The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) released its annual report on executive compensation today - "CEO Pay and the Great Recession." "I'm afraid that this year's report will raise just about everybody's blood pressure," lead author Sarah Anderson said. Indeed, the report found that "CEOs of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis took home nearly $12 million on average in 2009." Those CEOs' combined compensation totaled $598 million, while at the same time, their companies eliminated 531,363 jobs despite reporting a 44 percent average profit increase for 2009.
Corporate America has been busy outsourcing jobs, busting unions, shedding benefits and cutting wages. In fact, according to IPS:
American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s.
The 1970s! Meanwhile...
American CEOs make 263 times the average compensation for American workers, up from the 30 to 1 ratio in the 1970s.
Think about that: For every dollar American workers make, American CEOs take home $263.
Putting Rick Snyder in office will not improve this situation. He's part of the problem, part of Corporate America. Snyder is also a Republican, and when did Republicans ever look out for average citizens? Never.
This might seem like yet another example of teabagger fail but it's not. Not really. In this case it's more of a Dem fail, unfortunately.
An effort to put "The Tea Party" on the November ballot in Michigan has failed. Not because it's a fake group trying to help Democrats at the polls by splitting far-right wing votes (which it is.)
The Michigan Court of Appeals said Monday that a group calling itself "The Tea Party" doesn't qualify for the Nov. 2 ballot because it didn't correctly show its name on petitions.
Republicans and tea party activists say "The Tea Party," which has nominated nearly two dozen candidates, is a fake party controlled by Democrats aimed at drawing away votes from Republican candidates. "The Tea Party" is being investigated following allegations that some of its potential candidates may have been nominated through fraud.
In its decision released Monday, the three-member court said the word "the" was not in 24-point bold face type on the petitions as required by law. Michael Hodge, the lawyer representing "The Tea Party," could not immediately be reached Monday evening to say whether he would appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
He has argued that the petitions submitted substantially met the requirements of state law.
I'll admit to being ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I gleefully signed one of the petitions to put "The Tea Party" on the ballot. Standing on a street corner in Ann Arbor I stepped up onto my soapbox and declared to all listeners that tea party types need to own their politics, form their own wingnut party, and stop trying to take over the Republican party, driving away all the moderate and, dare I say it, 'reasonable' Republicans. Not many people listened including the dude getting paid to collect the signatures. But it felt good anyway ; )
On the other hand, this is clearly a ruse intended to disrupt the Republicans' chances to win in some very contested races. It's the same type of dirty trick that Republicans have been doing for ages in this country and, though it cracks me up to see their hypocritical condemnation of this particular effort, I hate it when they do it so it's hard to defend our side doing it.
It was appropriate for Oakland County staffer Jason Bauer, who was responsible for the promotion of ineligible candidates, to be fired (actually he resigned.) It was a clumsy move on his part, a very likely illegal, to notarize candidacy forms of people who were not even aware he was doing it and he did his party no favors at a time when they could least afford to be seen in a negative light.
At any rate, it's not going to happen in 2010 barring a successful appeal.
And all because of the font.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
UPDATE: Over at Daily Kos, ZedMont suggests a new approach for Democrats:
Here's a flyer that you could hand out (beyond the prescribed distance for "electioneering", if it exists) that retains the nefarious intent of the failed attempt to put the teabag party on the ballot.
NOTICE TO ALL TRUE PATRIOTS WHO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
THE TEA PARTY HAS BEEN DENIED A PLACE ON THIS BALLOT.
In trying to paint President Obama and Democrats as the source of all our unemployment woes, Camp released a report that included this statement:
"While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different...To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost."
Suddenly, Camp cares about job creation. Where was that concern when he voted no on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? Where was that concern while millions of jobs were being lost under the Bush administration?
Let's look at that "reality" Camp mentions and compare job losses under Bush and Obama. Economist Rob Shapiro put together data using BLS reports and came up with the following:
From December 2007 to July 2009 - the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy - private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans' watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 - 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.
In a new paper, the economists argue that without the Wall Street bailout, the bank stress tests, the emergency lending and asset purchases by the Federal Reserve, and the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus program, the nation's gross domestic product would be about 6.5 percent lower this year.
In addition, there would be about 8.5 million fewer jobs, on top of the more than 8 million already lost; and the economy would be experiencing deflation, instead of low inflation.
Reality sure does bite. Camp should try sticking to the facts next time he puts out a report.
According to a new WSJ poll, "Just 24% express positive feelings about the Republican Party, a new low in the 21-year history of the Journal's survey."
Well, duh, that's not surprising. Republicans won't lift a finger to help the struggling middle class, but they'll fight to extend tax cuts for millionaires. And adding insult to injury, they've dredged up talking points from George Bush's days in office: Social security is going bankrupt, raise the retirement age, reduce benefits, blah, blah, blah...
Republicans must think Americans are stupid. We've watched our jobs get sent overseas, we've watched our retirement accounts get ravaged by the excesses of Wall Street, and we've watched as our home values plummeted. And now they want to take away the one source of income we can depend on when we reach 62 - Social Security?
Voters have a message for Republicans according to poll results from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Democracy Corps, and Campaign for Amerca's Future: Politicians will face major voter backlash if they advocate cuts in Social Security benefits or choose deficit reduction over job creation...
Voters have a few other messages for Republicans (and DINOs) too:
At this difficult moment for the struggling economy and country, voters show an uncommon common sense about the choices ahead. For sure, they are concerned about deficits and what impact that will have on future job creation and key obligations, like Social Security. But they are as intent on learning politicians' plans for investing in new industries and rebuilding the country as they are on learning their plans to reduce the deficit over the next five years. They think they know how we got into this mess - foreign wars and bailouts - and are determined that the highest income earners and big banks finance deficit reduction, not the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts or a national a sales tax.
Voters take the long view, seeing the need for both a commitment to a 21st century economy and long-term strategies to reduce the deficit. These are complimentary, not exclusive goals. Progressives need to show they are serious about the deficits, but once they do, voters turn to them, not conservatives, for the right spending priorities and answers.
Voters are united on this key point: Social Security and Medicare are off-limits as a way to reduce the deficit. It is the threat to Social Security that leads many voters to prioritize deficit reductions. Voters instead want to see higher taxes on top income earners and big corporations.
A new AARP poll found similar sentiments: 85% oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit and most Americans say that they'd pay higher taxes to keep benefits at today's levels. It's also noteworthy that...
Americans of all ages strongly support the program. Consistent with previous surveys, a strong majority (63%) believe Social Security is one of the very most important programs in this country, with nine out of ten (90%) younger adults age 18-29 saying that Social Security is an important government program. Among non-retirees who are not confident about the future of Social Security, 84% agree with the statement that "Maybe I won't need Social Security when I retire, but I definitely want to know it's there just in case I do."
Key findings from the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll are available here, but the key point bears repeating: "Politicians will face major voter backlash if they advocate cuts in Social Security benefits or choose deficit reduction over job creation."
Number of people who voted for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in last week's primary election in Michigan: 1,047,048
Number of people who voted for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in last week's primary election in Michigan: 528,119
That's a 2:1 ratio. That's an "enthusiasm gap", kids, I suspect it is playing out similarly across the country.
So what are we going to do about it?
May I suggest hooking up with your local Organizing for America (OFA) group? Our single-minded focus ("Vote 2010") between now and the election in November is getting first time voters from 2008 and sporadic voters back to the polls in November. They are being asked to sign pledge cards saying that they promise to vote and we'll be sending those cards back to them right before the election to remind them of their pledge.
This is an effort that will benefit all Democrats up and down the ticket. It's an easy ask, an easy task, and we'd love to have you on board.
Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases jumped 19 percent from a year earlier and increased 0.9 percent from April, the US Department of Agriculture said in a statement on its website.
This wasn't a fluke either: Participation has set records for 18 straight months.
More than one-eighth of our population now gets food stamps each month (40.5 million people), and that number is projected to rise to 43.3 million in 2011.
Hunger is at record levels, and we can't let people starve, right? Wrong. Republicans just forced Democrats to cut more than $11 billion from future food stamp funding in exchange for their vote to provide aid to the states.
The Senate voted 61-38 on Wednesday to break a Republican filibuster of a bill that will provide $26 billion in aid to cash-strapped states. Republican lawmakers, who opposed previous domestic aid bills because of their deficit cost, opposed this bill even though it would reduce the deficit.
According to the CBO, it would reduce the deficit by almost $1.4 billion, but Republicans didn't care, not even the two who crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats. They forced the cuts which will reduce the average food stamp payment by about $50 a month.
So let me get this straight: Republicans think extending tax cuts for millionaires is okay, deficit be damned, but providing food for families is an expense we can't afford. What gall.
Last May I wrote about how the Tea Party movement in Michigan is terrified of becoming a full-fledged political party. Yesterday we found out that the "Tea Party" formation petitions have been successful and the "Tea Party" will very likely be on the ballot in Michigan in November. The "true" Teabaggers in Michigan are, of course, outragedItellzya. I, myself, had the lovely pleasure of signing one of the petitions on Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor a month ago and, as I said to the petition collector, if the teabaggers want to be involved in politics then let them form their own party -- let them OWN THAT.
Well now they can see what it's like 'cause they're gonna have their own party. And, as I wrote in my diary in May, they aren't interested in having their own party. They are actually terrified of that. No, they plan to take over the GOP. In the Detroit Free Presstoday, we now have a bald admission of this:
"The tea party is trying to cleanse the Republican Party."
Here's the full bit:
Most of Michigan's public tea party activists, like those elsewhere in the country, have dismissed the idea of forming an official third-party alternative as counterproductive to their goal of reining in the cost and size of government.
"We don't need another party," said Bill Hollister, chairman of MEDEFCO, a Macomb County-based tea party organization. "The tea party is trying to cleanse the Republican Party."
What's MEDEFCO? It's the Metro Detroit Freedom Coalition (which, by the way, is actually mispelled on their website [top right column].). They currently feature a picture of two gay men kissing on their front page along with the headline "Anger Over Sex Ed Proposal to Teach First Graders About 'Gay Love' - AOL Health"
MEDEFCO claims to have six goals:
To preserve the economic future for our children.
To work for a return to the principles of our governing constitution.
To demand limited government.
To promote the free market that made our country the leader of the world.
To give support for individual and property rights.
To provide a platform for giving like minded citizens a voice.
So, why, one might ask, do we find posts on their blog about homosexuals? Why blog about Hispanics? Or Christian sermons?
Because, this isn't just an anti-tax group. It's a virulently right-wing, uber-conservative group of homophobic, anti-Obama bigots.
And they want to "cleanse the Republican Party".
I contend that MEDEFCO is quite representative of the so-called Tea Party movement nationally. They claim to be a small-government, anti-tax movement but it goes oh-so-much farther than that. A simple perusal of their websites is enough to show that.
So now a group of unknown individuals in Michigan, very likely progressive liberals, is calling their bluff. They are making them back away from becoming a formal political party. And more importantly they are forcing them to admit what we all know already: they are planning to take over an existing political party, sucking all the air out of the room for moderate, reasonable Republicans.
And, let's face it: this country NEEDS a vibrant two-(at least)-party system. We NEED to have that push-and-pull, that tension, to make sure that our government does not careen off the cliff of corruption and that neither party gets too far away from the more moderate mainstream that makes up most of the electorate. Any party is vulnerable to becoming corrupted if they aren't checked and any party existing in an echo chamber can lose touch with the citizens they represent if there is nothing to challenge them.
The Republican Party today, particularly the one we see before us that is being insidiously "cleansed" by far-right zealots, no longer serves that function. And our country is the worse for it.
My interest in Virg Bernero for Governor increased dramatically after reading that he picked up the endorsements of 36 Democrats. From the Macomb Daily [emphasis added]:
The gubernatorial campaign of Virg Bernero received a big boost in Macomb County today when 36 prominent Democrats endorsed his candidacy over the competing bid by House Speaker Andy Dillon.
Those backing the Lansing mayor's run include three longtime officials from the past -- former congressman David Bonior, former prosecutor Carl Marlinga, and former state Senate minority leader Art Miller.
Bonior said he hadn't known much about Bernero until recently, when the mayor made numerous, spirited appearances on national TV and radio shows defending federal loans to ailing automakers. Bernero's impassioned support for working families and American manufacturers, he said, is what Michigan needs from its next governor.
"We need somebody in Lansing whose focus, from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night, is turning this state around and getting people back to work," said Bonior...
I respect Bonior's opinion because he's always put workers' interests ahead of those of corporate America. Bonior opposed NAFTA and is also Chairman of American Rights at Work, an organization that advocates for workers and their right to form unions without interference.
We know where Dillon stands when it comes to protecting the jobs of workers; ditto Cox, Hoestra and the myriad other Republican candidates. If Bonior says Bernero is the man for the job, then I have to give Virg serious consideration.
Let me rephrase that title: Talk about throwing people under a wheelchair. This comes from an interview with Tea Party favorite Rand Paul in Lexington over the weekend. Paul is running for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky.
Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights. Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn't "fair to the business owner."
Nope, it's not fair. Business owners should spend their money on political candidates like Paul instead of disabled people just trying to make a living.
Even more bizarrely, Paul believes his suggestion is nothing more than common sense:
PAUL: You know a lot of things on employment ought to be done locally. You know, people finding out right or wrong locally. You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions - like for example if you have a three story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they're in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that aren't fair to the business owner. [...]
So, in Paul's opinion, it makes more sense to physically isolate someone in a wheelchair from his/her coworkers on the third floor. He should have been honest and said what he really meant - their desks should be placed in the boiler room or a corner of the janitor's closet where they'll be out of sight of "normal" people.
Honestly, this is one of the more despicable things I've heard from conservatives/teabaggers lately, and there's been a lot of terrible stuff said about immigrants, gays, Muslims, blacks, etc. One would almost think they want to achieve some sort of racial purity.
Or maybe I should title it "Free to tea you and me".
Yesterday, I published a diary titled "Tea Party in Michigan terrified of being an official party" which talked about a petition in Michigan to put the "Tea Party" officially on the Michigan ballot in November. The so-called leaders of the "Tea Party" proceeded to flip out claiming "Dirty Dem Tricks!"
That meme, that the Democrats are behind this and it's all a big conspiracy, continues today. Here's a bit more on the ensuing and most-hilarious freakout.
The Detroit Free Press is reporting this morning that Tea Party "leaders" from around Michigan are blaming the Democrats and other liberals:
Michigan Tea Party activists were agitated Monday, convinced that a shadowy group of left-wingers was trying to hijack their identity and run faux Tea Party candidates for office to siphon votes from authentic, limited-government conservatives.
"A shadowy group of left-wingers"! Oooo! Sounds scaaa-ary, dunnit?!
An article in the odd "Canada Free Press" goes further:
"This effort is in no way tied to the Tea Party groups that I'm aware of," says Wendy Day, President of Common Sense in Government. "This sounds like a liberal Democrat effort to split the conservative vote in Michigan."
Democrats. They must be behind this. We don't need no stinkin' proof. We just need our accusations!
(By the way, the Canada Free Press is an illustrious group with an associate editor that contributes to Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, & Glenn Beck and 9th grade boy as their "Social Network Editor" so you can be sure that they are legit.)
Over at American Thinker, essayist Thomas Lifson has this to say:
They're at it again. Democrats are caught red-handed playing dirty pool, in this case, spending substantial sums to gin up a decoy Tea Party in Michigan, in order to siphon votes from GOP candidates. Chetly Zarko, of the site Outside Lansing, uncovered the dirty trick op, with reports in two posts...
This is the year we conservatives can go on the offense and paint a narrative of the Dems as the phony manipulators they are...these people are out of touch, incompetent, devious, and need to be thrown out of office.
The red-handedness that Lifson refers to is that the group that is being paid to circulate the petitions has done work for Democrats in the past. And if that's not solid evidence -- ironclad PROOF! -- well, I don't know what is.
(It should be noted that Lifson has seen a Democratic conspiracy to disrupt the Tea Party movement before when he wrote about the Coffee Party. He's also a guy who equates the term "neoconservative" to an anti-Semitic slur. So, again, you know he's got cred on this issue.)
Over at the award-winning, well-respected, frequently-linked basically unheard-of Ballot Access News, editor Richard Winger has this self-explanatory headline:
Ah, yes, the Fox News-inspired "some say..." gambit. As long as "some say" it, it MUST be true! The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the uttering. Also, it's in the fact that "the same petitioning company that is circulating this petition has worked in the past for the Democratic Party". That's all the proof I need. Howzabout YOU?
The Detroit News is reporting on this as well. They talked to a yet another Tea Party leader:
Gene Clem, who is active with the South West Michigan Tea Party Patriots, said: "Our suspicion is this drive is being done by Democrats who want people to think this is the real tea party and to siphon off votes this fall."
Gene's "suspicion" = news. He suspects it, it's so. Q.E.D.
All of this goes back to the utter fear the Tea Party leadership has of actually, you know, leading. Rather than having to put together an effective organization with stated electoral goals and qualified candidates who can govern and legislate based upon their declared political platform, the Tea Party prefers to stay on the sidelines flinging poo at those who actually ARE legislating and governing. This isn't some subtle decision on their part. They are proud of this. From the Detroit News article:
Eighteen groups associated with the tea party movement issued a statement today saying they are not behind a move to establish a political party in Michigan.
"The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat," the statement says. "We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within the existing political structures. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction."
In other words, they are co-opting the Republican Party (apparently with Mitch McConnell's blessing) rather than doing the heavy lifting of forming their own organization. Here's the funny part: the Michigan GOP is having none of it:
A Michigan Republican Party spokeswoman said the Tea Party petition drive was an act of desperation.
"They can't even field their own slate of candidates," said spokeswoman Jennifer Hoff, "and now they're trying to form another party?"
Since the Democrats clearly can field a slate of their own candidates, it's obvious that Ms. Hoff is speaking of our friends in the Tea Party.
So the Tea Partiers are freaking out. They don't want to be an official party but they're being called on it by this petition drive. And because they don't like that fact, they are running around screaming "THE DEMOCRATS ARE BEHIND THIS! THE DEMOCRATS AREN'T PLAYING FAIR!!!
Two things on that particular point. First, "dirty tricks" like this are hardly something only the Dems are capable of as the Detroit Free Press hilariously points out:
If Democrats are behind the effort, it would not be entirely without precedent -- for Republicans, however. In 2004, Michigan Republicans circulated petitions to place Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader on the ballot.
Second, and this is actually pretty big, the entire outrage is based on the fact that they claim the Democrats are behind it. Unfortunately for them, real journalists doing real journalism actually contacted the head of the Democratic Party in Michigan, Mark Brewer. They asked him point blank if the Dems are behind the petition effort to put the Tea Party on the 2010 ballot. His response?
"We have nothing to do with it."
Wah waaaaaah. Sorry. Game over. Thanks for playing.
UPDATE: Strangely, Susan Demas posted a blog entry over at MLive 90 minutes after I posted this essay on Daily Kos and about 50 minutes after I posted it here. It has the same obscure link to the Canada Free Press and reaches many of the same conclusions as I did here and in my diary yesterday. Guess I should be flattered???
Popcorn time once again as far-right Tim Walberg and farther-right Brian Rooney battle it out for who wants to deny women their legal right to choose to have an abortion most. Yesterday, Walberg sent out an email that said this:
Voters Never Have to Question Where I Stand
Voters never have to question where I stand, my principles or priorities. I am a pro-freedom, pro-America and pro-life conservative. I did not just move into the district solely to run for office. I represent the conservative principles that made this country great and that is why we are winning in the polls and will defeat liberal Mark Schauer.
Yesterday, we were surprised to receive a copy of a letter from pro-life leader Kathy Potts, who announced she is stepping down as president of Jackson Right to Life to concentrate on working closely with our campaign. Our campaign continues to gain momentum. Kathy wrote, "I have always supported Tim because of his proven, trusted pro-life conservative record. The fact that I am choosing to ally myself again with him over Brian Rooney is also because of what I do not know of Mr. Rooney. The letter below we sent to Mr. Rooney speaks for itself. The stakes are high and I must go with a known and trusted candidate. I hope you will join me."
I love the second sentence. Hey, everybody! Guess what?! Tim Walberg is PRO-FREEDOM!!! And PRO-AMERICA, too!!! Woo hoo! Unlike all those other candidates, eh, Tim?
I love the third sentence, too. Tasty swipe at Brian Rooney who has rightfully been categorized as a carpetbagger having just moved into MI-07 for the sole purpose of running for office here. I actually think it is significant that he's never once cast a vote in MI-07.
But the letter Jackson Right to Life sent is the most tasty smack down of Rooney of all. Read it for yourself:
Dear Mr. Rooney,
We were disappointed you missed the Jackson Right to Life annual dinner. We know you recently moved into our district from Wayne County and have never actually cast a vote for Congress in the 7th District, so this event may have been new to you, but it is a very important to the pro-life cause. What is even more troubling to us is we learned you skipped our annual Right to Life dinner because the former president of the liberal Michigan Main Street Partnership was hosting a fundraiser for you. The Main Street Partnership actively supported taxpayer-funding of embryonic stem cell research, frequently attacks pro-life Republicans, praised Republicans who worked with President Obama to develop the stimulus plan, and actually blamed the Republican Party's sticking to core principles for liberal U.S. Senator Arlen Specter switching to become a Democrat. Yet you made the choice to skip our dinner and attend one held by a liberal organizer.
Mr. Rooney, your decision to associate with the leadership of the liberal Main Street Partnership instead of Right to Life speaks volumes and is very revealing of your priorities. We know where Tim Walberg stands, he attended our event, and he stands with us and never waivers. We now know where you stand.
Sincerely,
Michael Buratovich
Beth Thorrez
Tom Green
Kathy Potts
It's pretty hilarious to watch Walberg and the Jackson RtL folks calling the Republican Main Street Partnership "liberal". Hell, in Michigan in 2009, they gave money to (.pdf) Representatives Dave Camp, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller among others. Not exactly a bunch of dirty effin hippies there, eh? But to Walberg and, frankly, much of the Republican Tea Party base these days, even glancing blows with centrism are enough to brand you with the dreaded "LIBERAL!" tag. And it's enough to make actual liberals laugh!
Well, Brian Rooney didn't take this laying down, no siree. First, he got "longtime Right to Life and Jackson County Republican Party activist" Lola Peterson to stick up for him in her own letter to the media:
Brian Rooney has and does demonstrate his complete dedication to Life through his and his family's approach to a special needs child. This man is walking the walk. For anyone to suggest otherwise is a scurrilous attack which I cannot stand by and allow to go unchallenged. And, for the record, local Right to Life chapters do not have the authority to endorse, even through the back door.
Oh, snap!
But the funniest part was that literally 28 minutes after Walberg's email hit my inbox, I got one from the Rooney campaign with this press release:
Rooney 'Meets Endorsement Criteria' for Right to Life of Michigan, 'Certified Pro-Life' by Pro-Life Federation of Michigan
(Jackson, MI) - Today, Right to Life of Michigan announced that Brian Rooney, Republican candidate for Michigan's 7th Congressional District, "meets the endorsement criteria" for Right to Life of Michigan.
"Throughout my life, both personal and professional, I have been and continue to be an avid supporter of the pro-life movement," said Rooney. "Through my work at the Thomas More Law Center, I worked on numerous pro-life cases. My experiences with my special needs son taught me a great deal about what it truly means to be pro-life. It is a great honor that I meet the criteria to be a Right to Life of Michigan candidate."
Rooney was also pro-life certified by the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan.
"Brian Rooney has been certified as a pro-life candidate by the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan," said Jerry Zandstra, President of the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan. "His work at the Thomas More Law Center on pro-life cases, as well as his personal experience with his special needs child clearly demonstrate his commitment to pro-life issues and his passion to make sure that those rights are defended."
Brian Rooney is a proud member of Right to Life of Michigan, National Right to Life, and the Knights of Columbus.
Okay, first of all, I didn't even realize that there's a pro-life certification process. Getting certified as being judged adequate in the fight to deny women access to safe, legal abortions just seems so weird to me. But, let's just back up a minute here. Rooney is certified by Michigan Right to Life? The same group that Jackson Right to life is affiliated with??? So the Jackson RtLers are "going rogue"? Because, and this still cracks me up, Rooney is pal-ing around with liberals?!
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Something tells me Republicans can't keep a straight face when they read those words on the Statue of Liberty. The GOP could care less about the less fortunate among us, and just the thought of having to help the "wretched" must send chills up their spines. As evidence, consider their recent track record: NO to health care reform. YES to protecting Wall Street. And perhaps the most egregious example is Arizona, where they recently passed an immigration bill that makes them look more like a police state than a democracy.
And don't forget the Tea Party. Republicans have gone out of their way to promote and defend these people because they're primarily white, wealthy men - a.k.a. their base.
The GOP may claim they don't have a double-standard when it comes to race in this country, but Alternet asks us to imagine this: What If the Tea Party Were Black?
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters - the black protesters - spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn't like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters - these black protesters with guns - be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? ...
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: "He's a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun." Because that's what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
You get the picture. Republicans have a double-standard, and so do tea party members. How else to explain their silence about Arizona's immigration law? I'd like to hear them answer this question that someone asked over at Washington Monthly:
Shouldn't the tea party crowd be having a cow over this new immigration bill that Arizona just passed? Doesn't that sound like big government tyranny to them? Giving the police the power to demand "papers" from someone just on their own suspicion?
I somehow doubt we'll see them marching in the street in defense of their Hispanic brothers and sisters. They only care about their own sorry, white butts. This is what "white privilege is all about" (as anyone who lived through the civil rights era knows only too well):
The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be...
Recent events - and votes - tell us who Republicans really represent: White America, the wealthier the better.
Taking a cue from the Frank Luntz School of Media Savvy, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) sent out an rather interesting email this past weekend. It says, in part:
Washington - Despite a myriad of polls showing that a vote in favor of a government takeover of healthcare would be directly at odds with the interests and values of her constituents, Mark Schauer, instead chose to stand with President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
And later, in the same email:
"By ignoring the overwhelming majority of her constituents, and voting in favor of Nancy Pelosi's government takeover of healthcare, Mark Schauer has fueled a level of anger and frustration within the constituency he claims to represent," said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain.
Congressman Schauer (MI-07) is, as you have probably already figured out for yourself, a man.
I'm pretty danged proud of my Congressman just about now. I believe he cast an historic vote this past weekend and I, for one, am impressed by his leadership, his thoughtfulness and his position on the reform of our nation's health insurance system.
Meanwhile, as they play cutty-cutty, pastey-pastey with their emails and send them out across the country, the NRCC can't even get the sex right of the person they are trying to slam.
I hate to give Brian Rooney more attention than he deserves because the only thing that would be worse than Tim Walberg regaining his seat in MI-07 would be if Brian Rooney were to succeed in defeating Mark Schauer. But his latest "press release" screams to be addressed.
It is a nauseating example of exploiting one's children, in this case a child with a serious medical condition, for personal political advancement.
I've always felt that teabagger candidates and protesters were out of touch with mainstream Americans, but now we have a poll showing just how far off the cliff they've fallen. Or, as this HuffPo article put it, this DKos/Research 2000 poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party. Some results:
39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.
36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Talk about being disconnected from reality. The media really needs to start getting tough with this group and their enablers. When high profile Republicans are quoted in newspapers saying they don't know "whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not," and candidates for office devote their time speaking to tea party crowds, they validate this kind of irrational, paranoid thinking, and by extension make themselves look irrational too.
Thaddeus McCotter says Republicans can no longer pretend the issue doesn't exist - Republicans have a "hip gap."
Of all the problems confronting our state and country, I'm pretty sure being "hip" is the least likely concern voters focus on at election time. And McCotter is hardly a role model when it comes to hipness. Note his words of advice via Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog.
But, let's be honest: a large gaggle of GOPers have yet to put a toenail into the Twenty-First Century's cultural crosscurrents - or, for that matter, the Nineteenth's.
Cat? Illume? Come on, McCotter. I'm a baby boomer and not up on the latest slang myself, but words like "cat" went out with Maynard G. Krebs and the beat generation. And why all the emphasis on whether Republicans are hip or not? You should be focused on your constituents, like the ones that show up at your office in Livonia that you refuse to meet with.
McCotter has always struck me as a bit eccentric, especially since his lame idea to give dogs a more favorable tax break than people, but I have to admit he has a point when he says Republicans aren't hip, if by hip he means popular, because Republicans aren't popular. However, it's not because they're technologically challenged or old-fashioned, it's because so many of their beliefs and policies are from another era. Our country is maturing. We no longer tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, inequality and all the other hateful beliefs Republicans try to cram down our throats. We want a better country for all people. Republicans only want a better country for people who think, live, and act like them, and that's so uncool.
A new ranking of the world's nations by environmental performance puts some of the globe's largest economies far down the list, with the United States sinking to 61st and China to 121st.
In the previous version of the Environmental Performance Index, compiled every two years by Yale and Columbia University researchers, the United States ranked 39th, and China 105th.
The top performer was Iceland, which gets nearly all of its power from renewable sources, followed closely by Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.
"Countries that take seriously the environment as a policy challenge do improve, and those that don't deteriorate," said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, who oversees the index project.
The paper does note that because most of the data is from 2007 and 2008, "the index does not fully reflect new efforts by the Obama administration" to improve environmental performance. It also notes that the U.S. scores well in forestry and safe drinking water, but our ranking is abysmal because we score low in areas like heat-trapping emissions and urban air pollutants.
Increasing renewable energy would help decrease our emissions. The good news is that we're advancing quickly in one area - wind power.
Despite a crippling recession and tight credit markets, the American wind power industry grew at a rapid pace in 2009, adding 39 percent more capacity. The country is close to the point where 2 percent of its electricity will come from wind turbines.
According to the NYT, that's up from virtually nothing a few years ago, and they reported that the American Wind Association said "the amount of capacity added last year, 9,900 megawatts, was the largest on record, and was 18 percent above the capacity added in 2008, also a banner year."
The nation's wind turbines generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9.7 million homes, according to the report. Last year, Texas consolidated its lead as the nation's top wind producer, with a total capacity of 9,410 megawatts, about three times more than the second-largest producer, Iowa. They were followed by California, Washington and Minnesota.
And guess what the AWEA credits for the growth of wind power? "The U.S. wind industry shattered all installation records in 2009, and this was directly attributable to the lifeline that was provided by the stimulus package," said Denise Bode, the trade association's chief executive.
However, as extraordinary as growth has been in this area, they also point out that it could be better if Congress would pass a a federal mandate requiring that a certain percentage of power come from renewable sources. Mandates already exist throughout the European Union and in China, and in the U.S. 29 states have adopted a renewable power standard, including Michigan, which set a standard of 10% of electricity from renewable resources by 2015.
"The wind manufacturing sector has the potential to employ many more Americans in green jobs, but without a renewable electricity standard to provide a long-term market, the sector will be slow to grow," the trade group said in its report.
I'm so tired of the U.S. falling behind in everything but the strength of our military. The U.S. should be leading the way in this area instead of falling further behind. And although we're fortunate to have Gov. Granholm and other Democrats with foresight and vision pushing for higher standards, we're still stuck with obstructionist Republicans who would rather help their fossil fuel cronies than our environment. Just imagine how much better our country could be if Republicans didn't always stand in the way.
The Supreme Court just struck down a key campaign-finance restriction that bars corporations from pouring money into political ads, and the ruling divided the court along ideological lines with the newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, joining the liberal wing in dissent.
The ruling is a victory for Washington-based Citizens United, the corporation that created "Hillary: The Movie." The 90-minute film, which creators sought to air on a video-on- demand channel during Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, features interviews with a number of prominent critics of the New York senator, including Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich.
So, what's at stake? This is what a constitutional law expert had to say.
"American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, states imposing poll taxes on voters, or the opponents of woman suffrage. Today, the Court has enthroned corporations, permitting them not only all kinds of special economic rights but now, amazingly, moving to grant them the same political rights as the people. This is a moment of high danger for democracy so we must act quickly to spell out in the Constitution what the people have always understood: that corporations do not enjoy the political and free speech rights that belong to the people of the United States." [emphasis added]
Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance have started an organization - Free Speech for People - in an effort to correct the damage the Supreme Court has done to the First Amendment, and the only way that's possible is to pass a constitutional amendment of our own that puts people ahead of corporations.
Please read their resolution and sign your name in support. What the Supreme Court did today dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. And the decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections. The problem actually goes beyond money in politics and elections, "The courts have used the fabrication of the First Amendment corporate rights doctrine to strike down a range of democratic enactments in recent years, from those concerning clean and fair elections; to environmental protection and energy; to tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and health care; to consumer protection, lottery, and gambling; to race relations, and much more."
Free speech is for people - not corporations. Please join their campaign and protect our democracy.
Yet another area where the U.S. trails the rest of the world. Via Paul Waldman at TAPPED:
But a new report on global broadband shows that the country that invented the Internet, the microchip, and most of what makes our global digital village possible ranks a pathetic 18th in broadband speeds. The top spot is taken, as usual, by South Korea, where their smoking fast connections give them an average speed over three times as fast as what our pokey little modems give us. We also don't score too well when it comes to broadband penetration (the proportion of households that have broadband, as opposed to the actual speed people are getting). Our slow broadband is also really expensive. So that's nice.
We trail countries like Romania, Sweden and the Czech Republic. And on a year-to-year basis, all the countries in the top 10 saw a boost in speed. Ireland topped the list with a 73 percent gain. What about the United States? We were hit by a 2.4 percent decline in speed.
Waldman says they are multiple reasons we lag so far behind, but "the most important one is probably that we don't have enough big government. With a combination of public infrastructure investments and regulations forcing ISPs to share lines, other countries have driven down prices and driven up speeds."
Republicans have been too busy giving tax breaks to the rich and taking care of their corporate cronies over the past couple of decades to care about our public infrastructure. Thankfully, the stimulus bill President Obama signed in February provides $7.2 billion for projects that will increase the spread of broadband. He also instructed the FCC to come up with a plan to achieve universal high-speed access.
Those are good first steps, but something also needs to be done about bringing the price down or making it available for free to low income individuals. Voters depend on the media for information about our democracy and that information shouldn't be limited only to those who can afford to buy it.
My former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers stopped by the offices of the Livingston Press & Argus in Livingston County, Mich. this week to throw some poop on health care reform. Not only did he throw poop, he told several bald-faced lies including this one:
He said a government-appointed panel's conclusion that women need fewer mammograms at certain ages would be incorporated in the bills.
Rogers, himself a cancer survivor, said the government shouldn't dictate who has access to mammograms.
"I said, 'Oh, my gosh. They just sentenced to death 36,000 American women.'"
My former 