I have never before encountered a more evil force in American politics than the Kochs and their ilk. Never.

Since March 2009 I have been researching the funding patterns of the right wing and their activity with regard to the tea party movements, how they move money through Republican establishment organizations, and the impact of their investment in organizations and publications intended to legitimize ideas that work against the interests of 99% of the citizens of this country. I'm not alone. Many others are also digging deep. AlterNet. Think Progress.

My reasons for searching and paying attention go beyond ideology. Regardless of what their views are, emergency sirens sound when I consider exactly how much control two people and one corporation have over right-wing politics. It transcends ideology. It's anti-democracy. In my travels I've found the same information that many others have found but which always seems to languish in the shadows of the Internet.

Influence is held in the hands of the very few, and right now the Koch brothers hold the reins. Consider this list, created in 2004. It lists every organization that has received funding from the Koch Family Foundations. Then it was $120 million. Fast forward to 2010, where they spent millions we know about, and more millions we don't. For 2012, they've pledged $49 million toward a goal of $88 million.

All of this to say one thing: The Koch threat isn't just to liberal politics. It is a threat to the very democracy we treasure in this country. And like Glenn Greenwald, I view them as the most dangerous type of ideologue: the True Believer. True Believers are dangerous because they don't have any goal other than to make all of us True Believers. They proselytize free markets the way evangelicals preach Jesus. And when those same free markets fail? They facepalm and admit shock that perhaps there is a flaw in their flawless philosophy, then go right back to preaching and selling the free market gospel like it's God's word in the flesh.

News flash for the Koch devotees: Markets are not people. Not yet. They don't breathe, eat, cry, love, hate. They do, however, determine the future of people who are at their mercy. It's one thing to control markets like Koch and a few others do. It's entirely another to be at their mercy.

I would still have a job that I adored, but for capricious markets and their puppetmasters. Which is why when I read nonsense like this Weekly Standard Koch Brothers Rehab Piece by Matthew Continetti, I get angry. Really angry. And when I read self-pitying, whinging comments like the one I'm about to quote from a man who wouldn't know what it's like to have your livelihood and your self-respect ripped away in ten minutes' time, I get angrier.

Forget the facts, folks. Charles and David Koch are just bewildered and overwhelmed rich men who cannot for the life of them understand how the left can be so oblivious to the good free markets can do for the world and every individual in the United States who has a set of bootstraps and a pair of arms to use to yank on them.

The left’s inability to understand where the Kochs were coming from puzzled Charles and David. Wasn’t it obvious that small government and free markets resulted in a better world? “Why don’t we teach in schools things that make society more prosperous, and more peaceful, and people will respect each other more? It’s a strange thing, isn’t it?” said Charles. “It’s unbelievable how they distort what your message is!” said David. The Kochs thought their aim was to increase the standard of living for everyone. The way to do this, they believed, was by applying to society the same methods that had grown their company.

Small governments and free markets resulted in a better world? Really? Was it big government that allowed Wall Street to run amok and gamble away people's retirement savings in markets they knew were doomed to fail? What society does David Koch mean when he says "teach in schools things that make society more prosperous"? Surely he doesn't mean this one, because the facts speak otherwise. This society is NOT more prosperous, though Mr. Koch certainly has prospered. What the Kochs do is corrupt government, then blame it for screwing the rest of us.

This world is not better because Koch pollutes it while denying there might be even an iota of truth in climate change science.

This world is not better because our children's educations are being raped and sold to the "free markets" so we can create yet another "market" which will put "prosperity" ahead of education.

This world is not better because Koch Industries put millions into propaganda campaigns to convince people to act against their own interests in order to further Charles and David's "prosperity".

This world is not better because the faith in "free markets" brought the entire world economy to the brink of ruin.

This world is not better because David and Charles Koch think it's better for people to die after losing everything because they were unfortunate enough to be uninsured and sick at the same time.

So what "better world" is it that Mr. Koch sees? I want to see that world too. Instead what I see are people like me, who are educated, motivated, intelligent and have a strong work ethic unable to find work. Why can't we find work? Well, the 'markets' are flooded right now with lots of young people looking for work, and when the markets write the rules, they're written to maximize profits. That means people like me won't find a job until the "market" has eaten its fill of the younger generation.

Commentary like this makes my head explode:

The raw emotions and mindless smears left employees of Koch Industries hurt and befuddled. They kept searching for an answer. It was as if the universe had turned upside down. “All of us are given something, some more than others, and it’s up to us to build on it,” said Koch Minerals executive Steve Tatum. “Charles and David did. They built on what they inherited from their family. Hopefully, I have too. And I inherited nothing but a little help with college.

“What doesn’t seem right is when a person works to get through college, gets a degree, works for 25 years to become successful—and now you’re the bad guy,” Tatum said. “And I think, that’s the American dream, isn’t it?”

Continue reading »

After many months of negotiations, fights, protests, egos and outright suffering, the Senate may have a health-care bill that passes. Liberal activists are divided on their support. Howard Dean wants the Senate bill killed, but Paul Krugman wants it passed.

Both are real liberal heroes. Paul Krugman was as honest as anyone during the democratic primary between Hillary and Obama and he received a lot of pressure to tone it down so I will never dismiss anything he has to say. That being said, I don't buy the Iraq war analogy either. I did become a blogger in 2004 because of my opposition to the war.

Joe Lieberman's ego and pettiness seem to have abated for the time being as we find out who and what actually killed the Medicare buy-in: The f*&king lobbyists. And then there's still Ben Nelson's quest to attack women's rights as he strives to invoke as much Stupak language in the bill as possible.

What happened to the House? Congressmen were also in a legislative battle from the first day the health-care debate began. There were public displays of childishness throughout the process by movement conservatives on late Saturday nights; Rep. John Shadegg holding baby Maddie up and using her like a prop typified the behavior of the Republican party, but what did any of it accomplish? It looked more like a carnival of idiots than serious politicians working for the Americans who voted them to represent us.

The House has officially been neutered to the point of being irrelevant it would appear. They can throw tantrums like petulant stepchildren, hold their breaths until they turn blue, but in the end they are being totally ignored by the House of Lords.

How do House members feel after witnessing the antics of the ConservaDems in the Senate over the last few weeks? Their health-care bill -- which took a tremendous amount of painstaking work -- was finally merged with all three committees, but if they get ready to meet it appears their words of compromise will be as useless as a cheap bamboo wedding fan trying to keep you cool in the oppressive heat of the Mojave Desert.

When the House and Senate committee members meet in conference and supposedly merge their bills, exactly what can they do to influence it at all? If the Senate bill is as far as the Gang of Four, or Six or Ten or whatever it is, are willing to go, then is the House bill nothing more than a stage prop?

Do members of the House of Representatives feel jubilation at the thought that any pieces of major legislation they are asked to put together will ultimately be decided by President Lieberman, Queen Snowe, Mary Landrone, Ben "floppy hair" Nelson and Max Baucus? I'm sure more names will be added to the list.

I really want to know how they feel.

Update: Rep. Anthony Weiner speaks out against Lieberman on WNYC.

LEHRER: Up or down, if the bill gets through the senate with no public option and it gets through the Senate with the Ben Nelson Abortion restrictions, would you vote yes or no?

WEINER: I'm not taking the Senate Bill. We're going to go into a conference hopefully, we're going to get back to close to where the house is. We're not taking the Senate Bill. That Senate Bill should not become law."

Threatening to "kill the bill" works both ways---or at least it should.

(h/t Heather.)

One of the things I learned early on in my journalism career is that words have power. They also have consequences. Fortunately, I have a conscience. I credit my Catholic upbringing for that.

I found so much to admire in the concepts of social justice and compassion with which I was raised, and even though I'm not longer a Catholic, I still take exception to the way these so-called Catholics distort the faith.

It infuriates me when I see people like these distort and twist the truth about healthcare reform - for what reason? I mean, they're pretty much the scrubs of the right wing, a bunch of has-beens and wannabes. Do they do it to feed their egos? To keep the cocktail-party invitations flowing? Let's look at this group of "moral" leaders who are fighting so desperately to save the elderly from socialist liberal euthanasia.

It's mostly older people who watch "The McLaughlin Group," I think, so the antics of these clowns mostly fly below the radar - just like talk radio.

John McLaughlin is the former Jesuit priest who cared so deeply about God, he quit the order rather than give up his speechwriting gig with Richard Nixon.

Pat Buchanan, a good friend of McLaughlin's and the Nixon speechwriter who got him the job, is a product of Jesuit schools and presents himself as a Catholic so conservative, he still goes to the Latin Mass. He has occasional lapses in which he actually tells the truth, but these are so few and far between, it's not worth mentioning. Pat is generally is so willing to distort reality, it's a given. If Pat vehemently tells you the sky is blue, stick your head out the window and check.

Monica Crowley, another Nixon employee, is a Fox News "analyst" - i.e. someone paid to twist and mold the truth into something to inflames passions against Democrats. (By the way, her sister, Dr. Jocelyn Crowley, is married to Hannity's former co-host, Alan Colmes.) Apparently she's pretty good at distorting truth:

Crowley was accused of plagiarism in 1999 for an article she authored titled "The Day Nixon Said Goodbye" that appeared in the The Wall Street Journal. After accusations of plagiarism from at least one reader, an acknowledgement of "striking similarities" between Crowley's article and an article by Paul Johnson titled "In Praise of Richard Nixon" in the October 1988 issue of Commentary Magazine was published. A Journal editor stated, "Had we known of the parallels, we would not have published the article."

Crowley acknowledged the similarity between the pieces, and said "there are clear similarities in the language. I have wracked my brain, and I can honestly tell you that I have not read [Johnson's article]."

An article in Slate Magazine detailed five specific passages in Crowley's article that contained identical language and phraseology to Johnson's piece, and concluded that "it just isn't possible for Crowley not to have read Johnson's article."

There is something called "The Ten Commandments," and Christians generally agree that it's important. John, Pat, Monica and their ilk simply ignore any of those commandments that are politically inconvenient ("Thou shalt not bear false witness") or they apply them selectively ("Thou shalt not kill" only applies to fetuses, and not Iraqi children). They dig out obscure parts of the Old Testament they insist mean Jesus condemned gay people, and yet they still eat shrimp and lobster - condemned in the same book of the Bible.

We already know they will do or say anything that will further their political cause and erode ours.

So spare me the wide eyes and crocodile tears. No one's suggesting we off old people, and they know it. They're just so shameless and cynical, they couldn't resist.

Everyone knows if liberals really believed in killing people when they're no longer productive, people like McLaughlin and Buchanan wouldn't be here.

Helen's right, damn it. And look at Gibbs' deflection: "We've had a pretty good week." Sorry, Gibby, health-care reform is slowly slipping away. Don't just stand there.

Here are my thoughts on what the White House did wrong, in no particular order:

1) Obama outsourced the legislation to Congress instead of presenting it himself and working with them to write the details. He thought he'd outsmart the GOP by doing the opposite of the Clinton plan, but instead the bill is now lost on a sea of "compromise."

2) Bipartisanship. You just can't work with ideologues who refuse to operate in good faith. They're true believers, they will never give an inch. You'd think Obama would have picked up that little lesson while studying the Clinton era.

3) Blue Dogs. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to come up with new strategies, since kissing their collective Blue Dog butts only inflates their already-swollen egos. Someone (Obama?) should lay down the law. Put them in the worst offices, cut their staff budgets until they cooperate. Lyndon Johnson wouldn't be holding their hands.

4) Single payer. It would have been so much easier if we'd started with it. Hell, we might even have won - and it's simple enough that most people would understand. But whatever.

5) He should have come out fighting for the public option earlier this year. Instead, he let the opponents (and the insurance companies) define the public perception. BIG rookie mistake.

6) It's one thing to meet with relevant stakeholders (insurance companies, Big Pharma, etc.) It's another thing to trust them. (See Otter, "Animal House": "You f***ed up, you trusted me!")

7) He should have included a public advocate to speak for ordinary people in every healthcare meeting. (Hell, does he even HAVE a public advocate? Because he should. I'm available.)

8 ) Obama is just not good at explaining complicated things to ordinary people, especially when he's not working from a script. He drones on and goes off on tangents. He should use more surrogates, Michelle might have done a better job. Hell, Bo might have done a better job. (I understand the political reasons he didn't ask Bill Clinton, but that may have been a fatal error. The Big Dog would have sold the hell out of the healthcare plan.)

9) The President should have made it clear from the beginning that the main focus of this bill is to make life better for Americans. All that blah blah blah about "bending the cost curve" and "controlling costs" only fed the public paranoia about rationing. (All he had to do was compare the public option to the assigned risk pool for auto insurance, and they would have gotten it.) Yes, in one of his speeches, he talked about how the bill would give everyone security, but when you're selling something, you need to stay on message. He's given us so many reasons why we should support this bill, I can't even remember them all - and I'm actually paying attention!

10) Don't negotiate from the middle, damn it. Ask for the moon and stars, and work your way toward the middle, or risk people thinking you're a corporatist tool. (Ahem.)

Krugman was right again. Instead of taking a strong leadership position and insisting on a larger package, Obama played nice with the so-called "moderates" of both parties (i.e. morons who would sell their own mothers to feed their swollen egos). And here we sit, in a stagnating economy that sinks even deeper in recession as jobs are flushed down the drain.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite business books, "Management by Baseball." Author Jeff Angus (who also has a great blog) says one of the most common management mistakes is when a manager assumes a strategy that has been successful for him as a player will apply to all situations when he's a manager. Obama's built his career on being a cautious incrementalist, but what's called for now is bold vision.

So what's Obama going to do about it? Krugman has some suggestions:

So what do we have to counter this scary prospect? We have the Obama stimulus plan, which aims to create 3½ million jobs by late next year. That’s much better than nothing, but it’s not remotely enough. And there doesn’t seem to be much else going on. Do you remember the administration’s plan to sharply reduce the rate of foreclosures, or its plan to get the banks lending again by taking toxic assets off their balance sheets? Neither do I.

All of this is depressingly familiar to anyone who has studied economic policy in the 1930s. Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.

So have we failed to learn from history, and are we, therefore, doomed to repeat it? Not necessarily — but it’s up to the president and his economic team to ensure that things are different this time. President Obama and his officials need to ramp up their efforts, starting with a plan to make the stimulus bigger.

Just to be clear, I’m well aware of how difficult it will be to get such a plan enacted.

There won’t be any cooperation from Republican leaders, who have settled on a strategy of total opposition, unconstrained by facts or logic. Indeed, these leaders responded to the latest job numbers by proclaiming the failure of the Obama economic plan. That’s ludicrous, of course. The administration warned from the beginning that it would be several quarters before the plan had any major positive effects. But that didn’t stop the chairman of the Republican Study Committee from issuing a statement demanding: “Where are the jobs?”

It’s also not clear whether the administration will get much help from Senate “centrists,” who partially eviscerated the original stimulus plan by demanding cuts in aid to state and local governments — aid that, as we’re now seeing, was desperately needed. I’d like to think that some of these centrists are feeling remorse, but if they are, I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.

And as an economist, I’d add that many members of my profession are playing a distinctly unhelpful role.

It has been a rude shock to see so many economists with good reputations recycling old fallacies — like the claim that any rise in government spending automatically displaces an equal amount of private spending, even when there is mass unemployment — and lending their names to grossly exaggerated claims about the evils of short-run budget deficits. (Right now the risks associated with additional debt are much less than the risks associated with failing to give the economy adequate support.)

Also, as in the 1930s, the opponents of action are peddling scare stories about inflation even as deflation looms.

So getting another round of stimulus will be difficult. But it’s essential.

Obama administration economists understand the stakes. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, Christina Romer, the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, published an article on the “lessons of 1937” — the year that F.D.R. gave in to the deficit and inflation hawks, with disastrous consequences both for the economy and for his political agenda.

What I don’t know is whether the administration has faced up to the inadequacy of what it has done so far.

So here’s my message to the president: You need to get both your economic team and your political people working on additional stimulus, now. Because if you don’t, you’ll soon be facing your own personal 1937.

via World O' Crap: Takes a look at Sherrie Gossett, who is a contributing reporter for WorldNetDaily, and an Associate Editor of the "Accuracy in Media" Report latest article

...Yes, conservative blogs are more successful than liberal blogs because conservativism is just better than liberalism. Also, they are more successful because conservatives are more likely to stick to the day's "talking points" (whether said points come from the WH, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn himself), while liberals, what with their big egos and their rampant selfishness, tend to write whatever the hell they want. And that's why Glenn Reynolds is a way better blogger, than say, Billmon: because providing a bunch of links and saying "heh" and "indeed" is much more persuave than actually writing stuff.

So it's as simple as: On the right, people are for something. On the left, people are against something?

Many. Yep. Absolutely true.

There you have it: good bloggers are conservative, while bad bloggers are liberal. Therefore, despite what the liberal media may claim, Jeff Gannon is a really good blogger. Oh, and a great journalist too.