MOMocrats™

It'll be a cold day in hell before Andrew Breitbart gets an apology from me

  When Andrew Breitbart hijacked Rep. Weiner's press conference Monday, he boo-hooed into the microphone for the press contingent about "vindication" and his expectation that apologies should come from Rep. Weiner and just about everyone else on the planet. That unleashed a torrent of abuse from Breitbart's followers toward anyone who had ever spoken the truth about Breitbart: He lies, and lies routinely. Breitbart's message was clear: All shall bow down to the Great and Mighty Breitbart and forget everything that has gone before: Shirley Sherrod, Don Giljum and Judy Ancel, ACORN, Abbie Boudreau , and more. I think not, especially when he follows his pathetic demand for paeans from his detractors with this:

Near the end of the segment, Breitbart was able to push aside his tenderhearted feelings for Weiner in favor of noble feelings for the women he sexted. In fact, Breitbart’s feelings were so noble, he threatened Weiner with blackmail. “I know how politics works,” Breitbart said. “I know how the politics of personal destruction works. I know how the private detectives work. Don’t go after Meagan (presumably Meagan Broussard, the woman interviewed by Hannity). Don’t go after the other girls and I’m paying attention. And that’s all I can say.”

Behold, the conservative Mafia in action. How laughable is it for him to want to 'protect' those innocent women, those poor little girls when he routinely sends messages out to women he does not know like this one? I intentionally do not use my last name when I blog because my family does not deserve harassment for my politics. Or perhaps this one, where he identifies the location of my former office in public? The conservative Mafia doesn't start or end with their thuggish little floods of my Twitter stream. I'm a blip. But now he's brutalizing Joan Walsh, who dared to write this:

I've heard that Andrew Breitbart mentioned me when he took over Weiner's press conference today. But Weiner's confession doesn't change anything I wrote here: I always acknowledged Weiner could be lying about the story, but when the tweet's intended recipient denied having any kind of sexual relationship with him, I believed her, and I said so (I did this on Twitter, by the way). Despite what Breitbart claims, I never accused him or his journalistic empire of "hacking," fabricating the Tweet, or naming the woman in question. You can read my Twitter stream here.

A Word On Bi-Partisanship

Man, who ever thought it would be so hard being in charge?  Seriously.  It's become quite apparent that the Democrats have a serious case of minority-party PTSD as, with the exception of a hand full of brave souls, they seem capable of doing little more than cowering in the corner while Boehner and McConnell continue to steal their lunch money.

And all the while the drumbeat of criticism levied at President Obama about his push toward "bi-partisan" solutions has grown louder as even reasonable minded Democrats seem about ready to abandon this presidency and resign themselves to handing the keys back over to the GOP.  I'll admit, I'm on that ledge.  But let's consider this.  What if bi-partisanship is not about Republican support, but about trying to wrestle in the remaining Reagan Democrats in Congress?

Look at who is consistently blocking Democratic initiatives, for example.  Ben Nelson (D-NE) is a perfect case study.  Now, as a Nebraskan I can speak a bit to Nelson and he is a classic Nebraska Democrat.  If the Republicans were not so blatant in their racism he'd (and most his voters) would be Republicans.  Same with Evan Bayh.  Unless the Democrats were to get real comfortable with the idea of passing every piece of legislation via reconciliation (which would be far too brass-knuckled for the delicate constitutions of Democrats), President Obama needed to find a way to maintain 60 votes, and keep up appearances of Democratic unity.  That's a political quagmire if one ever existed.

But so what?  What do we do now that the Republicans control the House and have pledged to block every piece of legislation the Democrats introduce (save, of course, tax cuts, OBVIOUSLY).  Do we let them, as some on the left have suggested and let the American people see them for the obstructionists that they are?  Sounds tempting, but I'm starting to think that's too sophisticated for our current political media and most voters.  Sigh.

Or, do we take the tactic of our President and work to get SOMETHING passed, knowing that something is better than nothing and it is easier to build on legislation than to pass it?  That's what we did with health care reform and financial services reform.  It's also what we did with civil rights legislation.  Our first Civil Rights Act was pretty meager.  Over time it got better.  I suspect the same will be true with the Affordable Care Act, presuming the Democrats (and a few sane Republicans) find the will to beat back the impulse to cave to the quick and conservative-media driven narrative that the bill is garbage.

So, I guess what I'm saying is let's not give up, no matter how dark and how cold our political climate may be right now.  And lets resist the urge to punish one man for the failings of Congress and keep in mind that legislative change happens incrementally, and often is a process of two steps forward, one step back.  We'll get there, and President Obama can still bring us there, but not if we expect miracles and victories at every turn and in every year.

Democrats, Independents, and Moderate Republicans: The Hard Right Wants You to Run for the Hills. Run to the Polling Booths Instead.

November 2010 is a referendum on Republican obstruction extremism.

Keep repeating this phrase when dangerous nonsense happens, like...

This weekend, when rodeo-clown Glenn Beck and his Neo-Westboro Baptist Church, sure to be given wall-to-wall coverage by the cable tv Nonstop Carnival of Evil/Stupid, arrive in Washington, DC. Last August, it was nonsensical "death panels" pushed by a cheeto-stained Facebooker that managed to get everyone into a stir. It's amazing the damage one mean person in her pajamas can do from the basement of her home in the outer reaches of Wasilla.

Let's face it, while August may be the "silly season," ever since about March, 2009, the hard right has done nothing but drag the GOP in a more conservative direction. Like bad cosmetic surgery that pulls too tight, any further right and the GOP's ears will meet behind its head like a clasp on a cheap purse--any further right, and Pol Pot will be wondering why he didn't think to burn some Qu'rans first.

Go Read It: Gendering the Birthright Citizenship Debate

If the talk by various lawmakers of repealing "birthright citizenship," or citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil, sounds surreptitiously anti-woman, it is. It's as familiar and toxic as the right-wing's bogeyman, the "welfare queen." Only, this is a way to transfer the negative feeling conservatives have attached mostly to African American women to Latina (and Asian) women instead. It's hateful talk and it's spreading from the home of racial-profiling law SB1070, Arizona, to Texas.

The idea is the same: dehumanize women of color and their children, characterize them as dependent on social programs meant for "real people," and deny their families dignity and legitimacy. By denying children of immigrants citizenship, 14th amendment repealers hope to deport undocumented parents and their citizen children, thereby uprooting and breaking up families.

It's an ugly trick and as old as the hills. Claims about reliance on social services are not even true. And it definitely speaks to the lesser impulses of our country and makes a mockery of the sentiments embodied by the Statue of Liberty.

Feminists need to read it: Gendering the Birthright Citizenship Debate, by Michelle Chen, Colorlines.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k. She was 6 years old when her parents, immigrants from China and permanent residents of the U.S. at the time, became U.S. citizens. She is a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of being born in the state of Wisconsin. She'll get into the face of anyone who thinks repealing birthright citizenship is a worthwhile idea--that means you, Senators Kyl & Graham.

Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin: Birther, Oath Keeper, Newest Astroturfer

The noble-sounding but mysterious organization Safeguard Our Constitution has sent out a noble-sounding press release today launching a fund-raising effort for a defense fund for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. Evidently Lt. Col. Lakin is having difficulty living with his oath to uphold the Constitution because he claims President Obama has not sufficiently proven that he is a natural-born citizen.

Safeguard Our Constitution claims to be part of the American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit organization established in 2003. Other than the initial return, no other official filings have been made.

From the press release:

"I am today compelled to make the distasteful choice to invite my own court martial, in pursuit of the truth about the president's eligibility under the constitution to hold office", said active duty Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin. The American Patriot Foundation, a non-profit group incorporated in 2003 to foster appreciation and respect for the U.S. Constitution, immediately announced it has set up a legal defense fund and will provide Lt. Col. Lakin with a top-flight defense team.

I'm not going to address the birther aspects of this nonsense again. It's nothing more than an effort to de-legitimize the President and keep the ignorant masses stirred in frothy stupors. Nothing I say or show would convince a dedicated birther otherwise, or even an Oath Keeper.

Health Reform: It's the Final Countdown

The greatest show on reality television today is on CPSAN. If you're near a TV today, be sure to tune in. In case you need a quick refresher on what is happening today in the House, here is a summary:

Health care reform legislation that would extend health insurance to millions of Americans who are currently uninsured, offer tax cuts to small businesses to help them insure their employees, and prevent health insurance companies from dropping coverage for patients who become seriously ill has already passed with clear majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The House passed its health care reform bill in back in November; the Senate passed its own version of reform legislation on Christmas Eve.

For the past few months, the main obstacle in the way of putting a final health care reform bill on the President's desk to be officially signed into law has been the task of reconciling the not insignificant differences between those two bills.The process of combining the two versions of health care reform legislation into one bill that would be supported by majorities in both the Senate and the House has been hampered by the Democrats' loss of a seat in the Senate after the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, long a champion in the fight for a more affordable, more equitable health care system.

Left with 59 votes out of 100 in the Senate, Democrats have been stymied in their original plans to pass a combined bill quickly by the threat of a Republican filibuster, which would force the Democrats to garner 60 votes (a supermajority) to pass any new bill. After several failed attempts to negotiate with Senate Republicans to try to create a bipartisan version of the bill that would garner a few Republican votes, Democrats have devised a solution that gets around the filibuster problem: The House will pass the Senate version of the bill as-is, which will make the Senate bill eligible to be signed into law. But the Senate has agreed that they will immediately thereafter pass a new piece of legislation that amends their original bill in accordance with compromise proposals outlined by members of the House and the President.

The Senate will use budget reconciliation procedures to pass amendments to their bill, a process which limits what kind of legislative changes the Senate can make, but eliminates the need for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — instead, the Senate Dems will only need a simple majority of 51.

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on whether to pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has indicated she believes Democrats have enough votes in support of the bill to pass it. Once it passes, the Democrats' new plan to pass health care will be set in motion and is almost certain to succeed.

So if health care reform passage is now almost guaranteed, what about today's vote could possibly be so interesting?

The Other Health Care Reform Protests

This past Sunday, I was watching Meet the Press, and the host of this ostensibly non-partisan political show on the supposedly left-leaning network of NBC, David Gregory, said something that actually made me yell out loud at my television screen.

Gregory was speaking with the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy Ann DeParle, about the health care reform legislation currently on the cusp of completion in Congress, and he said, "I'm asking where, where's the evidence that Americans don't want to wait, that they really want to move forward?  The only protests you've seen publicly are on the right in opposition to the bill."

The only protests you've seen publicly are on the right in opposition to the bill, David Gregory said.

And I may, at that point, have channeled Congressman Joe Wilson. 

The only health care reform protests we have seen have been in on the right opposition to the bill? Really, David Gregory? Really?

Because I was at a protest in support of health care reform legislation, right here in St. Louis, Missouri just a few months ago in September. It was a candlelight vigil, actually, to remember the tens of thousands of Americans who die each year because they cannot afford health insurance. 

Where are all the Republican Women?

Personally I avoid Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like the plague. If I’m in the mood for hypocrisies, conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric I can usually find a good Hollywood blockbuster that will not only deliver but be much more entertaining and much easier on the blood pressure. So when I heard about both hosts referring to United States Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La) as a prostitute, as much as my blood pressure did rise, it wasn’t exactly a huge surprise. Being respectful and showing regard to common decency have never been strong suits for either man.

What gets me is the reaction from Republican women. I know you’re probably asking yourself, what reaction? Which is my point. There hasn’t been one. Not a thing. Conservative women, specifically Republican Women who actually serve in Congress have nothing to say about blatant sexism against one of the few female colleagues they have? How about Sarah Palin? She has been at the losing end of some of the worst sexists treatment from media in recent history, yet she has nothing to say about calling a Senator a Prostitute?

The reason Senator Landrieu is being called such offensive names is because she offered to vote in favor of moving ahead with health care debate on the Senate floor, (she did not promise to vote for the bill itself, just the vote to move it along) in return for $300 million in federal aid. Federal Aid for Louisiana. Is there really one person in this country who doesn’t think Louisiana needs federal aid more than we need to put off the debate on health care? I wonder how all the people in New Orleans who are still trying to rebuild, who are still without a home, who are still looking for help after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina feel about comparing Senator Landrieau's deal with a whore? I’m guessing not good.

I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, after all it was last month that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was told she needed to be “put in her place” by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Huffington Post tried in vain to contact fifteen female lawmakers (fourteen from the House or Representatives) as well as two Republican women's issues groups to get their response to the very sexists statement made about Speaker Pelosi. Not one was willing to provide a statement.

Yes, there were many Democratic women who refused to stand up for Sarah Palin during the media frenzy that occurred during the 2008 Presidential election and the year since because of her politics. But there were many who did. There were many women who put politics aside and made sure their voices were heard when sexism came into play.

But where are female voices from the right? Is sexism not an issue for all of us? Doesn’t Senator Landrieu deserve the respect and defense of her fellow female lawmakers regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on?

Don’t all women?

This is a cross-post from the WomenCount blog. 

Meghan Harvey is the New Media Producer for WomenCount and can also be found blogging at Meg's Idle Chatter.

Calling Out Tea Party Racism: Sometimes an Ally Can Challenge It Most Directly

Over the weekend, President Obama had this to say about whether resistance to White House policies were tinged with racist sentiment:

Previously, he'd spoken to the issue of race in America in a stirring speech during the Democratic primary.

I believe he's right in both his prior and most recent comments. Rudeness made Kanye West the talk of the Video Music Awards and rudeness made Congressman Joe Wilson the talk of a recent presidential address to a joint session of Congress. And, at the same time, I also believe that the president's task is to take the long view, a meta-quotidian and transcendent one. He guides the nation as we are and as we will be in years to come for the overall betterment of the country. So a disagreement over what constitutes racism moves no policy forward and certainly doesn't befit the office, and what racism exists ought not be dignified with a reply.

Facts & Figures Show "Hall Pass" Resistance to President Obama's Speech is Partisan Grandstanding

...aided and abetted by mainstream media that loves a spectacle.

Two surveys were done yesterday on the "appropriateness" of President Obama's speech to schoolchildren, one asking the opinions of parents of schoolkids in Fresno, CA, the other of parents of schoolkids in different parts of Missouri.

Liberals of course highly approved of President Obama's speech. In MO, the lowest approval by moderates was 74% for ANY president to address schoolchildren, and 78% approval for our current president to do so.

In the mid-section of California, far from the liberal cities of the north or south, moderates approved of Obama's speech to kids by 73%, same as they'd approve for any president.

Now I'm willing to bet at any given time, 25-30% of people polled will disapprove of anything, including breathing, sunshine, and kittens. These currently seem to be known as conservatives. *wink*

Is this a reason for the world to screech--and I mean SCREECH--to a halt?

No. I'd like to see school boards stop flailing about and get some equilibrium. I'd like to see broadcast media stop getting wee-wee'd up at every tiny little thing.

So parents of public school kids contemplating a walkout: wouldn't it just be easier and less economically punitive on your school and all the kids who attend to simply have a talk with your kid(s) about it over dinner, when you find out how their day went like you usually do?

Extra bonus--no need to scramble to find childcare for a kid who's staying out of school all day just to miss 20-30 minutes of something you may disagree with.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k