The Tea Party platform was all about smaller government and less spending. Now that they helped Republicans sweep into the House and Senate, the deficit is all but forgotten. Let's see how the mainstream Republican party is adhering to Tea Party values. Hint: not closely at all.

Cutting a deal on tax cuts while extending unemployment insurance

It seems everyone hates the deal President Obama cut with the Republicans on tax cuts, but it's a toss-up as to whether progressives hate it quite as much as the Tea Party. Jim DeMint and the Club for Growth came out against it with some of the most cynical, hypocritical reasoning I've ever seen. They want the top tax rate to be made permanent with no offset, but insist that the middle class tax cuts and unemployment extensions must be paid for. All that talk about the deficit is just that. Talk.

Leadership positions and earmark spending

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) has been appointed chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Rogers is one of the biggest earmarkers in Congress, earning the title of "Porker of the Month" in August. Not only that, but true to hypocritical form, Rogers requested funds appropriated as part of the Affordable Care Act while swearing during his campaign that he would move to repeal or defund it.

This one may be a little tough for the Tea Party to attack too hard, since Ron Paul is one of four Republican Congressmen to request earmarks.

Defense spending

Tea party purists like Ron Paul and presumably his son Rand oppose both wars and advocate cuts in defense spending. This is one area where I happen to agree with them, as do many others who oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And once again, Republicans have betrayed those core Tea Party values by putting Buck McKeon in charge of the Armed Services Committee.

Mother Jones:

McKeon's views on such issues as Don't Ask, Don't Tell (he's against its repeal) and defense spending put him directly at odds with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He has described Gates' thinking on defense reform as "shortsighted and the wrong path," arguing that the US should spend whatever it takes to prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, while simultaneously investing to prepare for future wars. "The word 'tradeoff' hasn't really been in McKeon's vocabulary," observes the Center for a New American Security's Travis Sharp.

The differing philosophies of McKeon and Gates on defense spending are likely to produce some confrontational hearings. Sharp also predicts that the California lawmaker will attempt to make an issue of the Obama administration's plans for a gradual pullout from Afghanistan by hauling top commanders before the committee to testify about the wisdom of setting a date to begin withdrawing troops. McKeon, for his part, has said that a deadline undermines US efforts in the eyes of its NATO allies and Afghans, and gives the Taliban every reason to sit tight and pounce when the time is right.

McKeon's defense spending zeal is no surprise. Since his election in 1992, the defense and aerospace industries have practically bankrolled his political career. And over the years, he's returned the favor, directing millions in pork-barrel projects to defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

So many betrayals, so little time. Will the Tea Party rebel against the Republicans? Stay tuned...

Ingrid Michaelson--Be OK, for StandUpToCancer.org

After all the sturm und drang over the health care reform vote, expected today, tea party protests and their escalating violent rhetoric and tantrums by members of the House and in the liberal blogosphere over what this bill does and doesn't mean, I'm beyond my outrage fatigue level. I just want to be okay. The attitude all over the country has been made toxic, by hate, by fear, by lies, by betrayal. I just want to feel okay today. The media has failed us all, by constantly going to the minority party's take, making it seem more significant than it is; by repeating talking points without context; by acting as every issue has a valid left vs. right argument. I just want to know today I'll be okay.

But Sunday isn't going to help me be okay. Because I guarantee it will be more sturm und drang, more tantrum, and more toxicity. Look at these line-ups. More left vs. right false dichotomies, more air time to people who deserve no such privilege (Karl Rove, I'm looking at you) and more milquetoast-y, polite Democrats set up against the screechiest Republicans. I don't think I'll be okay today.

ABC's "This Week" - Reps. Eric Cantor, R-Va., and John Larson, D-Conn.; David Plouffe, former Obama presidential campaign manager; Karl Rove, former George W. Bush adviser.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Reps. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.; Tim Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee; Anita Dunn, former Obama White House communications director; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Howard Fineman, Kelly O'Donnell, Michele Norris, Michael Duffy. Topics: After health care, how do Democrats avoid a blowout in the midterms? How liberal can Obama's next Supreme Court nominee be? Should Obama Move To the Center Instead of the Left As A Reelection Strategy? YES: 11 NO: 1; Will "Repeal Health Care" Be A Winning Slogan For Republicans This Fall? YES: 5 No: 7.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Reps. Larson and Mike Pence, R-Ind.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Fareed holds a discussion about Israel and what its ambassador to Washington calls the crisis in its relations with the United States of America. We're joined by Mort Zuckerman who just met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Martin Indyk, who has served as Ambassador to Israel twice and ran the Middle East division at the State Department as well as the National Security Council. Plus, Michael Lewis has returned to his original love (or hate) -- Wall Street. He has a new book out on the financial crisis and some very provocative ideas about Wall Street as a dying empire.

"Fox News Sunday" - Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.; Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

So what is catching your eye this morning?

It's very sad to see the Obama administration act like this.

Joe Sudbay:

Gay Americans lost rights last November in California. We had fundamental rights taken away by an election. Think about that. When was the last time that happened in this country?

Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?

So, yes, I am advocating that we push the envelope and demand new and creative thinking on legal issues, on our civil and human rights. That's how change happens (there's that pesky word again). That's what we expect from our President who promised change, who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for our rights. Yesterday's homophobic brief would have met the expectations we had from George Bush (or Jerry Falwell). From President Barack Obama, it was an appalling betrayal of our humanity, and his own.

The Gay community gets slapped once again in the face.

Digby writes:

And likewise, merely because an unjust law is on the books doesn't mean that its right for the DOJ to defend it, particularly with the kind of inflammatory and (one hopes) disingenuous arguments used in the brief. This isn't God's Law we're talking about (assuming there were such a thing.) This is just a system set up by human beings to create an orderly and (hopefully) just society. Separating justice from the law makes the law nothing more than an arbitrary exercise in power. I recognize that it is that mostly anyway, but there's no reason to legitimize that by saying that anything goes as long as it's "legal."

If he really felt constrained by the law in this case, Eric Holder could have simply argued that the couple in question didn't have standing and let it go at that. The other arguments were gratuitous and seem to me to be designed to form a strong legal bulwark in favor of the law rather than setting the stage for reversing it. Which brings us to the politics.

Needless to say, after so many slights, snubs and various betrayals it's pretty hard to deny that the LGBT community is being used as a pawn in the president's "outreach" to social conservatives. It's a cruel dismissal of a strong and loyal constituency on an issue of fundamental civil rights. I can't defend it and I don't know how the administration is going to keep defending it. And it won't buy them a single vote, I guarantee it.

DOWNLOADS: (1177)

PLAYS: (1412)

Embed

[H/t Scarce]

Sean Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh again on his show last night, and as you might expect, it featured the usual endless stream of insane right-wing crap. Now there's a big surprise.

Limbaugh repeated the point he made yesterday on the radio -- that perhaps Sonia Sotomayor, being Catholic and all, might secretly be anti-abortion. In which case, he'd probably be fine with her nomination to the Supreme Court:

Limbaugh: If -- now I'm speaking for me personally -- If I've learned, if I can be assured, that she is actually a pro-life person, and does think that Roe vs. Wade is bad constitutional law, and if she would rule on the right side of the life issue, I might look past this racism -- we can deal with that. But that's something very, very important to me, and she could be stealth in that regard. And I know that -- well, there's no record. Normally most liberals, they love to tell you how pro-choice they are on abortion -- she doesn't have any of that.

Now remember: The entire reason all of these right-wingers say they have been opposed to Sotomayor is that (given the way they've managed to deliberately distort her "wise Latina" remarks) she might be predisposed to favor identity politics with a feminist and Latino bias. Or as Newt the Phony put it, "Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

That means pretending that a judge's experiences and backgrounds and predispositions are never supposed to come into play when they make rulings, as though the law is some kind of abstract entity whose purity must be defended. It's an outgrowth of the "strict constructionist" philosophy, which likes to pretend that there can only be one perfectly literal interpretation of the law.

But that of course goes flying out the window when these same right-wingers contemplate the possibility that Sotomayor might harbor a secret bias about abortion that actually skews in their favor. Then they're all good with it -- supposedly.

Limbaugh doesn't mean a word of it, of course. We get the real reason that Limbaugh is saying this: He just wants liberals to start fretting and stewing and raising questions about Sotomayor's positions, driving a wedge into the heart of her support. Pretty clever ruse, Rushie boy. Too bad most of us long ago learned how to see right through your crooked lies.

Just like when you claim that "no one has denied" that Sotomayor is a racist. Um, yeah, right.

DOWNLOADS: (2953)

PLAYS: (3259)

Embed

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

UPDATE:

Rush reacts to Newt's backtracking on Sotomayor "racist" charge: "I'm not retracting it."

LIMBAUGH: Have my words been too strong on Sotomayor? Are you asking me because Newt has retracted his -- no, my words have not been too strong. I just heard right before the program started. I didn't have a chance to do a lot of show prep late because of the Hannity interview, so I -- after the interview, I checked my email, and three members of the state-run media has sent me emails wanting my reaction to Newt's retraction of calling Sotomayor a racist, and I didn't know that he had, and I didn't know why he had retracted it, and I still don't. But -- what did he say? Why did he retract it? Did he say that he thought the word was too harsh or -- well, I have my own theory about what Newt's doing, but since I'm not doing it, I'm not going to comment.

I'm not retracting it. Nobody's refuted it. You know, they're out there saying, "It's too harsh. It's distracting, Rush. I mean, it's calling -- you know, you just don't want to use the word." Why? If the word means something -- words mean things -- and if it fits, I use it. Now, they may say, "Don't say it, Rush. Dial it back a little bit." But nobody's saying I'm wrong. Nobody's saying I'm making it up. I mean, when she says she'd do a better job than a white guy, what is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism. She would bring a form of racism, bigotry to the court.

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

UPDATED: We'll leave this post on top of the page for the time being.

FISA Retroactive immunity passes 76-10...Dodd is arguing against a 60 vote requirement needed to pass his amendment by Reid... Boxer gives a nice speech and she voted with Dodd against the bill. Here's the list:

Boxer - D/California, Brown - D/Ohio, Cantwell - D/Washington, Cardin - D/Maryland, Dodd - D/Connecticut, Feingold - D/Wisconsin, Harkin - D/Iowa, Kerry - D/Massachussetts, Menendez - D/New Jersey, Wyden - D/Oregon

UPDATE #2 As for the other Democratic presidential candidates, although they have all released statements that they support Dodd’s efforts, Obama’s and Clinton’s offices have given conflicting information as to whether their respective candidates will come to D.C. Biden is sadly one of the 76 who voted to proceed with the bill. Correction: Biden voted "present". My apology for the confusion.

DiFi introduced two amendments, one with limited immunity to telecoms. Kennedy is speaking now…

Here’s a flow chart that helps makes sense of the procedure.

~*~*~*~*~

We've asked you to come up with some suggestions for things that Senator Dodd could read on the Senate floor in his filibuster of the FISA/telecom immunity after Harry Reid's dirty dealings (and betrayal to his party).

You've all done a great job. Lots of you recommended that he read the Constitution, a document of which I think many in Washington must be reminded.

But now, in this fresh thread, I'm asking you to write a letter to Sen. Dodd. Tell him how you feel about his principled stand and what the erosions of our civil liberties has meant to you, especially with the compliance of Congress. Please keep them profanity-free, so that Senator Dodd can read them on the Senate floor and let's have our voices heard by these elected representatives who have forgotten that it is WE who are in charge and they work for us.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Poor little Clenis-obsessed Tweety. Bill Clinton rocked his world yesterday by saying that he had always been against the Iraq invasion. Now whether that is true is somewhat debatable, because my own Lexis search didn't turn up anything that would indicate that, although he certainly has expressed it in the years since. Certainly at the time of the invasion (can you say "freedom fries"?), the wingnuts would have gone crazy had a former president spoken out against the current administration. But that doesn't matter to Chris Matthews, he can't believe that Bill Clinton would be rewriting history.

Well, with this flim-flam coming out about Bill Clinton , I just don't know what to say. I have finally been mastered by Bill Clinton. I finally don't think I can match him for chutzpah. It's a good Yiddishism for the ability to say something absolutely ridiculous.

Really, how dare anyone attempt anything as utterly ridiculous as rewriting pre-Iraq invasion history?

If this doesn't prove Tweety's right wing tool-osity consider this: Hardball did make a passing reference to Rove's unbelievably audacious interview with Charlie Rose, but spent five whole minutes over two segments on the betrayal by Bill Clinton, who it must be said, did NOT occupy the White House at the time of the invasion.

How many times have we rolled our eyes at the notion of a "liberal media"? How often have we accused the traditional media of being nothing but stenographers instead of the actual journalists we want them to be? Wouldn't it be wonderful, just once, to able to ask a journalist to explain his story and actually have a dialogue with him/her?

Well, Media Bloodhound did just that. After critiquing Michael Powell's profile of Rudy Giuliani in the NY Times, who should turn up to defend his work than Mr. Powell himself? Not to put too fine a point on it, Powell was a wee bit defensive at first. But to his credit, he did engage with Media Bloodhound and the exchange is an interesting one, with Powell conceding some of MB's points.

I do think that Powell deserves some kudos here...can you imagine Joe Klein or David Broder being at all receptive to a blogger's points, no matter how cogently made? *snort* Neither can I.

A tip of the hat to Media Bloodhound as well, for keeping the discourse civil (especially when Powell initiates his first post with a "your mama..." Seriously.) There's a lot of anger and feelings of betrayal in the blogosphere and then anonymity here makes it easy to write things you would not necessarily say face to face. However, look how much further this discussion goes, when the impulse to slap down is checked. This may not be the great "a-ha" moment that we're all hoping from the traditional media, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Now if we can just get CNN on board...

JohnEdwards.com:

Almost 40 years ago the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the pulpit in Riverside Church and, with the full force of his conscience, denounced the war in Vietnam -- calling it a "tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust."

As Dr. King put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to humanity.

Today, another president is trying to escalate another war. And once again, silence is betrayal.

Continue reading »