Nomination for Most Bizarre Political Ad of the Year

Posted without comment:

Despicable

Despite having good fun at the expense of crazy Republicans, the latest news about incompetent Republicans is horrifying. Below is a clip from The Daily Show explaining how the majority of Republicans voted against an amendment offered by Al Franken that prohibits “the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration” (h/t ThePopTort Blog):

The amendment, sadly brought to national attention because of the bravery of Jamie Leigh Jones who came forward to describe her horrific ordeal being raped in Iraq while employed by former Halliburton subsidiary KBR. KBR tried to mandate that, before her co-workers gang-raped her and then locked her in a shipping container, Jones had signed away her right to sue KBR and could only seek redress through arbitration with KBR.

Now, you would expect that many Republicans would support business interests over others. But, I never thought that anyone would support business interests over the interests of rape victims! Unfortunately, that is what happened because 30 Republican senators voted against this amendment. Although the readership of this blog is small, I feel that it is necessary to call these Senators out publicly:

Alexander (R-TN)	Barrasso (R-WY)	Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)	Bunning (R-KY)	Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)	Coburn (R-OK)	Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)	Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)	Ensign (R-NV)	Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)	Gregg (R-NH)	Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)	Johanns (R-NE)	Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY)	Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)	Sessions (R-AL)	Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)	Vitter (R-LA)	Wicker (R-MS)

I cannot believe how incredibly despicable some of these legislators are.

I believe that it is also important to note the Republicans that broke with the majority of their party to vote for this amendment:

Bennett (R-UT)	Collins (R-ME)	Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)	Hutchison (R-TX)	LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)	Murkowski (R-AK)	Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)

NOTE: A slight edit made to the original version because, on a quick glance, it appeared as those who supported the amendment were despicable — not their 30 detestable colleagues.

Unhinged

Today, four members of Congress asked the sergeant-at-arms to investigate whether interns were internal spies. How did they come upon evidence that these interns might somehow be spies? Based on a book published by World Net Daily. One of the coathor's sons posed as a Muslim to intern at the Council on American Islamic Relations and stole documents — including documents that (gasp!) laid out a lobbying and PR strategy!

This is obviously not funny but, really, I just cannot help myself from laughing. I mean this is so absurd, I cannot do anything except laugh. Let's enumerate the problems with this plan:

1. They had one of their sons intern at an organization to get the inside scoop. I mean, how many organizations give their interns access to vital details and why would any terrorist organization do that, especially?


2. Following a similar line of logic, would the U.S. Congress tell its interns anything important. I mean, the U.S. government doesn't even tell the members of Congress important details.


3. What is the sergeant-at-arms going to do? Call them out of order — I mean really, that is the highest authority they could go to?


4. These people got elected to CONGRESS!!! (alright, that one is not funny at all)

I thought that we had gotten rid of the clowns. Apparently, we only got rid of the ones that were marginally sane.

Republican Health Care Plan

Although this here blog has been silent for a while as I am knee deep in my crash-course on health policy and other distractions I will hopefully write about later, I thought that this succinct description of the Republican, courtesy of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), was worth passing along (h/t TPM):

Thoughts on Obama's Speech

I am positive that I am not that knowledgeable about the details of the health care debate. This is a little troubling on a personal level since, tomorrow (i.e., eight hours from now), I am going to a class focusing on health policy. Yes, I too thought that I was done with classes years ago, but it is part of my program that I take this class. Although I study health, I study neither health care nor health policy, though part of the program that I am in is designed to have participants think more about health policy. Can't say that there is much better of a time to have a tutorial than now and I am really looking forward to it.

Let me start my thoughts by saying that I think that Obama's speech was great. Given my cursory knowledge of the subject, I think that his plans sounded reasonable. Of course I would like a full-fledged universal insurance program, but I don't think that it is possible or, frankly, at this point that important. If insurance is made affordable enough to make good health care attainable to all Americans, I think that reform will have succeeded. While fully universal coverage would be a better option, having the organizational structure in place to show the American public that it is possible will succeed in making it impossible to get rid of it. The perfect demonstration of this point is the number of people out protesting last month against government-sponsored health care who didn't want Medicare touched. Beyond the cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult to believe that these people make it through a regular day, the fact that Medicare and Social Security are untouchable demonstrate my point.

At the same time, it is also true (again, to my limited knowledge) that both Social Security and Medicare have remained largely the same since their creation. The fact that neither has changed significantly doesn't bode well for incremental-style changes that some in the center and the right (including Newt Gingrich) are advocating. Simply doing something isn't going to cut it in terms of creating good policy; therefore, if anything like what Obama proposed tonight is passed through Congress, then he and Kathleen Sebelius need to develop a strong agency that is relatively impervious to meddling in the future and that aggressively pursues its mandate at its inception. If the agency that is developed is strong enough to assert itself and to regulate the insurance industry to accomplish the goals laid out by Obama, then I think that a bill resembling Obama's outline tonight — with all of its significant shortcomings — can actually improve the state of health care in this country.

Finally, from a political point of view, I think that Obama's speech tonight re-cast the debate in a way that is favorable to passage. I won't say that he re-framed the debate; the Democrats' lethargy during the summer and especially in August cost them the ability to really frame or re-frame the debate. But, re-casting the debate instead of re-framing it might actually work to Obama and the reformers' advantage. With Baucus' announcement today that a bill is going to be passed whether Republicans want to be part of it or not and Obama effectively portraying Republicans as obstructionists, I think that the Democrats painted Republicans into a corner. The Republicans even helped in this regard as Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina's outburst calling Obama a liar (pictured at left, from TPM) only showed how correct Obama was to chastise Republicans for failing to tell the difference between civilized debate and emotional outrage.^[1] I think that tonight's speech was effective enough to persuade progressives to go along, point out the obstructionist and downright rude behavior of the Republicans, and emphasize the overwhelming mandate that health care be passed as an issue of morality and American pride. Although the final bill will not end up being everything that I would have hoped for myself, I think that it will be a drastic improvement on the current situation in health care in this country and really move the country forward.

^[1] TPM has also noted that this might lead to a censure of Rep. Wilson by the House for violating the rules of decorum. Following these rules, the Minorty Whip, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was also caught violating the rule to "Refrain from eating, smoking, or using electronic equipment, including cellular phones or lap top computers, on the floor." Video here.

Public Health Emergency? Call Secretary--...Oh.

Do you think now that we have a public health emergency the Republicans will deign to confirm Kathleen Sebelius? Even though swine flu doesn't seem to be epic, it's a pretty big albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2010 if even one person in America dies. I see an analogy forming: Public Health:Democrats::Security:GOP.

On a related note, here.

This is What Incompassionate Conservatism Looks Like

We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions.

This is a quote from Colorado state senator Dave Schultheis (R-Colorado Springs). What might he be talking about? Food stamps? Welfare? Obama's plan to aid struggling homeowners who were "irresponsible?" No, the honorable Sen. Schultheis is arguing against a law requiring pregnant women to be tested for HIV so that if they are infected their babies can be treated to prevent the virus's transfer. Leaving aside the obvious lack of any knowledge about HIV transmission or concern for basic principles of public health to avoid disease epidemics, he actually wants to endanger the lives of children to make a (unsubstantiated and wildly off-base) point to their mothers! That's solid "pro-life" public policy if ever I've seen one. This comes two days after a different Colorado State senator, Scott Renfroe (R-Greeley), argued (on the floor of the state senate) that

Leviticus 20:13 says, 'If there is a man who lies with a male as though to lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death. ... ' We are taking sins and making them to be legally OK, and that is wrong. ... And I'm not saying that this is the only sin that's out there. Obviously, we have sin, we have murder, we have all sorts of sin. We have adultery ... and we would never think to make murder legal.

This outburst of free speech (this is what Sen. Renfoe said in his defense - as if he has no responsibility that comes with that free speech being, I don't know, a state senator) led one Republican member of the Colorado House to say something that I finally agreed with:

"What are they doing over there?"

Good question.

Palin Only Picks Up The Phone For Fake Politicians?

Oops. Palin didn't answer or return Bush 41's call--twice.

"Our source ran into the 41st prez recently at a Texas restaurant. When the subject of Palin came up during their chat, Bush told of twice phoning her office but never receiving a call back. The first message was left at McCain HQ after she was picked to be Sen. John McCain's veep; the second with the governor's office after the election was over. He shrugged it off as staff error, but our source says he was clearly perplexed."

Someone needs a new advance team...

Shoot 'Em 'Fore He Run Now

(apologies to Jr. Walker)
I'm not usually in the forecasting game, on account of I lose bets, card games, and trivial pursuits, but Wobblie informs us of the buzz about Bristolevi Johnstin Governor Palin's daughter tying the knot pre-election. Doubt me if you wish.

Here's the program:

Palin-Johnston Wedding
Monday, November 3, 2008
8 pm Eastern/4 pm Aleutian
Fox News

4 pm: Pledge of Allegiance by Henry Kissinger
4:30 pm: Abraham Lincoln's great- great- great- grandniece welcomes the crowd
5 pm: Ronald Reagan's frozen corpse gives a reading
5:15 pm: Sarah Palin arrives, hair in an updo, glasses glamorously absent
5:30 pm: Levi Johnston, who wrote his own vows, tells Bristol he "f***ing loves kids" and wants to "have like a million" so he can "f***ing teach them how to slap the s*** out of a puck! Aw hell yeah!"
6:00 pm: Shot of Todd Palin crying tears, presumably of joy
7 pm: Wasilla Assembly of God congregation puts aside their doubts about the politicization of marriage and engages in blessing of couple
7:30 pm: Punditry! I just hope I don't sleep in past votin' time.

Living Your Values? How About Governing With Them?

I find it hard to believe that Gov. Palin really "used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live." But there it is, in black-and-white. What was wrong with this program? Was it not functioning? A sham? Such a veto seems like a terrible conflict of Palin's platform.

Jamie Lynn Spears aside, most pregnant teens are not well-positioned financially and may have, shall we say, recalcitrant parents. This is the kind of governing that makes you realize that what drives so many pols on "right to life" is purely Machiavellian.

Hear me now: if you take a pro-life stance, it shouldn't end at a child's birth. Adopt an unwanted baby, fund pre-kindergarten education, and please, for the love of God, support basic funding for teen moms! Does Palin do any of these things???

What do We Pay You For?

In general, I hate conversations, expositions, soliloquies or any other form of communication that begins with "Our tax money pays for [INSERT ITEM HERE]." Both my father and mother-in-law (to be) are supported by the federal government and I know that most of the people who work for the federal government work their butts off. I think that Reagan, et al. have done such a good job beating in how "bad" government is and how we need to starve the beast that vital services are being cut (see Bush's attempt to eliminate child health care).

But, I seriously want to ask what the f*ck are we paying these people for? From David Kurtz at TPM:

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But by my calculation, more U.S. senators (72) voted today to condemn a newspaper ad attacking Gen. Petraeus than voted yesterday (56) to lengthen the time off troops get from the frontlines in Iraq, thereby reducing individual soldiers exposure to actual attacks. Am I missing something, or is that about right?

And, the Democrats couldn't even be sure to get a Barbara Boxer alternative passed. So, instead, they all caved and blasted their own base (MoveOn) at the behest of the Republicans while they wouldn't stand up and condemn the Swift Boat Vetrans. What the hell! No wonder no one thinks they can do anything, they can't even protect their own donors never mind defend habeus corpus, support our troops, or end taxation without representation!

UPDATE: I guess we don't need to pay our Senators, they make money the old fashioned way: bribes! I will miss the Incredible Hulk ties on the Senate floor, though.

Law and Order Republicans

I thought about writing about this with regard to the Scooter Libby pardon commutation, but refrained. Partly because there was already so much about it on the tubes and across the airwaves, partly because I was lazy. But, with Larry Craig's recent troubles with the law, I feel compelled to write about this insanely unjust hypocrisy. The same "law and order" Republicans^[1] who not only support the death penalty, but claim that the number of appeals should be limited, argue that the rules are different when they are caught. President Bush, who wouldn't bother to consider pardoning, commuting or otherwise even seriously considering the cases before him regarding the death penalty in Texas all the sudden finds that it is alright to pardon Libby. Meanwhile, Craig is looking into the possibility that he will try and reverse his plea in the Minneapolis court.

Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings has a great analysis of the Craig saga. While she recognizes the pain that it must take to be closeted, she loses sympathy for someone who consistently votes against the rights of gays and lesbians in this country. I feel the same way about these legal shenanigans. While I think that they are important, particularly for the indigent and less educated defendants, I can't find sympathy for Craig. First, the man took an oath to uphold the Constitution and should know his Constitutional rights. If he wasn't guilty, don't say anything! Of course, he was hoping that this would go away without any attention being called to it.

But, second, supposing Craig gets off, I can only suspect what he will do next. I am pretty sure he is not going to (re)find religion, or question his old one. He will give his mea culpas to the people of Idaho and potentially get re-elected. He won't question the criminal justice system that railroads defendants into plea bargaining. I imagine that he will go on with his "law and order" ways trying to limit the ability of trial lawyers and defendants to use the same expertise that he was able to buy.

Maybe it won't happen. Maybe he will resign. Maybe he won't and will get re-elected and realize the error of his ways. I don't know. But, if he doesn't—I hope that there is a special place for him in whatever religion he chooses to find after this ordeal.

^[1] Speaking of laziness and Law & Order Republicans, I can't wait for Fred Thompson's snub of current candidates by airing his first ad right before a debate among the other 10 jokers in the field.

I Don't Think He's Going to Win the Family Values Vote...

Via Jeremy Freese, it doesn't look like Guiliani can even count on the support of his daughter. According to this Slate article, it looks like she is supporting Obama. Can't see that going down well with the "family-values" conservatives; that is, unless they are as flexible on that as they are on crime and punishment.

Speaking of Jeremy Freese, I am looking forward to seeing him talk about Blogs as a Forum for Public Sociology along with Crooked Timber contributor Kieran Healy at the American Sociological Association meetings next week.

My (Not So) Inner Nerd

Combing the internets doing "research" I happened across a couple of interesting sites relating to sociological research. That is, if you find questions of statistical reasoning and organizational behavior interesting.

• orgtheory.net is a blog focusing on organization researchers from across many disciplines. Although much of it is over my head, some of the discussions are pretty engaging.


• Social Science Statistics Blog which identifies it's mission: "This blog makes public the hallway conversations about social science statistical methods and analysis from the Institute for Quantitative Social Science and related research groups." Today, they look at statistical analyses of the death penalty as a deterrent of crime.

What? You don't find those interesting? Can't say I am too surprised. However, for a great take on the statistical absurdity of Republican presidential primary polls, see this article at Slate.

Really?

I would just like to let all of you know that "illegal immigrants" are messengers of Satan. That's right - the largely Catholic workers coming from Central America, are

...in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order -- and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. "by self invasion."

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because "they are not going to become Republicans and stop flying the flag upside down. ... If they want to be Americans, they should learn to speak English and fly their flag like we do."

No joke - this is what happened at the Utah County Republicans convention [1], as reported in the Daily Herald of Central Utah (via hilzoy). Rather than bursting out laughing throughout the article, the reporter actually reports the goings-on of the convention in more attention and detail than our national media does of the Democratic debate. That means that there are people in Utah County, Utah actually take this seriously enough that the reporter would be concerned for not reporting it with sincerety.

The good news for undocumented workers is that, if they do end up going to the county jail, the people of Utah County, Utah are fine enough people to make sure that criminals are prepared for their visit in the county jail.[2]

I couldn't make this shit up.

UPDATE: Via Pandagon, MSNBC has picke up on the story. View YouTube clip here.

[1] For those who have not spent twenty minutes online becoming an expert of Utah County, Utah (I guess they got bored coming up with county names after a while), it is the home of the main campus of the Mormon Brigham Young University [BYU-Idaho is the other campus] found in Provo - the land of no caffine OR alcohol and where students are upset that Vice President Cheney will be giving the commencement address.
[2] Check out the banner on the jail's website -- it's a dartboard with a BULLSEYE!!!