The Zero Hour of Rick Santorum

It's beyond scary that Rick "Unprintable Other Definition" Santorum is actually surviving this long in the primaries. The man is the worst type of Republican. If you hear him talk about religion, he is the exact type of Christian that Jews should be afraid of, and most definitely the type of Catholic that the Protestant majority of this country hates.

For example, this case (formatted quote from WashPo):

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

-Rick Santorum on “This Week,” February 26, 2012, in defense of remarks made in October against President Kennedy’s famous speech on Catholic identity and public policy.

A few points from this charming quote:

1. "That makes me throw up"? Really Rick? It's bad enough that you look like a teenager, you have to speak like one? You were a Senator! Get serious enough to act like you should be given executive powerhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif.
   
2. Rick probably does not understand why JFK made those comments, and why Rick's repudiation is so dangerous. JFK ran for president before Vatican II. V2, in short, made Catholicism more acceptable to liberal Western democracies; making Catholicism feel a lot like Protestantism (for a correlation, see "Reform Judaism"). JFK had to explain to America how he did not intend to take marching orders from the Pope etc. Well, Rick Santorum may not listen to the pope - he strikes me as the type of sanctimonious prig who listens to nobody - but he clearly allows his religion to attack every aspect of modern civil society (see below for more). So when he says: "we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it." combined with his rejection of JFK, then he's stepped off the safe path.

There's so much crazy in Santorum that it's hard to catch up.

However, his attack on public schools did spark a thought in me. Rick, like me, is a religious family man who declines sending kids to public school out of a religious obligation. Now, I don't attack public schools - quite the opposite, really. As a grandchild of immigrants, I realize how free public schools have been the bedrock of the American Dream (no joke). Good free schools means everything for a good, safe republic.

What I find weird (in this case) about Santorum is that he chose to home-school and not send his kids to the generally well-regarded Catholic school system? As an orthodox Jew, I look at the CAtholics as the other major religion who shares my need for parochial schools. This is a case that makes me feel that Sanctimonious Rick is possibly more Catholic than the Pope (or in this case, the arch-diocese).

Another point bounces off this reaction to Santorum by the remarkably still alive Dick Cavett::

And what is the argument for it? For some, is it to protect their innocent ones from hearing words like, oh, “sex” and “contraception”? From forced association with those less desirable ethnically? Maybe it’s to keep them safe from radical notions like the idea that fossils and carbon-dating aren’t put there by the Devil to fool the scientists, but prove the world has billions, not thousands, of years on it.

Cavett notices that for Rick to not send his kids to *any* school (even Catholic school, as I add) smacks of something creepy. I agree.

There's the internal illogic about home schooling; i.e. that a parent is incapable of tweaking their child's education. I do this all the time with my kids, and they go to Maimonides. You can always educate your child at home, when they return from school, about what you should believe. If the Santorii are willing to spend the hours to home-school, they can't spare the few minutes a day to correct the wackiness that EVERY school teaches?

Ah well, we'll see what happens with the GOP. In some sense, maybe I'm glad the religious wacko is Santorum and not Huckabee. Huckabee is charming, rational sounding, and has actual moments of sane compassion. Yet also a Bible thumper who could erode the wall of church and state. Santorum is so obnoxious and horrible that I imagine he wouldn't get as far as Huckabee would.

Cain's Race Card

Herman Cain as a good presidential name going for him. Single syllable names are great, see Gore v Bush, and Biblical last names even better, no matter the images evoked of a powerful man killing his weaker brother - which is a perfect description for the Republican Party in 2011, and for Cain's attitudes towards American Blacks as well.

However, he plays the race card like he was in Vegas. Most recently, he has needed to double-down (note my gambling metaphors!*) because he has been accused of sexually harrassing a bunch of employees. People have referenced Clarence Thomas. The implicit point of Cain is that black men will be accused of this if they are Right Wing. I don't assume he harassed the women because he was black. I assume he did it because (a) he's a rich businessman born between 1940-1960, (b) he's a patriarchal fool who treats everyone as an object. These are blanket assumptions for anyone of his ilk.

Anyway, Cain and his cronies are trying to portray him as the victim, which I just love in a gallows humor way. In this interview

you can see that he blames the liberal establishment for leading the charge against him. Basically, punishing him and his Black Republican Brethren for their maverickyness.

Aside from the fact that there's no proof for his assertion, and that it's a classic Strawman Defense for someone guilty as Cain, I'd like to use my trusty tools of (1) logic, and (2) precedent to understand the situation.

This is currently a Republican primary. Unlike 2000 and 2008, there's an incumbent and therefore only one primary. And as history will show that primaries are when the real knock-down attacks occur. Scandals are brought up by their own party-mates - and this is logical because once a person gets the nomination, then the process of election changes.

Biden's plagarism, Hart and Clinton's philandering**, McCain's black*** babies, Obama and Rev. Wright - all examples of devestating attacks that occured by their own party during the primaries.

There is no incentive, truly none, for the other party to being opposition research during the primaries. Why should the Democrats attack Cain 14 months before election day? It's illogical and has no precedent. The only people who care about Cain right now, and have the money to do oppo research, are Perry and Romney. I'd bet Romney did this.

Footnotes:
*Gambling metaphors are steeped in US politics. The "New Deal" itself is a poker reference. So is "The Buck Stops Here" (Truman).
** Not with each other.
*** Black to a Republican means something totally different than what you think.

GOP Nominee Predictions

According to the Times Pawlenty Drops Out of Republican Race. With Pawlenty gone, that means there's only one sane candidate in the race: Huntsman. However, the GOP is currently more insane than I've ever seen them. This is the crazy of Hoover + Nixon + McCarthy all rolled into one. Which means that the nominee is going to be Perry, Governor of Texas.

If you see the list of nominees, there's only 3 who had any chance: Romney, Perry and Huntsman. Bachmann is nuttier than peanut-brittle and while she's much smarter, and more articulate, than her alter-ego in dangerous psychosis - Sarah Palin - Bachmann is also a member of the House of Representatives. It's almost as laughable as being a mayor. And let's just forget Ron Paul for the rest of history, please? At best, he'll be another Perot (Texas breeds funny looking, creepy third party cranks).

So, this leaves the three governors, 2 of whom are Mormons - and both of those are tainted by rationality and good politics. Which leaves the mouth-breathing Perry. Here's a good primer about the presumptive nominee.

Reaction to Tuesday's Midterms

Some quick reactions from Tuesday's Midterm Elections. Note, when I say "we" that refers to "Democrats" and/or "(Normal) Jews" and/or "(Normal) Americans". This is because, as I said Monday, the current Republican party is bizarrely more evil in intention than the ideas backing the Bush Years:

1. This could have been much much worse. As the dust settles, the Democrats lost only 1 House. Many of the lost seats in the Senate should have been quite safe (PA, Ill-a-freakin'-Noise) and that's a depressing sign. But considering that Teabaggers were defeated in many places, that California stayed Blue, and that Harry Reid's Faustian deal is still under warranty, means that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
   


2. The irony about Reid is that if anyone is responsible for the current failure of the Democrats, it's Reid. As I said in the intro, it's a given that the current GOP is freakishly evil (see below), but the only places where their evil could reign was SCOTUS (which is a lost cause until Scalia and Thomas get incapacitated by their own hatred of humanity), and the Senate. Despite the Dems having a historically high 60 seats, Reid allowed the Senate Republicans to destroy most attempts to repair the economy and help America. It's that bad. And because of the deadlock in congress, more people are out of work than should be, the health care plan is flaccid, and Obama's appointees are stalled in committee. All this evil was hated by the American people who returned their ire on... House Democrats. Who were by and large heroes these past 2 years. If there was any justice, Reid should have lost, the Dems should have kept the Senate - and House.
   


3. Which leads to the most infuriating result of Tuesday. While it's bad enough that the disturbing and malevolent John Boehner will be the new speaker, and that the Teabaggers have renewed vigor, what I'm especially angry about is that the GOP tactic of legislative anarchy worked for their benefit. The GOP is better at "playing the ref" than the Dems, mainly because the GOP is ideologically anti-government! Even when the Dems were trying to stop Bush's evil, in general their party is in favor of legislation. GOPers can take it or leave it. They may have claimed that they were trying to stop laws that hurt the American people, but only morons or fanatics actually believe that was true. Seriously. The proof is that the GOP supported everything they claim Obama stands for when Bush was the president. Every (non-alcoholic/moron) in Congress knew that we needed economic stimulus, health care, and bank reform - the GOP just didn't want those vitally important things to happen under a Democratic president. Which makes them a special type of evil.
   
   Note, this proof is the same one behind the Teabaggers: (1) if you don't like deficit spending, then why did you support Bush's epic/disgusting ballooning of the deficit? Because you want tax cuts and crazy wars? OK, yeah, you do. But it's because they're bigoted fiends; (2) if you hate health care reform, why did you support the Medicare Prescription Drug Boondoggle? I could go on but the pattern is obvious.


The Republicans spent 2 years blocking vitally important legislation - that they supported and knew would help get people jobs, medicine, life - in order to help their electoral chances... and it worked. And the American people fell for it. And I just threw up in my mouth.

And because it worked, the GOP will do it again and it will work again. It's bad enough to know that evil has gone unnoticed, it's worse to know that it will keep happening.


4. It's possible that Obama should be blamed for not strongly broadcasting the GOP evil before Nov 2. It is my biggest cavil with the president: that I want him to fight more. Yeah, it's nice to be 'non-partisan' but evil is evil and must be stopped. However, in retrospect, I have to blame the House/Senate democrats - and thus the DNC - for the responsibility of carrying out that message. It was their gooses about to be cooked and their legislature to be explained, and thus I blame their loss on themselves.
   
   
5. The big silver lining about the election is that - based on the GOP Evil Analysis above - that the hidden enemy of Republican Obstructionism now has a face. Ya see, as I've experienced in my own life, it's part of the American psyche to dismiss the excuses behind loss and failure. Bush lied, stole 2000, so what - he crossed the finish line and now we can move on to the next horse race. So too in Congress - so what if the GOP committed legislative fraud and grand evil over 2 years - it's not visible therefore its not provable. Yet now Bone-nert/Bay-nert/Boonert is the orange face of Congress. And we have a clear, easily spotted - even at night - enemy of Democracy.
   
   
6. Other good news - Massachusetts stayed Blue. The Scott "Nudie Model" Brown debacle of 2009 did not repeat.
   
   
7. On the unknown/bad news front: one piece of info I was looking for in the news organs is probably the most crucial factor of the Midterms - the makeup of State legislatures in those states that will gain/lose Congressional seats because of the new census. As Obama said on the Daily Show, the two biggest anti-Constitutional enemies to the Republic are (1) the filibuster, especially in the hands of the anarcho-nihilistic burglars of the GOP, and (2) gerrymandering of House districts. The GOP has succeeded in the former and may now succeed in the latter.
   
   
8. The last reaction for now has to do with newspapers. I sought out a (free) New York Times on Tuesday morning because I felt that I needed to have a good analysis and breakdown of the effects of the Midterms. Yet, I didn't get one. Not only was the newspaper frozen in time while reporting on a constantly shifting fact landscape, what information they did contain was fluffy and pedestrian. I wanted numbers! I wanted facts about losses and wins and causes and effects. Instead the paper was filled with reaction pieces about mood and feelings. It was useless. The internet wins again - not only because its up-to-the-second in news, but because the possible info is BETTER.

Tea Party Republicans

Frank Rich yesterday claimed, correctly, that: "What made the Tea Party most useful was that its loud populist message gave the G.O.P. just the cover it needed both to camouflage its corporate patrons and to rebrand itself as a party miraculously antithetical to the despised G.O.P. that gave us George W. Bush and record deficits only yesterday."

Very true. The Teabaggers, aka The Fort Sumpterists, are the latest in the group of dupes who fall for the cynical robber-barons of the current GOP. The tea-partiers who have genuine grievances should seriously be directing their energy against the GOP, and their perpetuation of the Bush years of disgrace and plunder. They won't because, bottom line, they are bigots. It's funny how this simple fact should still be in dispute. Why is their ire creepily directed against the Black President and the Lady Speaker?

Is it relevant that the Teabaggers are bigots? So what, you may ask. Well it's crucial because:

1. The GOP has embraced these sick fools, and that shows that the GOP is happy fellow-traveling with the scum of America. One sad lesson I get from this semester's study of the Holocaust is that the conservatives in Europe in the 1930s felt they could control the wacko radical right in their countries and while they succeeded in Italy, Romania, Hungary etc this gambit failed in Germany. And Germany was able to then take over all the conservative governments, ain't that funny. Radical Rightists are bad news no matter the era or nationalist-bugbear. And the Teabaggers are the radical right.
   
   
2. The teabaggers will come after the Jews with the same fervor they reserve for their Nigerian Presidential delusions. Another lesson I learn from the Holocaust is that the crazies actually mean what they say. Listen to their rhetoric.
   
   
3. There can be no Jewish Tea Party as a result, and I'd claim there should be no Jewish support for a political party that embraces Tea Partiers. Then again, the fact that a Republican candidate for Congress in Ohio happily dresses up like an SS officer should cement this conviction. Yet there are Jewish Republicans still because Obama is perceived as not a friend to Israel. Look, his state department has definitely screwed up, but as I've said many times before, there has not been one single 'fact on the ground' as a result of this - as opposed to the Bush years which gave us a Shiite Iraq, a Hamas controlled Gaza, and two failed Mideast wars - greatly reducing the American ability to contain Iran.
   
   Jewish republicans: don't get blinded by racism or greed! - the GOP is not our friend!
4. One last lesson from the Holocaust for now: that in every country where the Jews felt they were safe because they were rich, or part of the ruling class, we were quickly tossed to the wolves when the Nazis came knocking. Just being Jewish is a death sentence to the radical rightists of the world. You may think this is hyperbole, or a generalization, or even a cliche, but I've been going through the historical record in detail and it's nauseating how often it happened.

Pic from here of the GOP scumball in his SS uniform. Note, according to the Wiki: "He supports Israel's right to self defense and the American obligation to support it; he opposes a Palestinian state formed by taking land from Israel, a divided Jerusalem, and believes that the UN has become irrelevant." A lesson for you holdout GOP Jews: Actions speak louder than words. Dressing as a Nazi is a red line, no? Or does it matter when your hatred of blacks and/or greed for low taxes come into play?

Robert Reich about the 2010 Midterms

This is a great essay from from Robert Reich (at Salon) about how to understand the upcoming midterm election. The key points he makes, under the rubric of advising Obama not to move to the "center":

1. There is no "center" to American politics. The "center" is merely what most people tell pollsters they think or want at any given time. Trying to move to the center by following polls means giving up on leadership because you can’t lead people to where they already are.

2. By the first midterm the public is almost always grouchy because the president wasn’t a messiah and didn’t change the world. No single president has that kind of power. The higher the expectations for change at the start of an administration, the greater the disillusionment.

3. Presidents’ parties always lose the first midterm elections because the president isn’t on the ticket, and the opposing party has had time to regroup and refuel. It’s always easier for the party on the outs to attack -- and to mass troops for the assault -- than for the party inside to defend.

4. The economy trumps everything else, even though presidents aren’t really responsible for it. So when it’s bad -- as it was during the first midterms of Carter, Reagan and Clinton -- voters penalize the president’s party even more than usual. When it’s very bad, the electoral penalty is likely to be that much larger.

But read the whole thing.

The History of Assaulting Progress

I own many books in the genre of "non-fiction miscellany" (I find 'trivia' to be too, uh, trivial a term for these things). In any case, I just read in Panati's "Browser's Book of Beginnings" about the formation of FM radio (p.221-2). Basically, Edwin Howard Armstrong patented FM to provide a clearer, less static, signal than the currently dominant AM radio. His patent was in 1933 but FM didn't become available until the late 40s. Why? Well, before I answer that, I will ask you that if you *do* listen to radio, do you do so on AM or FM. I believe the majority will answer FM. OK, so let's continue.

According to Panati and the Wiki, RCA successfully sued the FCC to prevent FM from being allowed on the radio. The suit lasted years. Sarnoff, head of RCA, also sued to prevent Armstrong from getting patent royalties from inventing FM and Armstrong committed suicide in 1954 as a result of that battle.

Why did RCA try to block FM? Because they owned AM. Did RCA succeed in getting the FCC to hamstring and restrict FM? Oh yes indeed. Was this good for the world. No, I don't think it was - considering that everyone prefers FM.

Does this remind you of anything? I'm sure somebody put a list up somewhere, in some book, about these types of things - The History of Assaulting Progress - where a company, or the government - uses all of its resources to hurt others, and hurt progress, in order to keep its own money flow.

I'm not naive, so I am not arguing against commerce or against companies looking out for themselves. But if there's any mature theory of government (libertarians, Marxists, and fellow travelers need not apply), all of these theories try to strike a balance between individual rights and community rights. The corporation ("Big Business") is basically a private collection of individual rights - but the rest of society has a right to progress.

I'll look for the list of those who've assaulted progress but off-hand we can include all those Oil Companies, and their marionettes in the Republican Party including their bought and paid for President G.W.B, who furiously try to keep us from alternative fuel.

Pic of RCA from here, of Armstrong from the Wiki.

Welcome to the Sane Side: LGF

Welcome LGF to the side of sanity. Little Green Footballs - Why I Parted Ways With The Right:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

His reasons have long been held by The Styx and other sane locations. Sometimes it takes a rational, reasonable person longer than others to see the light. But we need to have faith that our right-wing brethren, if they are truly our friends, can't be completely idiotic.

Pic from LGF's website. H.t. Sullivan.

Why Palin Matters

For reasons I can't understand, Left Wing bloggers are trying to act like Palin shouldn't matter. E.g. Steve Benen stating: "I have deliberately steered clear of writing posts about Sarah Palin this week, in part because I don't think she's worth the obsessive media attention, and in part because I find myself struggling to care." And others who say that Newsweek had a sexist cover (which I won't reprint here) of Palin in jogging shorts, or that it's excessive for AP to have 11 fact checkers of her book (which they didn't, but whatever). Here's my take:

1. I am happy that the somnolent, stenographic news-establishment has finally woken up and realized that someone, in this case Palin, is an existential threat to the United States. The press was sleeping about Iraq, about Abu Ghraib, about the Patriot Act, about almost everything dangerous and catastrophic that the Bush Administration perpetrated, in real time - except for the brief, quickly-snuffed, outrage over Katrina. But, Cheney is still treated as an authority of matters that don't just exist in his fantasy dungeon; McCain is jokingly called "President McCain" by my favorite bloggers because of his retained authority and ubiquity on Sunday talk shows. The press is relentlessly market driven to the point of self-inflicted triviality. But now they have woken up about Palin and are treating her like the threat to our country that she is. That's at least one aspect of my spin on their obsession with her.
   
   To be honest, they're motivated more by her popularity - positive on the GOP end, negative on the Rest of The World end - and her sexpot tabloid trash image sells units. So she is good for business. But I am willing to say that the press has also realized that we almost had her for president.
   
   
   
2. Plain is the presumptive GOP nominee in 2012. That's just the way our election cycles run: the VP candidate of the losing ticket becomes the presumptive nominee next election. Lieberman led the polls for the 2004 primary back in 2001-2003. Edwards was presumed to be the front runner from 2005-2007; even Quayle thought he had a shot in 1996. So by structure alone, Palin is the presumed nominee. And, not to push to hard on this, it doesn't matter that she stepped down from the gov., Edwards was out of the Senate after 2004 as well.
   
   
3. In a real sense, Palin is the face of the GOP right now. True, the de-facto heads of the party are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, but Palin actually was on a national campaign and millions of people pressed the lever with her name in November 2008. She is real, while the others aren't.

Her popularity with the GOP base is why I characterize her as an existential threat: she could very well be the nominee in '12, and (as others have coined) the "Any Given Tuesday" weirdness of election day could put her in office. And she is dangerous, stupid, crazy, and religiously convinced of her inerrant rectitude.

Whatever made Bush bad, she has, without anything that made Bush good. I've said this before, I believe, but it bears repeating - as un-meritocratic and elitist it may sound, there's a benefit to electing a person who comes from a political machine. They are usually surrounded by professionals who have experience. Sadly, the Bush machine's experience was all in Evil. And they were bad at it. But his candidacy in 2000 rested on the barely unspoken premise that, yeah, he's a moron but he has good advisers. This over-confident bluff cannot be said for Palin. So Bush without expertise is a clear recipe for catastrophe.

The last point, especially about Palin and Bush, is this: for most of America (and the world) George W. Bush was a disaster. Most people, therefore, would hate and fear another Bush and we have learned to recognize the symptoms of another Bush. Hence, this is why most thinking people detest and fear Palin. However, the gnarled nub of the GOP who remain, the teabaggers and Birthers and Christers and Beckters, by definition, loved the last 8 years. If they have any complaints, its that Bush wasn't conservative (read: crazy) enough! And thus they really want Palin - for the same reasons we don't want her.

First two pics are all over the place and are undoctored stills of Palin in public debates; the last Bush-Palin pic is from here.

State of the Parties

Soon may be the day when the largest party affiliation will be no party:


h.t. to Sullivan for the chart

Tom Toles Wins the Internet, Again

Part of Toles metaphor, that's implied, is that Obama has not received any "honeymoon" by the GOP. The party is committed to destruction - of Obama, of the US, and as Toles puts so well, of themselves.

Update:

The GOP, and the "journalists" (which includes political cartoonists) who slavishly carry their water, are trying to maintain the culture of falsehood and aggression that was successful from 1994-2006. In some ways it still worked from 2006-2008, but since Rove as out of a job, and following Katrina, the press rebelled slightly. They resisted some of the gross falsehoods yet happily swallowing most. We saw this in the 2008 Election when the press largely gave McCain's clear falsehoods a pass and only choked a bit when they needed to swallow Sarah "W2" Palin.

So this is why the GOP has fought Obama from the git-go. Even when Obama gave them concessions - specifically large tax-cuts - the GOP voted unanimously against his bill. Let me repeat the crucial point: the Republicans unanimously voted against a tax cut. That's the level of intensity of their aggression.

Gary Varvel is one of the more craven of GOP cartoonist lackeys, as we see in the accompanying cartoon. He depicts Obama happily accepting only Democratic ideas while the GOP ideas are put in the trash. Har. Except, of course, that it's pure falsehood. Does Varvel know it's false? Does he *believe* the GOP's press releases and just ignores the facts, or does he know the truth and is willing to print slander in order to make sure his "team" wins?

Most of these Right Wing Cartoonists have the latter attitude; especially because they are often single issue voters: abortion. Glenn McCoy, a bad artist and worse thinker, is a good case in point (as the third cartoon attests). He likely hates the Democrats, and Obama, because of abortion and as a result needs to destroy everything his opponants do even if it's not related to abortion.

Whatever their reasons, the Vast Right Wing Idiocracy is desperate to extend their bullying of the truth because were the press to report accurately, and the American people to be better informed, then the GOP will be in deep trouble. But an aggressive, oppositional, defense is all the GOP has right now. And while Obama was referring to Islamic terrorists when he talked about those who destroy rather than build, it is also a good description of the GOP.

More Thoughts on the Victory

Some points on the incredible victory:

1. We just elected a black guy with a Muslim name president. Just gotta say that, over and over, until I fully understand how incredible this all is.
   
   
2. I see the Obama election as a type of 'virtual impeachment' of Bush. We won't get the chance to do the real thing - we still may be able to put the SOB behind bars - but the election of a brilliant, articulate, African-American, Muslim-named, liberal intellectual Constitutional scholar is a point-by-point repudiation of the stupid, mush-mouthed, pampered patrician rich-boy Texas oil-millionaire, white-bread legacy Christian conservative incurious human rights abuser.
   
   
3. Democrats haven't had a win like this since 1964. And as a result of that election, we received Civil Rights and the Great Society. And even if you think the latter was bad or flawed, you have to take into account how bad it was to be in America *before* those programs were enacted. 1964 ushered in a state of civility and greatness - as the names declare - to America. And that's great change. And that's what we can do in 2008.
   
   
4. For my fellow Hebrew brethren who are worried that Obama's win will bring about the destruction of Israel, or whatever: There is no support or proof for your fears. The fears are based on innuendo, ignorance and in some cases racism. The worst thing to happen to Israel in the past few years wasn't Oslo (which was a mitigated disaster), nor the Clinton Camp David Accords (whose blame can be laid on Ehud "the Other" Barak's feet), rather the worst has been the legitimizing election of Hamas to the Palestinian leadership and the subsequent creation of a pure terrorist state in Gaza. And that was all Bush, baby. Bush also created a terrible threat to Israel vis-a-vis the Iraq war - which has strengthen Iran (taking away it's biggest foe, replacing it with a sympathetic Shiite regime) and emboldened Tehran to pursue nukes. All Bush. And McCain would have continued this insanity. Even if Obama turns out to be like Carter - which isn't borne out by evidence - Carter was better for Israel than Bush!
   
   
5. It's a press axiom - which naturally means its boneheaded - that Obama's toughest job now begins: the cleaning up of the nation. Blah blah blah. No. That was not the toughest job. Becoming the first black president, as a first term Senator with a Muslim name, defeating both the Clinton machine and the Republican party, was the toughest job. Cleaning up the country will be not be as tough. Why? Well, first of all because it's just an obvious point. But second of all, because most of our problems were CAUSED, they didn't just 'happen.' Bush created this fate. All Obama needs to do is not be a horrible person/executive and it's already an epic win.
   
   
6. I'm disheartened by the possibility that Coleman and Smith may have been re-elected. While the landslide for president is a nice thing, if Obama's coattails weren't enough to defeat Republicans in blue states, then its a bad sign.
   
   
7. It's so sweet that Elizabeth Dole was spanked by her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan. Dole ran a disgusting race and deserves to have lost. It's ironic: her husband ran for president in 1996 and conducted a comparatively clean and honorable race. Yeah, he lost, (159-379, see map to the left) but he kept his dignity, soul, and the good graces of history. I've long said that 1996 was one the only years where both major tickets had great candidates such that a victory either way would have been palatable for the country (as opposed to, lets say, 1988 which was wretched either way). So Bob Dole ran with respect and his name can be seen as a watchword for how to lose with grace. Then came Dole's doppelganger, John McCain. Another war-hero, Senate lion, known for bipartisanship and moderate views (note: McCain's rep was largely myth while Bobdole's was true)... and McCain ran a shameless, horrid campaign (see more below). And "Liddy" Dole chose, for her defeat, to be like McCain instead of Bob. And her name is mud.
   
   
8. The great victory for America, and the world, has a the concomitant benefit of validating the clean, respectful style of Obama and repudiating the sewer methods of McCain-Palin. That will have far-reaching consequences and all for the best. After Bush-Rove won dirty in 2000, and dirtier in 2004, it seemed we were doomed to a future of sleaze and fear every election cycle. Not anymore. True, many unregenerate Goopers will believe that were it not for the cratering economy etc. the slash-burn tactics would have worked. I disagree (for the billion reasons I've written about before), and the Goopers may not learn from their mistakes (considering they are now the party against science, evidence, and expertise), but I trust cooler brains will prevail.
   
   
9. Related to the horrible Republican tactics, and the paradox of the McCain campaign, was the McCain concession speech. So odd. Just like how John Kerry and Al Gore spoke with fire and talent at the Democratic convention - and many of us asked where these people were when they ran their national campaigns! - so too with McCain last night. What a gracious and honorable speech. And it was delivered so well! With clarity, confidence and decency. We should ask "where was this guy on the campaign trail?" but also note that any person who sounds better when no longer campaigning (Gore, Kerry, McCain) obviously has mental reservations, and a fundamental problem as a politician. Does this 'mental game' automatically presage defeat? Not sure; which successful politician sounded better when out of office than in? I can think of a number, successful pols, who were better while running than not. Something to inspect.
   
   
10. And, of course, at that same concession speech we heard the base of the Republicans booing Obama's name, shouting and bellowing out who-can-imagine-what craziness. The crowd was the embodiment of the McCain campaign, the speech was the embodiment of the mythical McCain that the press apotheosized and who I had liked back at the beginning of the millennium.
    
    
11. Let's not forget Joe Biden. I am very happy for him; I genuinely like the guy. And - speaking as a rabbi and a budding scholar of the sociology of religion - the president-elect is just another Protestant, but we just elected our first Catholic VP, and only the second non-Protestant in the White House. Wow.

More later.

Scorecards!

Click on the map, print it out, and use for 'scoring' tonight!

My predictions here are based on the following categories:

1. (8) Solid Blue: CA, HI, IL, DE, DC, NY, VT, MA (132)
   
2. (5) Very Blue: MD, NJ, CT, ME, RI (39)
   
3. (5) Recently Blue: WA, OR, MN, WI, MI (55)
   
4. (3) Big Swing: PA, OH, FL (68)
   
5. (4) Small Swing: NM, NH, IA, NV (21)
   
6. (3) Recently Swing: CO, MO, VA (35)
   
7. (5) Swing only in 2008: MT, ND, IN, NC, GA (47)
   
8. (4) Clinton Republican: WV, AR, LA, TN, KY (39)
   
9. (5) Solid South: TX, SC, AL, MS, (57)
   
10. (9) Solid Red: ID, UT, AZ, WY, SD, NE, KS, OK, AK (46)

Legend:# before the title = how many states in the bloc, # after the title = electoral count for the bloc. The list is in descending order, more likely to go Obama to least likely. It'll be odd to see the 'redder' category states going to Obama before the 'bluer.' The prediction variation I had earlier is based on recent polling that show the 'recently' swinging actually being a possibility.

The "Clinton Republican" category was originally called "the Racist Democrat" category... these are states that went for Clinton in 1992 or 1996 but are blood red today. The "Solid Red" used to be called "Libertarian or Christian States," for obvious reasons.

In 2012, when Obama runs for re-election, the deeper red categories may actually be in play. But first, lets see what happens tonight!

Update:Here's another good 'scorecard' from 538:

Why Sarah Palin, why Dan Quayle?

A basic question I've asked, as you may as well: why is it that the Republicans have twice foisted on the nation two VP candidates who are physically attractive idiots? Sarah Palin is cut from the same mold as Dan Quayle, except that - just as Bush II made Bush I look good, so now I have to defend Quayle from this comparison even before I get to make it. Quayle was clearly an unworthy dim-wit, like Palin, but he was also in the Senate for 8 years before his nomination, and before that 2 terms in the House. And before that, 6 years in various state offices. Yes, yes, this is how far we've fallen, that Quayle is a heavyweight compared to the ignorant tabloid train-wreck of Sarah Palin.

But, for those who are too young to remember, the nation was stricken with great fear when Bush nominated Quayle in '88. There appeared to be no reason for it. Dukakis was a disastrous candidate - who nonetheless did what you're supposed to do, and nominated a true heavyweight as his #2 - Lloyd Bentsen (a Texas Democrat, in the House from 1948-1955 and Senate from 1971). There just seemed to be no reason to give us a terrible VP candidate, who we knew at the time would be part of the winning ticket.

The theory at the time, which I basically held until Palin's arrival, was that Bush has such low-self-esteem that he needed someone even wimpier, and more losery, that himself. It made sense at the time because Bush was a pretty bad candidate (and president).

But now we have a repeat. It's the same pattern, no? Except that McCain doesn't strike me as having low self-esteem. Quite the opposite really. So what gives?

Well, here's my theory/prediction and a number of other people (who I can't find right now to link to) seem to support this. The pattern is the same, but not the pattern I first thought it was. To complete the picture, though, we need to add another strange VP choice: Richard Nixon in 1952.

Republican Party Low Self Esteem

While I know all about the internal weaknesses of the Democratic party (made less so after 8 horrific years under Bush II), the GOP has long suffered from it's own chasm between the moderates and the wacko-fringe. All three GOP candidates in our study share the common denominator of being from the moderate wing of the GOP. McCain we know about (he almost switched in 2002), and Bush was a classic Northeastern Republican. Eisenhower was not really much of a partisan of any stripe, and his views on many things seem to fit comfortably in the Democratic party of today.

All three men needed to shore up support on their right flank, and as such, their VPs were selected because they were all fire-breathing conservatives. Nixon was chosen by committee - which shows you that 'smoke filled room' decisions were as fraught with 'identity politics' as the primaries today. But Quayle, like Palin, while unknown to most of America, was a darling of the wacko right.

But here's the Styx kicker: the other common denominator among Nixon-Quayle-Palin is that they were all obvious lightweights. Bush I was a smart guy, Eisenhower as well - they had no respect for their VPs; but these men (and the '52 committee by extension) had no respect for the lunatic fringe - they just needed the loonies to come out and vote. So by choosing a *purposeful* lightweight, these moderate Republicans would get the conservative votes while simultaneously having an ineffectual conservative VP.

That's my theory. But Ike was a robust 62 at election and Bush I 64. McCain is a cancer-surviving 72. The risk taken by the previous two moderates pales in comparison to the selfish risk of McCain.

First pic from here, second from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Some Predictions, Part 3: Misc

Other Predictions:

1. The Senate: I have no idea if the Democrats will get 60 seats, but as I've said before, it really shouldn't matter. According to the Wiki, the idea that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (or call for cloture, or whatever) is a recent invention. The filibuster itself is kinda disgusting and a constitutional loophole at best. I would strongly argue, and do so no matter who controls congress, that both houses should have a simple majority vote for passing bills. It's disgraceful that we need 60. So anyway, I think that if the Democrats have 55 seats, the cloture rules can be changed to meet that, or eliminated by simple majority, if necessary.
   
   
2. Bush administration officials: Bush will give a blanket pardon to everyone in the White House (except the 'traitors' like McClellan, Powell, etc). My question is whether this can work. I would love to see a constitutional amendment preventing the President from pardoning anyone whose crime was committed while working for the Executive branch. As it is, since most of these yahoos haven't been formally charged yet, so I don't know. His father pardoned a number of straight out scumbags - far worse than anyone by Clinton - but that's the way the press goes; Bill Clinton could do no right, and HWBush got off Scot-free. So I don't know if the pardons will stick. If not, then we can see some wild and woolly persecutions of the former George W Bush white house. And given that he can't pardon himself, well maybe Bush will find some nice prisoner as a new husband.
   
   
3. McCain's fate: How ironic that a man considered to be principled by so many people has run the most despicable campaign in recent memory. Note, Nixon was worse, but only in the dirty tricks department (and who knows what McCain has been trying: it seems clear that Ashley "Backwards B" Todd was a dirty trick run awry and that Joe/Sam the (non) Plumber was probably another McCain plant, but there may be more we haven't discovered yet). What makes McCain worse than Nixon is that all the other slimy accusations made by a one party to other was always done via surrogates; Willie Horton, Swift Boats for Crap, were 527s and untraceable to the campaign. McCain & Palin in 2008 have actually been the mouthpieces for the racist/scummy tactics. That's a big difference. At least GHWB and GWB kept their own dainty fingers out of the mud. Anyway, it may be difficult for McCain to return to the Senate. He may pull a Dole and retire but if not, as I said here, if he tries to run for reelection in 2010 it's likely he'll lose. Same with Palin (see below).
   
   
4. Sarah Palin's fate? I saw the suggestion that if Stevens wins reelection in Alaska, and will be convicted, and not pardoned by Bush, Palin will try for his Senate seat. Maybe. But considering how much she's hated by the GOP establishment in Alaska, and how much dirt has been uncovered in this election, I don't see her having much longer of a legacy. But that leads to the big question:
   
   
5. What will happen to the Republicans? There have been so many moderate Republicans either defecting to the Democrats, endorsing Obama, or cruising for a bruising defeat in '08 that it's unclear who will be left standing. The W/Cheney/Rove legacy is to reduce the Republican party to it's vilest, stupidest nub. Who will vote for McCain-Palin on Tuesday? Three sets of states: (1) The Anti-Government West (Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma), (2) The Racist Appalachians (WV, KY, TN, AR), and (3) The Christian States (SD, NE, the South). Even more troubling for the GOP is that the current leadership, and their legion of blogger zombies, have decided to make Sarah Palin the ideological purity test. Most of the conservatives who've come out for Obama (e.g. The Economist, Colin Powell, Fukuyama) cite the choice of Palin as a main reason for their crossing party lines. Yet, support for her appears to be mandatory to the 'leaders' of the GOP (e.g. Kristol, Barnes, National Review, Weekly Standard). Yet Palin is clearly a living-caricature for what is wrong with the Bush/Rove GOP: she's a violent Christian ignoramus. If the GOP insists on keeping her as their symbol - she is pretty much George W Bush without his education or family - then the GOP runs the risk of dying or disappearing.

Yet, is truly possible for the GOP to disappear? We have a few historical models to look at. The longest legacy for party rule in the modern US is McKinley to Hoover, 1896-1932. Yeah, Woodrow Wilson was in the middle, but his election was a fluke (TR sabotaged Taft who would have won handily, and WW almost lost to Hughes - winning by a mere 3800 to get California); yet this dominance was shattered by the Depression. The Democrats then controlled the White House from 1932-1968, with the Wilsonian interregnum of Eisenhower. I know this sounds like I'm being selective with my examples, but Ike was barely a Republican, and he was victorious because he won World War II. The Democrats were defeated in 1968 (and it was close) because of the Vietnam War and as a result were wandering the wilderness from 1968-1992 (and by now you'll excuse the understandable hiccup of Carter). What am I trying to show? That there's a broad pattern of party dominance based on party-led disasters. The Republicans needed to live down the stink of the Depression until 1968; the Democrats had the legacy of the foreign-adventurism of Vietnam but also the mamby-pamby liberal stigma of the anti-Vietnam crowd as well. The question I have is whether the GOP loss in 2008 will be like the Depression or like Vietnam; recognizing, of course, that Bush brought America both!

But there is a third model, that of the death of a party. The Federalists were a historical creation of the Revolution and seemed to be unsustainable past the founding fathers. The whole Democratic-Republican mess is best left unsifted. The only major party who died in any recent times are the Whigs, and they just morphed into the modern Republicans. So, honestly, it's not really plausible to argue that the party will disappear. It's likely that barring massive malfeasance the Republicans will be in the wilderness like the post-Depression/Vietnam backlashes (16-20 years).

Both backlashes occurred because the repudiated parties were dominated by the jokers who got them into the mess in the first place. The Democrats in 1972 were defeated largely because of their association with the pusillanimous anti-war movement and the Democratic establishment kept nominating idiotic liberals (Mondale, Dukakis) that helped the stereotype. If the GOP decides that they're the party of Palin not Powell then they will be - like the liberal-ridden Democrats of the 70-80s - the crazy Christian bumpkin party. The Palin party.

But here's where it gets weird. The Democrats in their wilderness years of the 70s-80s still controlled Congress by a thick margin. And when they lost Congress, there was a moderate Southern Democrat (a.k.a. non-northeastern weenie liberal) as president. In that sense the Democrats were able to keep some power and also a variable nuanced party identity. There were Northeast liberals, as well as Midwest blue-collar 'joes' and Southern populists.

Now imagine if the Democrats only had the anti-war weenie liberals during their wilderness period. It's possible that the Democrats could have been synonymous with what we'd call the Green party today - the radical left. As such, the Democrats could have ceased to exist.

What may happen in 2008 is that if the Republicans decide to go the Way of Palin, then they may end up being the crazy Christian party. The only people left in the House/Senate for them will find the national leadership too crazy and may either defect to the Democrats or - and this is a big if - a plausible third party leader may take them in to form the 'fiscal conservative libertarian' party (maybe call themselves the Federalists, going full circle). In this case, I could see the Republicans ending up like the mirror-image Green party, stuffed with Southern Evangelicals and moonies.

As a Democrat, I will say that Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen to the GOP - she's a living symbol for all that's wrong with the crazy Christian right and for the Republican party. Just the other day I was able to explain - using her as the proof - for what America would look like if her ilk took control: banned books in the library, oil money used to buy sports arenas at the expense of schools and roads, a vigorous antipathy towards science and education, and women being charged for rape kits.

Balloon Juice about GOP

John Cole of Balloon Juice echoes my feelings about the GOP and their Palin-slathering purity tests; read the whole thing:
"Missing The Point" One thing John focuses on is something that I've found stirring both a social-scientist and a Democrat: the eerie way that the conservative bloggers attach themselves to the actions and fortunes of the Republican party. None of these bloggers, as far as I know, are paid by the GOP. The conservative pundits neither. Yet they act, free of charge, as direct surrogates with 0% diversion from the party line and party goals. It's sick and it's the core of what Hillary Clinton called the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' The use of conspiracy is wrong - because conspiracies are by definion secret and this is as wide out and open.

Republican's True Face

From JTA, read this and know which person *and party* actually supports Israel:

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Republicans in the U.S. Senate have sunk anti-Iran sanctions for the second time in less than a month, drawing allegations that they are putting politics ahead of the need to confront Tehran’s nuclear program.

Senate Democrats made one final bid last week to pass legislation that would tighten sanctions aimed at getting Iran to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Among other things, the stalled measure would facilitate efforts to divest from the Islamic Republic.

Republicans blocked it the evening of Oct. 2, leading Democrats once again to suggest that the GOP was playing politics by obstructing legislation championed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Henry Wallace

As I've been immersing myself in electoral politics, especially in the 20th Century, it's important to look at the decisions made by the major parties and how they won in critical years.

For each party, there's usually one president who embodies the modern party. For Republicans it's Ronald Reagan, and for Democrats it's either JFK or FDR. The two are similar in that they are both charismatic liberals, Machiavellian intellectuals, and defense hawks. Because JFK carries a lot of modern day baggage (his wacky adultery, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs), I prefer looking at FDR as the model Democrat. Not only was he the most successful president (4 wins!) but he created the modern United States as the combination of free-market and state-support, a belief in helping every citizen and also watching out for the world. OK, he should have done more to help my relatives escape the Holocaust, but I doubt Wendell Willkie would have been any better (given that the Republicans in 1940 were pretty happy staying out of the War).

Anyway, the crucial election for understanding FDR's success is 1940 - when he broke with the unwritten rule set up by George Washington that a president should only run for two terms. FDR dropped his VP of the previous two terms, John Garner, who pretty much defined the stereotype of a useless VP. Garner said the immortal phrase about the Vice Presidency "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Tell that to Grand Moff Cheney.

FDR chose Henry A. Wallace as his running mate in 1940 - dumping Garner, a Texas conservative Democrat and former speaker of the house. Wallace had been the secretary of agriculture from 1933-1940. Before that, he was, I think, a farmer. Also a Buhddist. Or something. He was definitely a wacko.

Note, when the 1944 Election came about, the Democratic party bosses insisted that the pro-Communist freaky-deaky Wallace be dropped as VP in favor of someone who could actually, ya know, lead the country in the case that FDR would drop dead (which had been expected at any time by those in the know).

I bring up these footnotes to history in order to understand the present day, especially the choices facing Americans in a wartime election (like 1940 & 1944) in a disastrous economy (like 1932) and with a sick old guy who could die sooner than later (FDR vs. McCain). Specifically, how does FDR's decision to reject Garner, accept Wallace, then reject him for Truman compare to the selection of Palin, Biden and even Quayle. Anon.

Palin Scares Me Out of My Wits

I've been crazy busy with grad school, but I need to drop a short bloggy note to emphasize how much the GOP and Sarah Palin scares me out of my wits. I will try to get more of this on pixels, but that just had to be said.

Sarah Palin?!

All the news reports are saying McCain's VP pick is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. How does a 44 year old governor of a non-contiguous, and largely frozen, state pass the "commander in chief" threshold that McCain boasts about? Answer: because she's a republican.

She's the perfect GOP woman too: young, pretty, and anti-abortion. She was almost Miss Alaska, and that is how Republicans see women, no?

How is this a winner for McCain? Because he looks edgy? She's pro-life so most women won't flock to her (but it does explain all the weird pro-Hillary commercials McCain has been running). In fact, that must be the strategy: to use the groundwork of animosity and scorched-earth performed by Hillary to win over the largest block of disgruntled Democrats and Independents (PUMA/women). I really can't imagine it will work, but that must be the thought.

And she has no foreign policy experience what-so-ever, which means McCain took away his main line of attack against Obama. So the disgruntled Hillaryites is all he's done. McCain's kept the base happy by keeping it anti-abortion, so whoopie, but they must be in some strange echo-chamber if they think this will help.

To reiterate: McCain has been mocking Obama, and the Democrats, by saying we nominated a vapid pretty-boy who resembles Brittney Spears. And now McCain has actually nominated a young, inexperienced pretty-girl. Whoa.