”. You shouldn’t either. Most analysts are correctly identifying it as a non-announcement of typical Con P.R. How many of the points did the Cons’ adhere to when they controlled every branch of government? Not many; nothing would be different if they regain control of either legislative chamber. Cons lie to get into power, then do everything they can to maintain that power. Truth be told, not many “Democrats” are very different. That’s the reason for the “enthusiasm gap” that the corporate stenographers are chattering so much about these days.
But this post is in response to NBC’s write-up of the “Pledge”. In contrast to most of these daily posts, this one comes pretty close to reality. All except for this:
So you can already see the conflict and tension within the conservative movement if Republicans take back Congress. In fact, it isn’t too dissimilar between what President Obama and Democrats have faced from the left. In short, the liberal and conservative bases want to go farther than politics actually allows.
What a huge mis-read of what’s happened in the past 10 years. The policies that then candidate-Obama ran on were and continue to be incredibly popular among all Americans. Take a look at polling done over the past 30 years with almost any policy topic and you’ll find a majority of Americans (that’s Democrats, Unaffiliateds and Cons) supporting what these NBC pundits would characterize as “progressive policies” by ever increasing numbers. Much of the legislation that made tortuous routes through the 111th Congress garner unbelievable support across all demographics. The promises that candidate Obama made to the country in the fall of 2008 were based off of popular positions on those same policy topics. The reason Democrats are frustrated with their elected politicians heading into fall 2010 is those politicians ran away from those promises once in power.
The missing piece in this NBC pundit analysis is that the liberal and Con bases want to go further than entrenched, moneyed interests actually allows. President Obama, Sen. Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi don’t control as many levers as the public believes. Industries that continued to post record profits throughout the Great Recession exert much more control on the political than the liberal and conservative bases.
I think those bases are trying to figure out how to get industry’s clenched fist to loosen up so they can put the changes they want in place. I think we’ll continue to see see-sawing episodes of who controls which portion of government as long as the bases continue to be shut out by those in office.
And here’s why: Americans are frustrated with the D.C. culture of doing as little as possible. Americans voted for Obama in record numbers in 2008 mostly because they wanted to see progress made on a suite of issues that had been left to languish or purposefully decimated in the previous 8 years of the Bush Regime. Instead of getting things done, as was promised in the 2008 campaigns across America, the White House chose instead to waste months of time in order to get one or two Republicans to vote for bills that were being continually watered down.
The nation’s biggest banks got taxpayer dollars which they used to buy smaller banks and reduce competition. They’re not lending much of those billions of dollars to small businesses or the people who would spend it and finally get this economy back on track.
Healthcare legislation became a health industry giveaway. The system remains broken, as Americans will continue to affirm for themselves over the next few years.
No climate legislation will be passed any time soon – and I mean any time in the next few years. Or at least until climate-related disasters affect more Americans personally.
Guantanamo remains open; we’re still occupying Iraq; we’re still occupying Afghanistan.
Unemployment officially remains near 10%, though the more realistic number hovers nearer 18%.
Real take-home income still hasn’t increased measurably since 1974.
Despite all of the things that weren’t done at all , or were done partway, Obama’s machine has decided to back every incumbent Democrat this year, whether they worked to pass any part of his agenda or not. A number of those candidates have already failed to win their primaries or are behind enough in the polls that Republican wins are all but guaranteed in 3 short months.
That machine wouldn’t be necessary if the President’s team had decided that America’s agenda needed some attention in 2009 and earlier this year.
I’m not at all sure what Obama expects will get done in 2011-2012 with fewer Democrats in the House, which did a monumental job getting good legislation passed, or the Senate, which is broken. But if he feels better about himself because his machine helped get a couple incumbents through their primaries, more power to him.
