Grover Norquist and His Bathtub

It has become de rigueur for republican pundits to advise their brethren that the way to party salvation begins with a high-profile throwing under the bus of Grover Norquist:

The Republican Party needs a reality check

In the summer of 1999, George W. Bush chose the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign to pick a fight with Grover Norquist. Bush flatly rejected the “destructive” view “that if government would only get out of our way, all our problems would be solved” — a vision the Texas governor dismissed as having “no higher goal, no nobler purpose, than leave us alone.” 

Norquist had proposed to define conservatism as the “leave us alone” coalition — a movement united by a desire to get government off our backs. Bush countered that “the American government is not the enemy of the American people.”

Ed Crane, then the president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said the speech sounded as if it had been written by someone “moonlighting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.” I can formally deny that charge. But the Bush campaign was purposely attempting to alter the image of the Republican Party. And the party — rendered more open to change by eight years in the presidential wilderness — gave Bush the leeway to make necessary ideological adjustments.

The interesting thing about the Norquist "Club for Growth" is it straddles both the social wingnut and corporatist wings.  The nexus is "small government."

The wingnuts want it because they don't want "their tax dollars" going to help someone else.  They'd rather do without themselves if any help means "those people" would benefit.

The wall street crowd have a different end game in mind.  They want access to the Treasury, and in particular, the social security trust fund.  They've been salivating for decades over the fees they could wring out of that.

Both are on board for drowning the government in a bathtub, but for their own different reasons, however the wingnuts don't realize the extent that they will go down with the ship once government, if Norquist has his way, finds itself in Davey Jones locker.

Which is why these pundits advice to throw Norquist under the bus is a bunch of bs.  And they're fooling no one but themselves.

Ain't Misbehavin'

I've said every chance I got that not only is racism without any logical foundation, but is also stupid, and renders those who can't live without it, stupid as well.  

Case in point...

A different kind of black and white issue

This week I received an e-mail with the subject line: “Please Colbert, write about Jesse Jackson Jr and father.” The message from Dennis Flynn was brief: “Please write about the part genetics play in the problems in the Jackson family lineage. Out of marriage children by a Minister. Fraud and stealing by a congressman. What an example for young African Americans.”   

It was a racial taunt, perhaps best ignored. 

But the attempt to twist the knife also displayed ignorance. 

The writer chose to view the fall of Jesse Jackson Jr. through the lens of race, ignoring how widespread the conduct he deplored has become. 

Public figures fathering a child out of marriage? The e-mailer failed to mention former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); former senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards; Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); former New York representative Vito Fossella (R); the late Republican senator Strom Thurmond, a former presidential candidate; or former New Mexico senator Pete Domenici (R) — all of whom did what Jesse Jackson Sr. had done. 

Misconduct while in public office? The list of violators is endless and spans the racial and religious spectra. But surely this e-mailer knows that. 

Less speculative and more serious, however, is the writer’s suggestion that the two Jacksons are poor examples for “young African Americans.” 

People who think this should take off their racial blinders. They have obscured perception of a chronic plague in public life: the temptation to misuse and abuse power.

Bigots like the one being responded to in that column typically don't have an intellectual pot to piss in, let alone a mind to do it with.  As King points out, Jacksons Sr and Jr have plenty company among men amd women of all races for that behavior.  

And this is how they express their superiority...My God.

Bob Woodward, Village Court Jester

Its really sad what's become of Bob Woodward since his Watergate days.  He's become the official Court Jester of the Village:

Obama's Sequester Deal Changer

There was an insistence on the part of republicans in congress for there to be some automatic trigger, Lew said while campaigning in Florida.  It was "very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.

The President and (Budget Director Jack) Lew had this wrong.  My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House Congressional Relations chief Ron Nabors - probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

<snip> 

A majority of republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester.  Key republican staffers said they didn't even initially know what a sequester was - because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

Seriously, is that the best you can do, Bob?  The poor dears weren't alive then, so they couldn't tell their leaders what it was, and thus the republicans were somehow snookered into voting for the sequester.  Damn.

Woodward is just dead wrong on the basic fact of who wanted the sequester.  The GOP "budget wonk" and long distance record holder Paul Ryan (R- WI), House Budget Committee Chairman crowed about the republicans getting the sequester into the Budget Control Act.  Then there's this:

The PowerPoint That Proves Its Not Obama's Sequester After All

Sets up a new sequestration process to cut spending across the board - and ensure that any debt limit increase is met with greater spending cuts -- IF Joint Committee fails to achieve at least $1.2T and the deficit reduction enacted as a result of Joint Committee.

Read the other bullet points and its clear that, what the republicans proposed in the presentation IS the damned sequester, lock, stock and barrel.  If you are doing research for a book where you'll discuss the budget shenanigans between Obama and the GOP, you couldn't not know about this and still lay claim to being a competent reporter, let alone the "insider" Woodward never ceases to remind us he is.

Woodward is giving the Villagers what they want, the false equivalence of "both sides" always being to blame for whatever goes wrong in "Washington" with democrats as "the grown ups" ultimately being responsible for whatever tantrums the spoiled children of the GOP are throwing.

Doing his best in a silly effort to entertain the villagers, Woodward focuses in on blaming Obama for the sequester, when it really doesn't matter who proposed it; the congressional republicans voted for it, making it law.  But as Woodward refuses to "report," the republicans not only wanted it, it was their brainchild.

In the end, the media focus on who owns the sequester is just a ridiculous dodge.  The focus needs to be on how we can move forward without unnecessarily blowing up the damned economy.