They Are Not Tea Parties, They Are Tea Tantrums. It Is The Adolescent, Unserious Hysteria Of The Collapsing Conservative Movement"

in ,

Andrew Sullivan has a wonderful post over at The Daily Dish whereas he asks the question, "Just what are the purpose of these Fox News/Pajamas Media Tea Parties?".

The Tea Tantrum Movement

I spent the better part of an hour earlier today scanning the various sites and blogs to try and understand what specifically the Fox-Pajamas tea parties are about. Having absorbed about as much of the literature as I can, I have to say I'm still befuddled.

Option 1: It's a protest of the bank bailouts orchestrated by Bush and now Obama. But surely these tea-partiers understand what would happen if we didn't bail the banks out. Are they advocating letting major banks fail? Or are they advocating a Krugman-style government take-over? No idea.

Option 2: It's a protest against tax hikes. But there have barely been any! Are they arguing that the planned return to Clinton era marginal rates is an outrage worthy of the colonists ... only months after an election in which the winning candidate ran on exactly that platform? Is that postponed future increase so radical that it demands a protest modeled on one in which people were taxed with no representation at all? Truly bizarre. And when you consider that we have gone through a very long period of relatively low taxation for the very successful, and a very long period in which their wealth has soared, and after an election where a majority of such people voted for Obama, the extremism seems unrelated to anything substantive underneath it.

Option 3: It's a protest against illegal immigration. Ok, so why the tea? Weren't all the original tea-partiers illegal immigrants?

Option 4: It's a protest against government debt. Yay! I will leave aside the somewhat awkward fact that Fox News and Pajamas Media barely covered the massive debt racked up by the Republicans during a period of economic growth. Instead, I'll proffer a simple point: If the tea-partiers are concerned about debt and concerned about taxes, one presumes they favor drastic spending cuts. But what are the tea-partiers proposing to do to Medicare, Medicaid, and social security?


I'd love to see a proposal that they support on any of these entitlement programs, but particularly Medicare which is the culprit for much of the debt burden. Where is it? Or are we really going to hear more diversions about "pork"?

As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.

These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.

Iowa Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Same-Sex Marriage

in ,

decision.gifIn an unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the right of same-sex couples to marry. The court, which was reviewing a district court decision allowing six gay couples to marry, found that “limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution”:

In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court today held that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

The ruling “makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages.” In the opinion, the judges compared protecting the right to same-sex marriage to past rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court that protected women’s rights and struck down slavery and segregation laws:

So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?

In its opinion, the court addressed concerns that today’s decision would trample on religious views of marriage, writing that “religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, told the Des Moines Register today that the “decision could set the stage for other states.” AmericaBlog’s Joe Sudbay calls the ruling “a huge win for marriage equality,” writing that “more and more Americans support marriage equality and it’s only going to increase.”

Update: Iowa Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley released a statement calling on the Iowa legislature to "immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman."

Update: The Des Moines Register said that the ruling makes Iowa the fourth state nationwide to allow same-sex marriages. Massachusetts legalized it in 2003, as did Connecticut in 2008. California's Supreme Court legalized it in May 2008, but Proposition 8 effectively banned it again in Nov. 2008.

Update: Politico's Ben Smith writes of the ruling: "It's really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as "rational," rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal."

Update: Statements on the ruling by Iowa Gov. Chet Culver and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) are here.

The party of Beavis and Butthead

in ,

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning Economist,  makes an interesting observation on his blog:


What should government do? A Jindal meditation


What is the appropriate role of government?

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

Kenneth Jindal

in , , , ,

The GOP rebuttal to President Barack Obama's address last night was comical, to say the least. Halfway through the beginning of his introduction, Steff looked at me and mentioned of how Governor Jindal reminded her of Kenneth off of 30 Rock. Apparently she wasn't the only one to make this association:

The Daily Dish with Andrew Sullivan

Close your eyes and think of Kenneth from 30 Rock. I can barely count the number of emails making that observation. I'm told Olbermann's open mic got it right: Jindal's entrance reminded one of Mr Burns gamboling toward a table of ointments.

Stylistically, he got better as he went along but there was, alas, a slightly high-school debate team feel to the beginning. And there was a patronizing feel to it as well - as if he were talking to kindergartners - that made Obama's adult approach so much more striking. And I'm not sure that the best example for private enterprise is responding to a natural calamity that even Ron Paul believes is a responsibility for the federal government. And really: does a Republican seriously want to bring up Katrina? As for the biography, it felt like Obama-lite. With far less political skill.

It was also odd for Jindal  to keep talking about the need for tax cuts - when Obama just announced a massive tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. He gave no alternative proposal on the financial collapse; and tried to attack government spending simply because it's government spending. In a deepening depression, grown-ups can take a slightly different view of such spending in the short term. But give him his due: he did in the end concede that the GOP currently has a credibility problem on the fiscal issues they are now defining themselves with. This matters - it matters for the future of the GOP and the possibility of minimal accountability after an age that disdained it.

The rest was boilerplate. And tired, exhausted, boilerplate. If the GOP believes tax cuts - more tax cuts - are the answer to every problem right now, they are officially out of steam and out of ideas. And remember: this guy is supposed to be the smart one.


And over at Talking Points Memo:

Jindal Blogging



02.24.09 -- 10:25PM

By Josh Marshall

"Pre-existing condition"? Is it just me or is this absolutely cringeworthy? I mean, I really don't like Jindal. jack-mcbrayer-blog.jpgBut this is awful.

10:26 PM ... Is he going to talk about his work as an exorcist?

10:28 PM ... Katrina as metaphor for opposing the Stimulus Bill. Not happening for me.

10:28 PM ... Raising taxes? Isn't the bill like 40% tax cuts?


10:30 PM ... I think this is the new angle ... referring to 'magnetic levitation' like it's some sort weird thing you do at a commune. I guess it's funny not to understand that really fast trains don't all run on diesel.

Liberal Values sums it all up nicely:

kenneth

Barack Obama achieved a tremendous political victory with his speech Tuesday night, primarily due to the Republicans self-destructing. After Bobby Jindal’s dismal performance we may see a change in the view that Jindal is an up and coming Republican leader. Republicans might also need to reconsider the value of responding to presidential speeches if they are going to do this poor of a job.

Multiple bloggers have already compared Jindal to Kenneth from 30 Rock. Matthew Yglesias had one of the more favorable comments about Jindal, writing, “Bobby Jindal apparently believes it’s appropriate to address the citizens of the United States in a tone that suggests we’re all nine years old.” Sean Quinn came to a similar conclusion writing, “If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that’s because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again.”

These evaluations that Jindal was speaking down to the level of nine year olds is far better than the review from Andrew Sullivan which said, “there was a patronizing feel to it as well - as if he were talking to kindergartners - that made Obama’s adult approach so much more striking.” The Note also went with the perceived younger audience in live blogging: “Reminds me of a Kindergarten teacher.”

The content was even worse than the delivery. Jindal’s response consisted of repetition of the same old Republican talking points which few still buy. They didn’t need a whole speech to do this. They could have just sent people to the GOP Problem Solver which I linked to here.  Ezra Klein wrote:

…it’s a speech that Boehner could have given in 2007 and that Frist could have given in 2005 and that Lott could have given in 1998 and that Gingrich could have given in 1993. Jindal made a mistake accepting the GOP’s invitation to give this response. Yesterday, he seemed like a different kind of Republican. Today, he doesn’t.

It is far too early for anything to definitely determine the 2012 Republican nomination, but Sarah Palin was the big winner following Jindal’s performance, making America the big loser.

Jindal spoke of Katrina, thinking the Americans he spoke down to had forgotten which party was to blame for the inadequate response. He repeated standard Republican scare tactics about tax increases after Obama announced a tax cut for 95% of Americans. It no longer works for Republicans to speak of fiscal responsibility and small government when the result of electing them has been increased deficits and increased government intrusion in individuals lives. How many times do they think they can get away with saying one thing when out of power and then doing the opposite after taking office?

Jindal attacked the stimulus package with standard Republican debating tactics (i.e. gross distortions of the truth). He protested ” a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from Las Vegas to Disneyland” as if this was the only route under consideration for high speed rail, and as if we should stick to old fashioned railroads on standard tracks. He sees “volcano monitoring” as a waste of money. Apparently he believes that those in the path of an erupting volcano should receive no more benefits of advanced notification than those in the path of Katrina.

Jindal’s comments on health care were especially bizarre:

We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients - not by government bureaucrats.

His statement is puzzling considering that Republican policies would lead to health care being less affordable and would do nothing to promote universal access. He may oppose universal government-run health care, but so does Obama and so do most Democrats. None of the proposals being discussed call for government-run health care.

Jindal says he opposes health care decisions being made by government bureaucrats, but the Republicans have been the ones who have backed interference with doctor/patient decisions over the protests of Democrats. This includes Republican support for government interference in end of life decisions such as in the Terri Schiavo case, restrictions on abortion rights, restrictions on contraception, and opposition to medicinal marijuana use even in states where it is legal.Beyond these Republican policies, most Americans are far more likely to see a private insurance company interfere in decisions made with their doctor than they are from the government-financed Medicare plan.

Jindal did such a poor job that even Fox was critical. Considering the vast differences in their speeches, it is no surprise that most viewers were far more convinced by Obama’s arguments. CNN found that “two-thirds of those who watched President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress reacted favorably to his speech.”  CBS News found a tremendous increase in support for Obama’s policies as a result of the speech:


Eighty percent of speech watchers approve of President Obama’s plans for dealing with the economic crisis. Before the speech, 63 percent approved.

Fifty-one percent of speech watchers think the president’s economic plans will help them personally. Thirty-six thought so before the speech.

Virginia House Approves Ban on Smoking

in , ,

RICHMOND, Feb. 9 -- The Virginia House of Delegates approved a plan for a ban on smoking covering most of the state's restaurants and many of its bars Monday, marking a significant political and cultural shift for a state whose history has been intertwined with tobacco for centuries.

Virginia has repeatedly resisted efforts to curtail smoking in public places, even as health concerns over secondhand smoke prompted 23 other states and the District to start enacting prohibitions.

The vote Monday makes it likely that a ban in some form will become law. The Republican-controlled House has been a choke point for years because of the strong influence of rural lawmakers who consider tobacco a critical ingredient in the state's economy, and because of their resistance to imposing limits on personal freedom. In Virginia, where one in every five adults is a smoker, government restrictions on smoking in private establishments have been limited to day-care centers, certain large retail stores, doctors' offices and hospitals.

Currently, individual bars and restaurants impose their own smoking rules. This bill for the first time puts the government into that mix and covers almost all dining rooms and bars in the commonwealth.

The outcome is, in part, a product of a dramatic shift in Virginia's demographic and political landscape, where the influence of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads has overtaken once-powerful rural interests.

Monday's action did not come easily; the House weakened the original proposal during its debate. Neither the anti-smoking movement nor the tobacco industry was thrilled with the compromise plan brokered by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). Their proposal permitted smoking in private clubs and in establishments that constructed separately ventilated enclosed smoking rooms for patrons.

Amendments would permit smoking in rooms separated by doors, even if there is no separate ventilation system. They carved out exceptions for smoking in outdoor patio areas; at restaurants during private functions when the function takes up the entire restaurant; and at clubs or bars at times when under-age patrons are not admitted.

Even though some anti-smoking groups considered the amendments painful, supporters of the measure still hailed the vote as a crucial step toward negotiating an acceptable compromise in the coming weeks.

"The amendments gutted the bill, but the bill is still alive, and because of the way the legislative process works, there is still an opportunity for compromise," said Del. David L. Englin (D-Alexandria), who introduced the governor's original smoking ban bill this year.

"It's a big deal," agreed House Minority Leader Ward L. Armstrong (D-Henry). "You got all these guys from tobacco country . . . voting for a smoking ban. Okay, so it's not 100 percent. . . . Does that matter? It's about 90 percent there."

Monday's vote came after a contentious debate on the House floor in which many delegates from rural, tobacco-growing areas in the southern parts of the state joined with the most conservative members to try to gut the bill. Many objected to what they said was an assault on individual freedom.

"We're supposed to be the party of more freedom, not less freedom," said Del. Jeffrey M. Frederick (R-Prince William). "As much as I personally would love a smoking ban, it's not my job to tell small-business owners what they can and cannot allow in their small businesses."

The American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and American Lung Association had their own complaints -- that the proposal does not clearly specify what constitutes a separate room and that it lacks strong enforcement. Violating the ban would bring only a $25 fine for businesses.

"From listening to today's debate of the proposed smoke-free legislation, it appears that the House of Delegates voted to make an already bad bill even worse," said Pete Fisher, vice president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The Democrat-controlled Senate is expected to pass the bill, though it probably will try to restore the language from the version offered by Kaine and Howell.

If approved, Virginia would be the first state in the South to ban smoking in both restaurants and bars.

Tobacco was once the foundation of Virginia's economy. The state is still home to thousands of tobacco farms and Philip Morris, the world's largest cigarette manufacturer.

Public sentiment in recent years has shifted rapidly in favor of the bans, in Virginia and across the nation. A 2006 Gallup poll found that even most smokers believed restrictions in public places were justified.

Kaine and Howell spent weeks behind closed doors negotiating the unexpected compromise. If successful, the landmark deal would offer Kaine a legacy-setting legislative accomplishment before he leaves office and would provide Howell with one less potential vulnerability leading to the House's crucial elections in November.

Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, attributes the change among Republicans to the state's recent political and demographic shifts.

"Many Republicans think it's too risky for them not to vote for it," Rozell said. "They don't want to be seen as the dinosaurs of Virginia politics anymore."

The House voted on two identical versions of the legislation. Both bills were approved, with half the Republicans joining most Democrats. One of the bills faces a final vote Tuesday.