;)
The Commentariat -- Feb. 28, 2013
Obama 2.0. Jeremy Peters of the New York Times: "The Senate on Wednesday easily and, for the most part, affably confirmed President Obama's pick for Treasury secretary, Jacob J. Lew, just one day after the president's nominee for defense secretary narrowly survived a highly politicized confirmation vote." ...
... Martin Crutsinger of the AP: "Jacob Lew is scheduled to be sworn in Thursday as Treasury secretary and will have to hit the ground running. He is taking over the job just a day before huge automatic government spending cuts are set to take effect. He's likely to be involved with any negotiations to reverse the cuts, and also in budget talks next month to continue funding the government." ...
... Mark Felsenthal of Reuters: "President Barack Obama intends to name Edith Ramirez the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission, a White House official said on Thursday. Ramirez has been an FTC commissioner since April 2010. She was a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in business litigation before joining the commission."
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: A central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be in peril, judging from tough questioning on Wednesday from the Supreme Court's more conservative members. Justice Antonin Scalia called the provision, which requires nine states, mostly in the South, to get federal permission before changing voting procedures, a 'perpetuation of racial entitlement.' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked how much longer Alabama must live 'under the trusteeship of the United States government.'" ...
... Robert Barnes of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court's conservative justices strongly suggested Wednesday that a key portion of the Voting Rights Act is no longer justified and the time had come for Southern states to be freed from special federal oversight." ...
... Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog recaps the Justices' remarks in the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder. ...
** Dana Milbank: "For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down. As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan." ...
... ** Washington Post Editors: "Congress is empowered to write legislation enforcing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. But if Justice Scalia doubts the purity of lawmakers' motives, then apparently this power is limited. We wonder how the justice is able to discern what lay within the hearts of these 98 senators. We also wonder how many challenged acts of Congress would survive if the court saw fit to strike down any that were enacted by lawmakers considering, in part, their reelection prospects." CW: I thought Scalia's remarks about the intent of the Congress was even more outrageous than his claim that the Voting Rights Act is a "racial entitlement," & that's nearly as outrageous as one can get. His premise is that if he just doesn't like a law, he can change or void it. This is a flagrant violation of the Constitutional separation of powers.
... Racial discrimination is totally over, but state discrimination is horrible. Adam Serwer of Mother Jones: "Scalia worried that Section 5, and its unjustifiable discrimination against states, would continue in 'perpetuity.' But with the bailout provision, it's a relatively simply matter to escape the Section 5. To quote Roberts in a case striking down a school integration program, 'the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.' Maybe instead of trying to gut the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County should try that." ...
... New York Times Editors: "If the Supreme Court substitutes its judgment for Congress’s, it will enable state and local governments to erode nearly half a century of civil rights gains." ...
The Racially Entitled. See Scalia.
... Are You Ready for Some Irony? Stephanie Condon of CBS News: "President Obama joined members of Congress today to unveil a new statue of civil rights icon Rosa Parks. With the full-length statue placed in the Capitol Building's Statuary Hall, Parks takes her 'rightful place among those who shaped this nation's course,' Mr. Obama said." ...
... Here's a brief AP video:
... Here's the whole ceremony, which I found quite moving. Even Mitch McConnell was okay:
Zachary Goldfarb & Mark Berman of the Washington Post: "In a meeting planned for Friday, President Obama will push Republican congressional leaders to accept higher tax revenue in order to avoid deep spending cuts set to take effect on the same day." ...
... Andrew Taylor of the AP: "Across-the-board spending cuts all but certain, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are staging a politically charged showdown designed to avoid public blame for any resulting inconvenience or disruption in government services. The two parties drafted alternative measures to replace the cuts, but officials conceded in advance the rival measures were doomed." ...
... David Dayen, now with Pacific Standard (???): yes, there are things the Obama administration could do to mitigate the cleaver approach the sequester takes, but they aren't gonna do it, at least not in the short term "Because making clear the impact of forced austerity may offer the best hope for discrediting and reversing it." Via Greg Sargent. ...
... In agreement with what we noted here the other day, Willie Herrmann, BuzzFeed's "data scientist," writes, "In terms of total reductions outlined in each report, the states facing the worst cuts skew heavily Republican. As a proportion of federal dollars received by each state (as detailed in a 2007 study), 11 of the 12 hardest-hit states -- and 17 of the top 25 -- went for Romney in last fall's election. Many states in the Southeast and portions of the Midwest will experience the worst damage, in addition to Alaska and Hawaii." ...
... ** Andy Sullivan of Reuters: "On paper, there's ... $85 billion in budget savings at a time when Washington continues to bleed red ink. In reality, the so-called 'sequester' is likely to yield less than half that much in the short term. In part, that has to do with the complex way the government handles its money. But it also reflects the probability that the spending cuts will hurt the economy, which in turn will lower tax revenue and drive up the costs of social safety-net programs like unemployment insurance. On top of that, federal agencies -- especially the Pentagon -- will have to pay penalties to suppliers if the sequester forced them to cancel contracts. Add it up, and the actual savings could be a lot less than budget hawks envision."
... Matt Yglesias States the Obvious. Deficit scolds -- David Brooks, Ron Fournier of the National Journal, etc. -- who seem to think "the president of the United States has ... the ability to pull a Jedi mind trick and force congressional opponents to agree to deals they don't favor.... It is Boehner, not Obama, who must lead and find a way to a solution. It is Boehner, not Obama, who has the ability to move Washington beyond the endless stale debate, and it is Boehner, not Obama, who is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of policymaking in the 113th Congress." ...
... Brendan Nyhan of the Columbia Journalism Review agrees with Yglesias & also prominently mentions what a bunch of dicks Brooks, et al., are. (Probably doesn't use the word "dicks." But that's what he means.) ...
... Paul Krugman has a funny take on the WashPo editorial, which both Yglesias & Nyhan cite. ...
... E. J. Dionne: "The air of establishment Washington is filled with talk that Obama must 'lead.' But Obama cannot force the House Republican majority to act if it doesn't want to. He is (fortunately) not a dictator. What Obama can do is expose the cause of this madness, which is the dysfunction of the Republican Party. Journalists don't like saying this because it sounds partisan. But the truth is the truth, whether it sounds partisan or not." Read his whole column. ...
... BUT forget about Brooks, Fournier, et al. It's All About Bob! Devin Dwyer of ABC News: "Woodward has been making the rounds to cable TV and print outlets accusing a 'very senior person' [probably Gene Sperling] in the administration of threatening him last week ahead of an op-ed he later published in the Washington Post attributing the idea for the automatic spending cuts to President Obama." Here's the "threat":
... CW: I don't usually recommend a story by Mike Allen & Jim VandeHei of Politico, & this one is full of bullshit, but it is a good indication of how right-wing reporters feel about the Obama White House. Reading how they & Woodward think the White House is "thin-skinned" is grounds for a chuckle. I loved the part where Bob says he wears big boy pants but such an ominous threat would cause lesser reporters to "tremble tremble." ...
... Update: Allen has now posted the e-mails between Sperling & Woodward. See if you think a cub reporter would "tremble tremble" upon reading Sperling's e-mail. Do read Woodward's response to Sperling.
... Ben Smith of BuzzFeed, who first IDed Sperling as the "threatening official": "Officials often threaten reporters that they will 'regret' printing something that is untrue, but Woodward took the remark as a threat." CW: For your own safety, Bob, no more midnight meetings in dimly-lit parking lots. Oh, wait. You haven't done that for decades. ...
... Max Read of Gawker: Bob's "reporting" is "now mostly just writing down what important people tell him in his kitchen. 'There is nothing less important about 'the sequester' than the question of whose idea it originally was,' Salon's Alex Pareene wrote yesterday. 'So, naturally, that is the question that much of the political press is obsessed with, to the exclusion of almost everything else.' Not everything else: also the question of the proper tone in which one is allowed to speak to Bob Woodward." ...
... Steve Benen: Woodward "repeated the claim on CNN, insisting, 'It was said very clearly, you will ''regret'' doing this.' And at it was this very moment when Bob Woodward put his credibility as a journalist on the line -- and lost.... He took a few words out of context in order to look like a victim of heavy-handed White House pressure, but now that the email itself is available, it's clear there was nothing threatening about Sperling's message and Woodward's efforts to suggest otherwise were deliberately deceptive. Indeed, in case facts still matter, what Sperling argued happened to be true -- Woodward had several key facts wrong."
Paul Krugman notes that in his testimony before Congress, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke agreed with Krugman's assessment of the impact of federal spending cuts in a weak economy. "... these remarks should give pause to all the people who imagine that 'nobody' except me and a couple of other crazies think that we're paying far too much attention to short-term deficits." CW: hate to tell you, Paul, but Joe Scarborough does not follow Fed Chair Congressional testimony.
Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times: "The A.F.L.-C.I.O. ... has issued an apparent endorsement of the Keystone XL pipeline -- apparent because it enthusiastically called for expanding the nation's pipeline system, without specifically mentioning Keystone.... The labor federation's embrace of the pipeline, even with some ambiguity, will give President Obama some political cover as he weighs whether to approve the pipeline...."
Thomas Edsell takes another look at racial prejudice in the U.S. Some studies show that the "Obama Effect" was to dramatically reduced white prejudice against blacks, but it appears the effect may last only as long as a campaign does.
Congressional Race
Katharine Seelye of the New York Times: Massachusetts "Republicans and Democrats are bracing for bruising primaries over the next few weeks as five candidates begin to campaign in earnest to fill the United States Senate seat left vacant by John Kerry's departure to become secretary of state."
Marin Cogan of The New Republic on "the psycho-sexual ordeal of [women] reporting in Washington." No, female reporters usually are not anxious to "date" their sources, & when they express interest in their subjects during interviews it's because during interviews the reporters ask questions. Via Greg Sargent.
News Ledes
New York Times: "A meticulous new analysis of Antarctic ice suggests that the sharp warming that ended the last ice age "occurred in lock step with increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the latest of many indications that the gas is a powerful influence on the earth's climate." Not meticulous enough for Jim Inhofe. They drive cars in D.C. & it still snows there.
AP: "A self-described pimp was arrested Thursday in Los Angeles, ending a manhunt that began after a vehicle-to-vehicle shooting and spectacular, fiery crash that killed three people on the Las Vegas Strip a week ago, police said. Ammar Harris, 26, surrendered to a team of police and federal agents who found him inside a North Hollywood apartment after a woman answered the door, authorities said."
Reuters: "Pope Benedict left the Vatican on Thursday and headed to the papal summer residence where he will become the first pontiff in six centuries to resign instead of ruling for life."
fell more than expected last week, suggesting some traction in the labor market recovery. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 22,000 to a seasonally adjusted 344,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday." ...
... BUT Reuters: "The U.S. economy barely grew in the fourth quarter although a slightly better performance in exports and fewer imports led the government to scratch an earlier estimate that showed an economic contraction. Gross domestic product expanded at a 0.1 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Thursday, missing the 0.5 percent gain forecast by analysts in a Reuters poll."
AP: "The Obama administration said Thursday that it will provide the Syrian opposition with an additional $60 million in assistance and -- in a significant policy shift -- will for the first time provide nonlethal aid like food and medical supplies to aid rebels battling to oust President Bashar Assad."
Reuters: "Two major Chinese military websites, including that of the Defense Ministry, were subject to about 144,000 hacking attacks a month last year, almost two-thirds of which came from the United States, the ministry said on Thursday."
AP: "Pope Benedict XVI promised his 'unconditional reverence and obedience' to his successor in his final words to cardinals Thursday, a poignant and powerful farewell delivered hours before he becomes the first pope in 600 years to resign."
Share Article
Reader Comments (23)
Speaking of Irony: None other than Pat "Kulturkampf" Buchanan schools one of my least favorite columnists (and there are so may to choose from), Jennifer Rubin on Iran
http://touch.wonkette.com/wonkette/#!/entry/we-cry-real-tears-as-pat-buchanan-sounds-reasonable-world,512e675194f4be71693aed32/3
Too bad Repugs in COngress won't listen to him
Between this, "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a skeptical question about whether people in the South are more racist than those in the North" and Scalia calling Section V of the Voting Rights Act a "perpetuation of racial entitlement" I am now sure I am not just being paranoid when I get the feeling that liberals are beginning to get too confident about a victory over the repugs. Obviously nothing is too outlandish to say, no trick is too dirty to use, and no price is too high for those citizens scorned and hated by the republicans to pay. We must be diligent and forever on our guard for new attacks and plots. They really are sociopaths and will use anything to accomplish their goals. This is a battle for the soul of America. I hope we win but I'm not at all confident.
I share Tommy Bones' vision about the due diligence that must be heeded in the arduous process of attaining the "more perfect union" where equality is more of a norm than a concept. However with the demographic shift moving towards those who have been historically oppressed, I'd go as far as to say I'm mildly confident in the long term. As was touched upon in the Rosa Parks memorial speech, social change is a long and rocky road, with the occasional pothole that sucks away your momentum until you regain the force to break free and continue ahead in the long journey.
My theory of this Voting Rights nonsense being spewed by the Conservatives judges today, going as low as to claim a supposed "perpetuation of racial entitlement," is that this radical position is a a short-term barricade, a strategic pothole if you will, to slow the advance of this demographic shift. Until the modern GOP can find a way to appeal to this electorate, they must buy time by suppressing votes. We're hearing some GOP strategists whispering about the need to put some brown faces on their undesirable policies: they know what's happening. But purely esthetic changes won't suffice.
And changes gonna come.
Seems like old Bob Woodward is lurching around, because it's hard to walk when your panties are twisted, looking for love wherever he can get it. In his mind, the WH should be inviting him to tea on a regular basis. One trick ponies rarely realize their true status and refuse to stay in the barn where they belong.
Love those women Justices. Probably not the fantasy menage a trois Nino was looking for.....
One of the criticisms of Bob Woodward's books is that he "makes up stuff." We have so many scenarios where there are two people in a room, neither of them have spoken to Bob, but somehow Bob knows what they said, how they said it, and who said what first. We can surmise that Bob can somehow manage to sneak into these rooms early in the day, hide under desks or squeeze himself into closets and thereby get the skinny. Now that he's being exposed as a whiney piss pot he's running over to Hannity who will give him the succor and hand holding that he wants and needs. It's tough when you once were a shining light holding court in a dark underground garage to have to face the fact that them days is loooong gone.
And speaking of Hannity: The kerfuffle between Sean and Keith Ellison is something to behold. (See video on HP) Too bad that Ellison is not more of a sly debater and could have really pushed Hannity into a corner; he let his emotions take over and lost the high ground. BUT–-I applaud him for speaking the truth and letting that little foxy weasel know how bad he is.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by both Tommy and Safari regarding the necessity for continued and assiduous vigilance, and for progressives, liberals, Democrats and, in fact, any rational voters not to engage in any pre-hatch chicken counting.
I recently compared the Modern GOP to a criminal organization. They cherry pick which rules and which laws they will abide by, they deal in highly secretive backroom schemes with the wealthy and the powerful to rig or steal elections with the primary goal of guaranteeing their continued power and wealth.
But as a sop to many of their bamboozled voting bloc, they also run side scams using fundamentalist and teabagger kooks to throw up roadblocks or to hide their true objectives by sowing dissent and spreading lies about government programs, minorities, women, intellectuals, progressives, the indigent, the elderly. These schemes offer excellent cover for their more subversive operations, the larger goal of which is to disable or hobble government enough for their masters to take economic advantage of the chaos.
Also, like the most efficient crime families, they own their own judges, and not just on the Supreme Court either, but far-right ideologues shotgunned through the entire federal court system, reliably faithful to the Organization. These judges don't really need to be paid off, at least not in money (well, not all of them). They've drunk (and in some instances, brewed their own) Kool-Aid. Their payoff is a return to a world that never existed. The fantasy land of conservative dreams where no person of color gets in line before a white person, where women know their place, where immigrants stay in the shadows and mow the lawn or pick the oranges, and where the poor and the downtrodden just shut up about it already.
They operate by their own rules and don't give a fuck about what's good for the country. They care about the family, the party, the cause. The Modern GOP is much closer to a criminal enterprise than to a political party convened for the betterment of the nation.
When organization capos like Mitch (Flappy Jowls) McConnell declare openly that they doesn't give a shit about what happens to the country as long as they get that guy in the White House, when hit men like Teddy Boy (Tailgunner, Jr.) Cruz smear war heroes just because it feels good to inflict pain, when sneering louts like Paulie (Beefcake) Ryan lie openly about the federal budget in order to screw poor people, they you know this is not just a political party that just happens to have a different point of view.
This a gang of thugs and criminals.
We lose sight of this at our own expense.
An op/ed piece in the NYT today by Hans Küng is worth reading:
"As the last active theologian to have participated in the Second Vatican Council (along with Benedict), I wonder whether there might not be, at the beginning of the conclave, as there was at the beginning of the council, a group of brave cardinals who could tackle the Roman Catholic hard-liners head-on and demand a candidate who is ready to venture in new directions. Might this be brought about by a new reforming council or, better yet, a representative assembly of bishops, priests and lay people?
If the next conclave were to elect a pope who goes down the same old road, the church will never experience a new spring, but fall into a new ice age and run the danger of shrinking into an increasingly irrelevant sect."
In order to provide a little back up to the charge of rampant criminality in the Modern GOP, here's something to pop the eyes open:
Creeps, like you read about
A list of hundreds of GOPers, convicted of rape, sexual abuse, child pornography, (it appears that pedophilia is the preferred activity of many of these bible beaters), fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, corruption, bribery, embezzlement, drugs, prostitution, and on, and on.
The fact that they're not all office holders doesn't change the fact that Republicans, for all their law and order bullshit, seem to attract a distinctly snaky bunch of low-lifes.
And these are the people who support the capo de regimes at the top of the shitpile.
Are Democrats' skirts white as the driven snow? Certainly not. But I defy anyone to compile this kind of list of Democrats. And the people who really should be on here at the top are the war criminals. But that's wishing upon a dead star.
@P.D.Pepe: since you posted your comment, I posted a link to the full Sperling e-mail & Woodward's response to it. Given his subsequent claims that the White House "threatened" him, it's pretty damned clear those critics who faulted Bob for "making up stuff" were dead right.
Marie
On the Supremes and the Voting Rights Act:
Had this exchange with my almost lawyer son when I said yesterday the right to vote is not Constitutionally guaranteed. In return he sent me the words of the 15th Amendment.
My counter: "Thanks, but...
Seems "race, color or condition of servitude" is the relevant language. No lawyer I, but it would seem those words (and recent history suggests) leave plenty of room for those so inclined to disqualify or discourage voters for reasons other than race, etc. (Incidentally, the servitude reference brings to mind the condition of "wage slaves," which with the decline of unions is our a fastest-growing population. Maybe some smart lawyer could make something of this as the number of obvious have-not wage slaves burgeons). No proper ID, no time, no transportation, no polls open long enough at the right times? Doesn't seem these ways to disenfranchise voters are covered by the 15th. In fact, the 15th merely implies but does not state all citizens have the right to vote. As Jeff Toobin said in the New Yorker a few weeks back, instead of contracting the reach of the Voting Rights Act, if voting were in fact Constitutionally guaranteed and the country were serious about making it so, the Act's pre-qualification provision should be expanded to include all locations and circumstances in all of the states. Seems everyone who values democracy should be for that.
Too bad some very powerful people do not value it all that much; in they fact see democracy as their enemy."
And I would add this morning, as I am theirs.
I await his response.
The Last Hurrah. As we watch Woodhead and Scalia thrash about, becoming less and less rational by the day, we witness the sad effect of 15 minutes of fame grossley over extended . The sad part is the issue's at hand are lossed in the over inflated ego's that need, at all costs, to be stroked and messaged.
Woodhead, because of his role in exposing Nixon, was accepted by the left as a sympathetic soul. In reality his role in the Nixon affair was to get rid of and humilate a Republican who didn't adhere to the goals of the John Birch Society, which is now reborn as the Tea Party. As the saying goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Re: the comments on Republicans' tactics, I think there's a real danger is they will be tremendously successful. Even if, as in the 2012 election, they fail to sufficiently suppress the vote (something like 200K+ Floridians decided not to vote because of long lines), they have other means, as some of you have pointed out.
The Supreme Court is supposed to take great care in reversing Acts of Congress, for instance, because the Congress is publicly elected & theoretically expresses the will of the people. (Yeah, okay, that's a crock, but it's the theory.) But if we get a majority Court of Scalias, which is hardly impossible since we're close to one now, then nothing the Congress or the President does has any more standing than a litigant who doesn't like the laws they pass. After all, Scalia just "knows" that in a 98-0 vote for the Voting Rights Act, a majority of those voting "yea" wanted to vote "nay." (And presumably, President Bush also wanted to veto the bill.) Under that theory, the Court can change or void any law on the books. If a woman says "No, no, no" and the man has his way with her anyway because he just "knew" she meant "Yes, yes, yes," it's called rape. So what's it called when a Supreme Court Justice decides that at least 51 Senators who voted "yes" meant "no" and a president who signed a bill wanted to veto it? Judicial tyranny?
Marie
PD,
Thanks for the heads up to the Küng piece. He's been a favorite for years.
But I think he may be overstating the case when he says he's one of the last active theologians who attended Vatican II, unless he means in an amateur capacity.
As far as I can tell, he was disbarred from the practice of theology by Ratzinger and John Paul II for questioning their authority. And as much as I would love to see what he suggests come to fruition (cardinals banding together to challenge the conservative junta), I'm afraid it ain't gonna happen.
There will be no one remotely like Küng at the conclave. All those beanie boppers were appointed by the last two popes and you know these guys wouldn't bring anyone on board they couldn't trust to hold the fort and pour the boiling oil down on the unruly peasants trying to storm the Vatican walls.
Nice idea though.
Roger,
Is (or was) Woodward a Bircher? Or was that hyperbole or conjecture? I had never heard that about him. He doesn't seem quite that rabid an ideologue. He seems more like a self-important, somewhat deluded, insider wannabe who loves his money and his connections and the kind of elevation they afford him.
If he really does have a Bircher pedigree I'd love to hear more about that.
Charles Pierce's takedown of Woodward and the Portico twits is a fun read this AM.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bob-woodward-politico-022813
Re: What a long, strange trip it's been: The Pope quits and starts dressing like Liberace, snow white silk suits and guaraches too. I'm I nuts? Can a Pope walk away? No way, you're a Pope till your last dying day. So now we got two popes, like a popecicle with two sticks.
Bob Woodward is colored confused; he forgot he's reporter and not the news.
Akhilleus, to my knowledge Woodward was NOT a Birche as in being an openly, campaigning, card carrying, member. However, the founder of the Birchers was the father of the brothers Koch. Nixon was a Quaker, yet for all his nastiness, anti-semitism, calculating self promotion, and plane sociopathy, signed into law bills that were created by a Democratic congress.
This earned him the hate and emnity of the wing of the Republican party that cheered on Tailgunner Joe McCarthy and thought the House Un-American Activities committee was a good idea.
Tricky Dick's cloth coat view of the world was seen as impure to their view of the world and the reestablishment of oligarcy and Plutocracy.
As you yourself have said Woodward likes money and the perks that come with it. This is not a personal value that only comes late in life. Those who carry water for the rich expect to be compensated in some manner or form in the future.
Getting rid of Nixon served many divergent interest groups. The secret to a successful coup is to not be able to trace it to it's prime benefactors. This is all conjecture and proof of nothing, but comes from 50 years of political observation including 10 misbegotten years as a card carrying Republican who went to parties and receptions and kept wondering, " Is there something wrong with me or all these people batshit sociopaths".
Akhilleus, to my knowledge Woodward was NOT a Birche as in being an openly, campaigning, card carrying, member. However, the founder of the Birchers was the father of the brothers Koch. Nixon was a Quaker, yet for all his nastiness, anti-semitism, calculating self promotion, and plane sociopathy, signed into law bills that were created by a Democratic congress.
This earned him the hate and emnity of the wing of the Republican party that cheered on Tailgunner Joe McCarthy and thought the House Un-American Activities committee was a good idea.
Tricky Dick's cloth coat view of the world was seen as impure to their view of the world and the reestablishment of oligarcy and Plutocracy.
As you yourself have said Woodward likes money and the perks that come with it. This is not a personal value that only comes late in life. Those who carry water for the rich expect to be compensated in some manner or form in the future.
Getting rid of Nixon served many divergent interest groups. The secret to a successful coup is to not be able to trace it to it's prime benefactors. This is all conjecture and proof of nothing, but comes from 50 years of political observation including 10 misbegotten years as a card carrying Republican who went to parties and receptions and kept wondering, " Is there something wrong with me or all these people batshit sociopaths".
I was in the courtroom yesterday at the Shelby County argument, and it was thrilling to see Justice Kagan break into Scalia's incendiary remarks—she challenged him directly and by name— and to hear Justice Sotomayor ask Shelby County's lawyer, "Do you think the right to vote is a racial entitlement?" So it takes two tough, savvy New Yorkers to stand up to Pope Nino's bullyragging, yes indeed.
Roger,
Thanks.
As for your final question, I'd say it was the latter rather than the former.
And it's good to remember that the Kochs, who have been trying to bend politics and politicians in this country for decades to do reflect their most egregious desires, grew out of the weed patch that spawned one of the most extremist collection of far right whackos in the history of the US.
And they're still at it. They believe it's their country. And, like they've always encouraged their teabagger shills and dupes to scream, they want it back.
Thanks for the witness, Doug. Wish I'd been there.
Here we go again in Massachusetts. I was out this past weekend helping to collect signatures for Ed Markey. According to the woman I was working with, and not mentioned in NYT article, Stephen Lynch had paid workers collecting signatures. Knocking on doors will commence soon. Being an introvert I don't like canvassing, but my fear of republicans is stronger!
@James: thanks for ole Charlie's piece––I had such a good laugh–-such a clever, funny man.
@Julie: good for you! I'm not an introvert, but canvassing is low on a scale of things I like to do. Thanks for getting out there––we need Marky in the Senate.
Re: Those pushy broads on the Supreme Court––thank goodness!!!!