Rove On The Couch

This will be the first of a two-part series of posts I intend to do that psychoanalyze certain political figures on the right. Granted, I have not met these people (thank God) and don't know them personally. However, I believe that I may have an insight into some of their behaviors.

I have a theory about Karl Rove: he was teased and bullied mercilessly in school.

Rove seems exactly like the type of guy that might not have necessarily been 'Mr. Popularity' in high school (not that being unpopular is necessarily a bad thing, I should add). He doesn't have the most attractive face in politics (comparisons to Porky Pig, fair or unfair, have been made), and he tends towards the plump side of the weight spectrum.

I think that Rove spent most - if not all - of his time being bullied in school, but he never got over it. Unlike most people who are bullied, Rove never confronted his psychological baggage over high school social politics. Instead, he let that baggage fester for years, until it became unhealthy.

Rove is well known - infamous, even - as the poster boy of modern dirty politics. There have been many stories of the underhanded tactics Rove used in campaigns against political opponents - character assassination through smears, misrepresentation, and inventing scandals out of thin air. A list of some of Rove's "greatest hits" can be found here.

When Rove attacks  in this way, I don't believe that he is necessarily aiming that vitriol at his political opponents, but at the bullies who teased him in school. He is projecting the venom he feels for his former classmates into politics, retaliating others for wrongs that were done to him decades ago in high school.

Thus, in so doing, Rove has become exactly what he hates so much: a bully.

A Swing and a Miss

Ever since the news broke that conservative groups had been scrutinized by the IRS, the GOP has been desperate to milk as much political capital out of the story as possible.

Too bad that, as I've noted here, the facts of the case have revealed little to nothing scandalous that could be used against Obama. As the president himself noted, albeit commenting on another scandal, "there's no there there".

But now conservatives are excited because, in their minds, they've found the so-called smoking gun that "proves" Obama's complicity in the IRS "scandal": the fact that the former IRS commissioner - gasp! - visited the White House!

Unfortunately for the scandal-mongers, the commissioner visited the White House eleven out of one hundred seventy -five times - mostly for meetings on how to best implement health reform:

Source

As a good friend of mine often says: a swing and a miss. So much for Scandalmania 2013!

And as for "the smoking gun", do Republicans really want to bring that particular metaphor to mind? Have we forgotten the last time that metaphor was used by the GOP?

"Smoking Gun"

Running Scared

From the looks of it, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is feeling anxious about his chances of winning reelection at the end of his current term.

The distinct smell of desperation began to hover over Team McConnell as recently as last December, when McConnell chose to begin attacking Ashley Judd before she had even thrown her hat into the ring:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mcconnell-preempt-judd-senate-challenge-article-1.1225237

Hypothetical polling at the time had placed Judd, a Hollywood actress with little or no political experience, slightly ahead of McConnell, whose job performance had sunk to 37%.

Now there's evidence that McConnell is trying to get away with misleading the public about the IRS "scandal" in order to whip Kentucky voters into a frenzy:

“Again and again, this administration and its allies have used the resources of the government itself to intimidate and silence those that oppose it,” McConnell says. “I think that the leader of the free world and his advisers have better things to do than to dig through other people’s tax returns.”

The ad ends with a quote from Obama, where he seems to admit to punishing opponents of his administration: “We’re going to punish our enemies, and we’re going to reward our friends.” But this is an out-of-context quote, pulled from a comment made more than two years ago in an interview with Univision radio. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of, ‘we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ – if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder,” Obama said in that interview. McConnell’s use of the quote is the dishonest capstone to an intensely dishonest piece of political rhetoric.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/05/29/michele-bachmann-is-gone-but-her-paranoid-politics-will-live-on/

Luckily for those of us who actually care about the truth, Jamelle Bouie of the Washington Post caught McConnell's misrepresentation. Obama never said that he was going to "punish his enemies"; he was speaking of the effect that Democratic apathy would have on the past election.

Recent polling indicates that McConnell is currently tied with a Democrat who hasn't yet entered the race:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/05/28/grimes_would_give_mcconnell_strong_challenge.html

I can't tell you how much pleasure it gives me to see Mitch McConnell squirm over his reelection chances. Of all the various Representatives and Senators that currently "grace" our nation's Capitol, McConnell is the Congressman that I dislike the most. He has made a career out of being a naysaying, obstructionist, angry old man, and the Senate would benefit from his ouster.

If you have been following my political musings here or on Facebook, you are likely aware that I have spent a lot of time complaining about Republican obstructionism in Congress. The face of that cynical, do-nothing obstructionism is none other than McConnell, who has decided to simply throw a hissy fit over the past five years because he didn't get his man in office in 2008. Now it seems that karma from the past couple of years is finally coming back to bite McConnell in the ass.

And as they often say: karma's a bitch.

A Day In the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

This is not my work, and I do not present it here as such. It was just so good, however, that I just couldn't pass up sharing it with...whomever is out there.

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)  Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.

Doom and Gloom Republicans

Well well well...looks like Republican reports of high premiums and other implementation problems involving "Obamacare" are greatly exaggerated:

The Congressional Budget Office predicted back in November 2009 that a medium-cost plan on the health exchange – known as a “silver plan” – would have an annual premium of  $5,200. A separate report from actuarial firm Milliman projected that, in California, the average silver plan would have a $450 monthly premium.

Now we have California’s rates, and they appear to be significantly less expensive than what forecasters expected.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/california-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

Providence Health Plan on Wednesday asked to lower its requested rates by 15 percent. Gary Walker, a Providence spokesman, says the “primary driver” was a realization that the plan’s cost projections were incorrect. But he conceded a desire to be competitive was part of it.

A Family Care Health Plans official on Thursday said the insurer will ask the state for even greater decrease in requested rates. CEO Jeff Heatherington says the company realized its analysts were too pessimistic after seeing online that its proposed premiums were the highest.

“That was my question when I saw the rates was, ‘Can we go in and refile these?’” he said. “We’re going to try to get these to a competitive range.”

This is pretty close to what the Obama administration dreams of: Insurance plans looking to woo millions of new customers—and slashing their rates in the process.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/20/oregon-may-be-the-white-houses-favorite-health-exchange/

Add this to the growing list of issues about which Republicans are (apparently) wrong.

Some Things Never Change

The only constants in life, according to some authorities, are death and taxes. As impermanent and ever-changing as human life tends to be, we can only ever be sure that we will pay taxes to the government (whichever government under which we choose to live) and eventually die - hopefully after long, fulfilling lives.

I would submit that something should be added to the above list: Republicans claiming that x action will "please the terrorists" or mean that "the terrorists win".

Yesterday, President Obama laid out a paradigm shift for national security: freeing Gitmo prisoners who have been wrongly accused of terrorism and repeal of the 2001 authorization to use military force, among many other shifts in policy.

In other words, no more "perpetual war" against terrorism, which is both impractical and, as Obama rightly pointed out in his speech, treacherous for civil liberty.

Many Republicans, naturally, have already voiced their opposition to Obama's plans:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters afterward that “there are parts of this speech that I could’ve given.” But Obama’s overall view of the war is wrong, Graham said, adding that the president’s policies would make the country less safe. “The enemy is morphing. It is spreading,” he said. “There are more theaters of conflict today than there have ever been. Our allies are more afraid than I’ve ever seen; our enemies more emboldened.”

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence panel, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, dismissed the speech as rewarding detainees at Guantánamo who are carrying out hunger strikes.

“The President’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” Chambliss said in a written statement. “Today’s speech sends the message to Guantanamo detainees that if they harass the dedicated military personnel there enough, we will give in and send them home, even to Yemen.”

Source: http://www.rollcall.com/news/frosty_gop_reception_for_obamas_terrorism_policy_shifts-225121-1.html?ET=rollcall:e15729:44098a:&st=email&pos=eam

Republicans have used this particular line against Democrats for years, accusing them of being in league with terrorists whenever Democrats have had the temerity to question many of the civil liberty- and Constitution-busting decisions Republicans have made in the name of "national security":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A

To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/gop-dissent-attacks.html

Listening to Republicans on these issues is what gave us the Patriot Act, indefinite detention of prisoners at Gitmo without legal counsel, the Iraq War, innuendo that accused critics of being in league with terrorists, torture, and seven years of not finding Osama.


The above quotes in response to Obama's speech is proof positive that we should continue not listening to Republicans on matters of national security.

Hypocrisy and Bad Theology

There are times when hypocrisy in politics is so brazen that you just have to be amazed at the sheer brassiness.

Take Tennessee Representative Stephen Fincher as an example. The Republican recently used a Bible verse from 2 Thessalonians to justify severe cuts in the food stamp program, or SNAP:

Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."

If it's not bad enough to use God's word, which exhorts believers to help the poor, as justification for gutting services to help the poor, there's the hypocrisy.

http://tinyurl.com/ovtvqjx

According to the New York Times, the same Congressman who thinks that the government should make the poor fens for themselves is one of the largest recipients of farm subsidies.

This is not the only example of Republican hypocrisy on government spending. Many Republicans make a career out of railing against government spending....until a disaster of some kind hits their state, at which time they can't wait to get their hands on that sweet, sweet federal disaster relief.

With Republicans like Fincher in office, it's no wonder that many people view the GOP's unofficial motto as "more money for us; screw you".

The REAL Benghazi Scandal

Years ago - long before Obama's inauguration, when most Congressional Republicans' memories conveniently seem to begin - I remember a news outlet receiving harsh criticism for what was seen as biased reporting. CBS Evening News reported on leaked documents that seemed to call then-President Bush's National Guard into question.

As it turned out, the documents proved to be phony.

As a result, many conservatives blasted Dan Rather and what they derisively renamed "C-BS" for trying to derail Bush's reelection campaign. Rather, if I'm not mistaken, eventually lost his job for reporting on what he thought was news.

Fast forward to today. At the height of the Benghazi "scandal", ABC News reports that leaked e-mails show the White House scrubbing references to terror in the talking points about Benghazi. That ends up being untrue.

Source

It's true that ABC News was simply doing its job of informing the public of what they thought was news. Moreover, it remains unclear whether this incident betrays biased reporting at ABC. Nevertheless, both CBS and Dan Rather were forced to apologize for their reporting on information from untrue leaked documents.

Where are the calls for the heads of ABC executives' heads on platters, and when will ABC issue similar apologies for reporting untrue information?

Scandalmongering and Unfair Comparisons

For the better part of this week, we have been seeing a lot of news coverage over the scandal at the IRS. It seems that applications for 501(c)4 status from conservative groups received more scrutiny than similar applications from liberal groups. Not very good news for a government agency that is already distrusted by a wide array of Americans.

After a week of twenty-four hour news reporting on the scandal and additional information coming to light, no evidence has shown that President Obama had any involvement with the IRS' greater scrutiny of conservative groups. That has not stopped the most rabid right-wingers, however, from making unfair and overwrought comparisons to Nixon.

    
Now we get this era's version of Mr. Nixon's infamous Enemies List, too: The director of the division of the IRS that oversees tax-exempt organizations apologized last week for targeting those that have suspicious words like Tea Party or Patriot in their names.

To quote Director Lois Lerner: "We made some mistakes; some people didn't use good judgment. For that we're apologetic." Right. Just some mistakes. Or as Ronald Reagan would say, slipping into the passive voice for once, Mistakes Were Made.

Surely it was only a coincidence that the IRS didn't target organizations with words like Progressive or Ninety-Nine Percent in their names. Just as the Enemies List compiled by Richard Nixon included only left-wing types -- or those he thought were left-wing in his all-consuming paranoia. These days it's a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, to use Hillary Clinton's term, that draws special attention from the IRS.

http://townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/2013/05/16/deja-vu-all-over-again-n1597426

So said conservative columnist Paul Greenberg earlier this week. Naysaying political cartoonist and cheap shot artist Bob Gorrell also joined in on the act this week:

Leaving aside the fact that liberal groups were scrutinized in much the same way as conservative groups (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html), it's really reaching to claim that the current IRS scandal is "Nixonian".

Let's recall our history. While he was in office during the early 1970s, Richard Nixon compiled enemies lists and used the IRS as a weapon against those enemies. It was revealed during the 'Watergate' scandal that Nixon had personally asked the IRS commissioner to go after his political rivals through their taxes.

Is there any proof that President Obama has ever compiled an enemies list of his own? No.

Is there any proof that President Obama tried to go after Tea Party groups via the IRS? No.

So where, one may ask, are the parallels to Nixon - besides the fevered imaginations of Greenberg and Gorrell?

All the evidence released thus far points to the IRS scandal being an intra-agency problem. The Citizens United ruling in 2010 opened the floodgates, allowing political advocacy groups to avoid paying taxes by claiming that they were "social welfare" organizations. Apparently, IRS bureaucrats were so confused by the onslaught of new 501(c)4 applications that they began scrutinizing the groups who were asking for tax-exempt status, thus creating the scandal in the first place.

It's bad enough to find out that the IRS was targeting certain groups because of their politics. Partisan vultures eager to play the politics of scandal don't help matters. Is it too much to ask to wait until the whole truth is revealed before asserting, without proof, that Obama is guilty of Nixonian crimes?

Deficit Reduction

So much for the Republican line that higher taxes on the wealthy won't reduce the deficit. According to CBO projections:

         "If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget
          deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since
          2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross
          domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which
          was 10.1 percent of GDP."

Source

Republicans have been hammering President Obama over the deficit ever since he took office. Contrary to their talking points, however, Obama is well on his way to completing his goal of deficit reduction in five years.

It appears to me that Obama is doing more to help the deficit than the hostage-taking Congressional Republicans...

WHY Are We Still Talking About Benghazi?

Last week, Congressional Republicans launched what was supposed to be the Hearings To End All Hearings on Benghazi. In addition to providing excellent fundraising fodder and red meat for an empty-headed conservative base, the Republicans were hoping against hope that the hearings would uncover hidden truths that would prove to be a presidency-ending scandal for Obama.

What actually happened, however, is that the hearings were a waste of everyone's time. They did not tell us anything we had not already known about the Benghazi attacks or the subsequent White House response to those attacks.

So here in reality land, where no right-winger has gone before, what are the actual facts compared to the Republican talking points on Benghazi?

Obama called it a "spontaneous attack"!
In its initial assessment, the intelligence community thought that the attacks were spontaneous. Thus, that's what they put in the talking points memo given to Obama:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.pdf

When that was proven to be untrue, the intelligence community changed its assessment.


"Obama didn't call it an act of terror!"
The day after the attacks, Obama said the following in the Rose Garden at the White House:

                    "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that
                     character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror


Why didn't the military respond to the attacks?
According to an assessment by Leon Panetta, fighters scrambled in response to the attacks would not have arrived at the embassy in time to actually do anything about the attacks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/leon-panetta-benghazi_n_2638283.html


Republicans were champing at the bit in November to hear testimony from General Petraeus on the Benghazi matter. There were conspiracy theories at the time that word about Petraeus' affair had been timed to discredit him so that he could not spill the beans over the alleged cover-ups involving the Benghazi attacks.

Now that Petraeus has actually testified that there was no conspiracy involving Benghazi, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) is now saying that Petraeus' testimony, formerly highly valued by Republicans, is not trustworthy:

GREGORY: Chairman, my reporting of the immediate aftermath of this talking to       administration officials is that CIA Director David Petraeus made it clear when he briefed top officials that there was a spontaneous element to this, that it was not completely known that this was a terrorist attack right away. You don't give any credence to the notion that there was some fog of war, that there were conflicting circumstances about what went on here?

          ISSA: David Petraeus said what the administration wanted him to say is the indication.

 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51857413/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UZGRu8plFWm


There is no conspiracy or cover-up surrounding Benghazi. It is not a scandal. Almost everything Republicans have been claiming about Benghazi is either a lie or a misrepresentation of the facts as we know them. There's no doubt that the loss of any American lives abroad - especially those lost due to terrorist activities - is tragic. We should be angry about what happened, and we should demand answers. Now that we have those answers, however, it's time to move on with our lives.

Advise and Obstruct

Votes to confirm Gina McCarthy as head of the Environmental Protection Agency are being blocked by Republicans.

Why? They say it's because McCarthy has been "unresponsive" to questions submitted by Republican Senators:

        "In a statement, the Republicans explained the reason for their absence. “The new nominee to 

         be EPA Administrator has been extremely unresponsive with the information we requested,” 

         said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)."

The truth, however, is that McCarthy reportedly received more than 1,100 questions - unprecedented for any presidential nominee. Six hundred of those questions came from Senator David Vitter (R-La), and McCarthy answered every one of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/senators-boycott-blocks-action-to-confirm-epa-head/2013/05/09/c1c5062a-b8dd-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

But, you know, McCarthy has been "unresponsive" with information requested by Republicans. So yet another nominee by President Obama gets blocked.

So what's the real reason for GOP obstructionism, besides Congressional Republicans acting like petulant children? It's simple: Republicans hate the EPA. Thus, nobody gets to head the EPA, ensuring that the dreaded agency becomes a poorly-run shadow of its former self. Then Republicans can turn around and point to the EPA as "proof" that the government "is the problem" and should be shrunk to the size that it can be "drowned in a bathtub".

Sound like responsible governance to you?

Extortion for the sake of extortion

"Greg Sargent points out that it’s even worse — Republican leaders in the House, including Speaker John Boehner, have already admitted that they aren’t willing to really force default, so they’re refusing to negotiate for now because they’re waiting until they can threaten to blow up the economy even though they admit they really won’t."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/08/house-republicans-and-extortion-for-the-sake-of-extortion/

Congressional Republicans claim that fixing the economy and "jobs, jobs, jobs" is their number one priority, but their actions belie their empty rhetoric. People who were truly concerned about a better economy would not be constantly holding the economy or the faith and credit of the United States government hostage to extract concessions from the President.

Now we hear that Republicans intend to force a default "just because". There isn't even any good reason to hold the economy hostage except for acting like five year old children trying to manipulate their parents by holding their breath till they turn blue.

Are these the actions of a party that's serious about economic matters?

On that note, Moody's Analytics recently estimated that austerity policies will slow GDP growth and reductions in the unemployment rate:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/09/us/fiscal-policies-take-a-toll.html?ref=us&_r=0

If Republican hostage-taking and obstructionism doesn't harm our economy, perhaps their damaging austerity measures will...