Republicans Mugging Republicans

It's been said that a Republican is just a liberal who's been mugged. Of course, it tends to be Republicans who say this, since it makes very little sense. Being the victim of a crime may change your opinions about law enforcement or gun control, but why would being mugged make you oppose abortion or women's rights or same sex marriage. Why would being mugged make you more accepting of the Wall Street corporate crime wave? Why would being mugged make you think that labor unions must be broken and the minimum wage left at a pittance? And why would being mugged make you decide that giving everything to the rich and nothing to the poor is a good idea? Is the argument that being mugged makes you stupid?

A truer take on that cliche might be that being mugged turns you Democrat -- at least, when those muggers are Republicans.


ThinkProgress: On Tuesday, a potential agreement to extend benefits for those who have been out of work for six months or more fell apart over squabbling about procedural disagreements in the Senate. That fight came two and a half weeks after those checks stopped going out to millions of Americans, and it doesn’t look like it will be resolved in the next two weeks. Congress let the program lapse at the end of the year, which offered support to the jobless after their state benefits ran out, drying up a lifeline for those who are struggling to find a new job.

The people who have been left without that support are incensed, and the anger reaches across party lines. In an email to ThinkProgress, Peter LeClair, an out of work investment manager from New York, said he has been a lifelong Republican. But he “will never vote for a Republican, as long as I live” after watching them say that relying on unemployment benefits makes people dependent. “I am incensed with this Rand Paul,” he said, who has said extending the benefits would “do a disservice” to those who were relying on them. “He says I am lazy... I am not lazy, how dare he. He doesn’t even know me.”

LeClair says he has sent out over 2,000 resumes and been “rejected on a daily basis.” The benefits, which he pointed out he paid into while he worked for more than 20 years, were the only think keeping him “glued together financially.” He said he is “absolutely shocked and dismayed” with Republicans, reiterating, “I will never, so help me god, vote for a Republican again, period.”


Of course, LeClair's not the only one. "I read these politicians’ opinions of the unemployed and am furious at the implication as it correlates to my situation," says another. Yet another says she "was barely making ends meet with what little bit of benefits I was receiving. Now that they have expired, my children and I are literally homeless."

Once you see what Republicans' economic babble actually means to real people, once you become one of the many, many groups of Americans they tell lies about, the GOP doesn't seem like a party with such great ideas anymore. Once Republicanism meets your personal reality, you find they just don't mix.

Of course, the first clue should've been the glaring inconsistencies in GOP messaging; a rocky recovery and high unemployment are the fault of economic policies one minute, then they're the fault of lazy, work-rejecting "takers" the next. It would be helpful if they made up their minds before they opened their mouths. Never mind that there are roughly three jobseekers for every job, if everyone just hunkers down and looks really, really hard and wishes with all their little heart, everyone can find work -- because math is science and science is of the devil. In Republican World, three is not greater than one, three is equal to one; mostly because anything else would screw up their messaging on unemployment benefits.

As I wrote yesterday, the best Democratic recruiting tool is probably Republicans.

Here's the problem with the conservative approach to problem-solving: when a Republican sees a problem, they immediately look for someone to punish. Oddly, that someone is usually the person suffering from the problem. So if you're hungry, no food stamps. If you're poor, no assistance. If you're unemployed, no benefits. It's like seeing someone on the side of the road with a flat, pulling over, and beating them with the tire iron -- then driving away assuming you fixed their flat.

The only thing Republicans seem to think people in struggling families should get from anyone is bullets from Second Amendment Heroes standing their ground against them. Free rein for Wall Street; free bullets in the chest for working people.

You almost wish you could make everyone who votes Republican live the lives of the people Republicans attack, if only for a few days. But of course, this is a cruel wish. Just because a Republican who's been mugged by their party becomes a Democrat, it's no good reason to wish them a beating.

We're better than that. After all, we aren't Republicans.

-Wisco

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

Ironically, As Long As There Are Gay Republicans, The GOP Will Think It's OK To Bash Gays

The Republican Party just lost a voter. Or, at least, a member. In a post to his blog, GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia announces that while the "Proud" part still applies, he is no longer GOP.


Jimmy LaSalvia: Today, I joined the ranks of unaffiliated voters. I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.

The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP. The current leadership lacks the courage to stand up to it – I’m not sure they ever will.

I have worked hard to help to create an atmosphere on the right where conservatives can openly support gay Americans and even support same-sex marriage. In that effort, we have won, but there is more work to do to root out the anti-gay and other forms of bigotry in the party.

So I changed my voter registration today – “No Party.”


For those who need to catch up here, GOProud is an organization of LGBT Republicans who seem to exist solely to demonstrate that there are LGBT Republicans. It's an offshoot of the Log Cabin Republicans, a similar group that LaSalvia and fellow GOProud co-founder Christopher R. Barron left because it was "too centrist."

There's a lot that's confusing about all this; not the least of which is that GOProud itself hasn't had the best record of standing up to Republican bigots. The group argues that marriage equality is a state's rights issue (meaning they've washed their hands of the issue). The group seems to have started off as a way for gay conservatives and other Republicans to find common ground -- while glossing over their more conspicuous differences -- but has more recently started showing signs of being gay conservatives standing up for themselves.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, LaSalvia outed Tony Fabrizio, Rick Perry's campaign pollster, over a homophobic campaign ad put out by the Perry campaign. "I've just about had it with faggots who line their pockets with checks from anti-gay homophobes while throwing the rest of us under the bus," LaSalvia said, outing Fabrizio on Twitter.

So the evolution of Jimmy LaSalvia from token apologist to change-from-within activist is pretty clear here. He started off as part of a group arguing that gay Republicans should just ignore all the homophobia and work together with bigots for the greater good. Now he's not interested in ignoring all the homophobia.

Leaving the GOP seems to be a no-brainer here, but you have to question the effectiveness of the example in bringing about change. He says he's now an "independent conservative," but who do you think indie conservatives vote for? If you're not registered as a Republican, why should anyone care? As long as you vote Republican, your official voter registration is basically just a technicality. There's a constitutional remedy to Republican bigots in office. You vote them out of office. The Republican Party isn't going to change until people who vote Republican begin to go away. Maybe that means voting Democrat, maybe that means not voting at all. But it does mean not voting Republican. Or at least, only voting for the highly endangered gay rights-supporting Republicans.

Jimmy LaSalvia's evolution has definitely been heading in the right direction, but it may still have a way to go. The only way to fix this party is to be willing to hurt it. Because as long as you're still willing to vote GOP, you're rewarding hate.

-Wisco

[image by Mario Piperni]

Leaving the Polar Vortex and the Climate Change 'Skepticism' Cult Behind

Somewhere between 11 AM to 2 PM today, I can expect to leave the dreaded polar vortex. We expect a balmy high temperature of 18 degrees Fahrenheit today. This would still seem frigid on any other day, but given the previous few days, it's a heat wave. What follows will be a more actual heat wave --  a January thaw, with above freezing temperatures through the weekend. Believe it or not, this is also dangerous weather, as melting ice and snow freeze at night and into the morning, creating hazardous driving conditions. A lot of salt is going to be sold to keep people's sidewalks clear of ice.



Meanwhile, the vortex drifts east. Meaning that Washington will still be very cold while Wisconsin is very warm. And the people up here in the normally frozen wastes will be treated to DC loudmouths saying that cold weather in the nation's capital means global warming is a hoax -- meanwhile, we'll be watching the snow melt off our roofs in the dead of January. The contrast will be stunning and the climate change deniers will once again look like morons. DC is not the entire world. The "global" in global warming means something; it's not a synonym for "local."



And of course, once the vortex moves on from DC, we won't hear a peep about how the current weather proves global warming wrong, since the east coast gets our weather systems eventually. The weather will seem very much like what you'd expect from global warming, at which point the moron chorus of deniers will fall silent -- just as they do during summer droughts and heat waves. For them, a cold few days proves global warming is a hoax, but a decades-long warming trend is just natural variation in global temperature that real scientists (i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly) are smart enough to ignore and "fake" scientists (AKA actual scientists) attach way too much significance to.




The White House video above explains the polar vortex and its connection to climate change. But we can't expect it to change deniers' minds. At this point, climate "skepticism" is religion, entirely divorced from any scientific method. If it wasn't, then they'd apply the same logic to summer heat waves that they do to winter cold snaps -- hot weather proves global warming and cold weather disproves it. It's still bad science and it would have them rushing back and forth from totally convinced in the summer to totally unconvinced in the winter. But at least it would represent a consistent approach to the evidence.



The fact that they don't approach all evidence the same way pretty much proves how insincere and unserious the deniers are. The trolling-based reasoning of conservative politics has bled over into science -- that is, if liberals believe it, it must be wrong. That's the basis of their denial and all this weather-based idiocy is merely rationalization and window dressing. If it had been George HW Bush with the An Inconvenient Truth presentation, rather than Al Gore, global warming might be a cornerstone of conservative thought. Teabaggers would be driving around using their Sacred Second Amendment Freedoms to shoot out inefficient lightbulbs and save America.



But that is not the case. It was Al Gore who made climate change an important issue, so it must be some sort of communist plot.



So we midwesterners need to make sure that while Republicans in Washington use their cold snap to "disprove" global warming, we're talking about how unseasonably warm it is, while pointing and laughing at the jerks spouting nonsense.



Global means global, not "only what I can see in front of me." When idiots say cold weather disproves global warming, those of us living where it's not cold need to speak up.



-Wisco

Boehner Demands That Someone Else Shoot a Hostage for Him

John Boehner will never be described as a Profile in Courage.

Yesterday, Boehner issued a statement following a senate cloture vote to advance an extension of unemployment benefits. "One month ago I personally told the White House that another extension of temporary emergency unemployment benefits should not only be paid for but include something to help put people back to work," a written statement reads. "To date, the president has offered no such plan. If he does, I’ll be happy to discuss it, but right now the House is going to remain focused on growing the economy and giving America’s unemployed the independence that only comes from finding a good job."

So basically, Boehner says he wants another hostage shot before he'll release this particular hostage. "There’s quite a bit wrong with this," says Steve Benen. "For example, Boehner knows jobless Americans need these benefits and knows cutting off aid will hurt the economy, but insists on spending cuts to offset the costs. Why? He didn’t say. What needs to get cut? He didn’t say. Why have Republicans supported previous extensions without offsetting cuts, only to change course now? He didn’t say."

He wants something cut. He knows there are no popular cuts to make. So he demands that someone else do the dirty work. Choose what gets cut for him or the long term unemployed get it. He wants an unpopular slashing of something or other -- simply for the sake of appearances -- and he wants to be able to walk away with the appearance of clean hands. He wants the extension paid for, but he wants someone else (preferably the White House) to take the blame for that offset.

As I said, no Profile in Courage here.

It'd be a lot easier to take Boehner seriously if he could actually articulate what it is exactly that he wants, but I doubt even he knows. This is more a case of opportunism than anything. The Speaker thinks he can maybe, possibly squeeze a little something-something out of this situation; even if he isn't extremely clear on what that something might be.

"The larger takeaway from the statement is that the Speaker of the House sees the Senate moving on unemployment benefits and wants to make it perfectly clear that he has certain expectations," Benen explains. "While some see this as an emergency for struggling families and a key economic issue, Boehner senses an opportunity --  the plight of jobless Americans can be exploited to advance Republican priorities." Which priorities? Well, we'll leave that up to the President to decide.

Add "leadership" to the list of those admirable qualities John of Orange most sorely lacks.

The question here is whether Boehner is bluffing. I haven't seen a whip count yet, but it's entirely plausible that an extension could pass the House on mainly Democratic votes. All Weepy John needs to do is bring it up for a vote. So the thing that would prevent this very popular extension from happening is good old fashioned Republican obstructionism -- in an election year.

Boehner might possibly be able to walk away from his unspecified offset with clean hands, but not so with shooting the hostage if he doesn't get his way. If the extension dies in the House, everyone will know why. And everyone will know whodunit.

It's hard to see how he can shoot the hostage, when he so clearly wants someone else to take the blame for everything. It would be a bit of a suicide mission and, as I've already pointed out, John Boehner doesn't have the courage for that sort of thing.

-Wisco


[photo by Gage Skidmore]

The Marketers of Fear

Maybe it got lost in the annual post-Holiday news outage, but Yahoo! News reported on the second day of the new year that a study by the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University shows a definite uptick in the occurrence of mass shootings in the United States. According to the report, investigators counted only those sorts of crimes that immediately come to mind when you hear the term "mass shooting." These are a separate sort of crime, distinguished by more than the death tolls.

"Researchers considered only active shootings in public settings where the primary motive appeared to be mass murder and at least one of the victims was unrelated to the suspect. Shootings during crimes such as bank robberies, drug deals, and gang violence were excluded," Yahoo reported -- i.e., crimes where the sole purpose was to kill people. Incidences rose from five a year in 2000-2008 to sixteen a year in the period of 2009-2012.

Of course, this undercuts the gunners' claims that the opposite is true. And even those claims are cherrypicked. They cite the work of Northeastern University Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy James Alan Fox. Fox does not weed out the "bank robberies, drug deals, and gang violence" that ALERRT did. He does, however, recommend gun control policies -- a fact the gun apologists conveniently skip over.


James Alan Fox: The lack of any upward trend should not stop us, of course, from trying to find causes and solutions for extreme violence. A fitting the legacy to this summer's tragedies [this was after Aurora and the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, but before Newtown] would be the expansion of mental health services. We should also have a serious debate about sensible restrictions on gun sales but absent the politics. And perhaps we should all try harder to reach out to those around us who seem to be struggling financially, socially or psychologically.

Unfortunately and realistically, these and other initiatives may not prevent or deter the next mass murderer living amongst us. But in the process of trying, we may actually enhance the safety and well-being of thousands, if not millions, of Americans.


In other words, Fox's reasoning when it comes to law and crime is the same as humanity's has been since the dawn of civilization; just because someone may not obey a law does not mean it's completely unenforceable or ineffective. The gun lobby argues the opposite; that since some criminals will disobey laws limiting firearms, these laws shouldn't be passed at all. Of course, this makes as much sense as saying that since some criminals ignore laws against rape, there should be no laws against rape at all.

This all boils down to what the gun lobby really stands for -- and that is gun sales. They don't represent gun owners, as much as they insist otherwise. They represent gun manufacturers. They aren't interested in the safety of gun owners. In fact, they have every incentive to undermine that safety. Nothing sells guns like fear. And nothing promotes fear like frequent mass murder in the headlines. More guns = more murder = more gun sales. The best marketing campaign for guns is high-profile gun violence, hands down.

Would that be particularly evil of the gun lobby and firearms manufacturers? Yes it would. But it would hardly be an unprecedented level of corporate evil. Think Big Tobacco denying the link between smoking and cancer, while sitting on research that proved that link existed. Think Big Oil, who undermine efforts to fight global warming in order to sell five minutes more worth of fossil fuels. If the choice is between money or lives, corporate America will choose money every time. And they'll launch a big PR campaign to confuse the whole issue and blow smoke over that whole loss of life thing.

So you could say that an increase in mass shootings represents everything going the gun lobby's way. They're selling more guns than ever, because people are more afraid of gunmen than ever -- with good reason. The gun lobby exists to offer the exact wrong solution to a problem its own industry creates. Can you imagine how much more profitable Big Tobacco could've been if they'd figured out a way to use smoking deaths to create more smokers?

That's what you're seeing here. Every new gravestone represents new sales. Don't fool yourself. This may just be the way they like it.

-Wisco


[photo via Wikimedia Commons]