The GOP's New Religion
Fears of a Clown
By Timothy Egan of the New York Times:
Once upon a time, you could drive to the most remote reaches of the United States and escape Rush Limbaugh. But from the Mogollon Mountains of New Mexico to the Badlands of South Dakota, where only the delicious twang of a country tune or the high-pitched pleadings of a lone lunatic came over the AM dial, there is now the Mighty El Rushbo.
As someone who spends a lot of time on the road, I used to find Limbaugh to be an obnoxious but entertaining companion, his eruptions more reliable than Old Faithful. But now that Limbaugh has become something else — the face of the Republican Party, by a White House that has played him brilliantly — he has been transformed into car-wreck-quality spectacle, at once scary and sad.
Behold:
The sweaty, swollen man in the black, half-buttoned shirt who ranted for nearly 90 minutes Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He reiterated his desire to see the president of his country fail. He misstated the Constitution’s intent while accusing President Obama of “bastardizing” the document. He made fun of one man’s service in Vietnam, to laughter.
(J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press) Rush Limbaugh.
David Letterman compared him to an Eastern European gangster. But he looked more like a bouncer at a strip club who spent all his tips on one bad outfit. And for the Republican Party, Limbaugh has become very much a vice.
Smarter Republicans know he is not good for them. As the conservative writer David Frum said recently, “If you’re a talk radio host and you have five million who listen and there are 50 million who hate you, you make a nice living. If you’re a Republican party, you’re marginalized.”
Polling has found Limbaugh, a self-described prescription-drug addict who sees America from a private jet, to be nearly as unpopular as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who damned America in the way that Limbaugh has now damned the nation’s newly elected leader. But Republicans just can’t quit him. So even poor Michael Steele, the nominal head of the Republican Party who dared to criticize him, had to grovel and crawl back to the feet of Limbaugh.
Some expected more mettle from Steele. After all, this rare African-American Republican won his post after defeating a candidate who submitted the parody song from Limbaugh’s show: “Barack the Magic Negro.”
Race is an obsession with Limbaugh, one of the threads I noticed on those long drives on country roads.
When Colin Powell endorsed Obama during the campaign, Limbaugh said it was entirely because of race. After the election, Powell said the way for the party, which has been his home, to regain its footing was to say the Republican Party must stop “shouting at the world.”
In 2003, Limbaugh said quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted a black to succeed. Over the next six years, McNabb threw for nearly 150 touchdowns and went to a Super Bowl.
And Limbaugh launched the current battle when he said of Obama: “We are being told that ... we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president.”
Translation: submit sexually to a black man because “someone” is telling us all to. Who? Which leaders of the Democratic Party have made such a claim? Which opinion-makers? But therein lies the main tactic of Limbaugh, an old demagogue technique: create a straw man, then tear it down. The latest example was Saturday, when Limbaugh presented himself as the defender of capitalism, liberty and unfettered free markets. Obama, he has said since, is waging a “war on capitalism.”
There is a war, all right. We are witnessing the worst debacle of unfettered capitalism in our lifetime brought on by — you got it, capitalism at its worst. It cannibalized itself. Government, sad to say, had nothing to do with it — except for criminal neglect of oversight.
Now that government has been forced to the rescue, just who is insisting on taxpayer bailouts? Who is in line for handouts? Who is saying that only government can save capitalism? The very leaders of unregulated markets who injected this poison into the economy, the very plutocrats that Limbaugh celebrates.
And, of course, let us never forget that the bailouts of banks and insurance companies were initiated by the Republican president Limbaugh defended for eight years.
Of late, Limbaugh has wondered why he has trouble with women. His base is white, male, Republican — people the party has to stop pandering to if it hopes to govern soon.
It’s little wonder that the thrice-married Limbaugh, who uses “femi-Nazi,” “info-babe” and “PMSNBC” (Get it? The network is full of women suffering pre-menstrual cramps, ha-ha), among his monikers for women, can’t get a date with that demographic.
For Democrats, this is all going to plan. It was James Carville and associates who first cooked up associating Limbaugh with the opposition, as Politico reported. Then on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Limbaugh was the “voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party.”
Limbaugh played his role, ever the fool. A brave Republican could have challenged him, could have had a “have you no shame” moment with him, giving the party some other identity, some spine. Instead, they caved — from Steele, to the leaders in the House, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who would be ridiculed by Limbaugh for his real first name, Piyush, were he a Democrat.
You could almost hear their teeth clattering in fear of the all-powerful talk radio wacko, the denier of global warming, the man who said Bill Clinton’s economic policies would fail just before an unprecedented run of prosperity.
But Limbaugh has a fear of his own. If people see him purely as an “entertainer,” as Steele suggested, he will be exposed for what he is: a clown with a very large audience.
Tuzworld.com is no more.
When I first attained internet access from our small local ISP in my hometown of Rocky Mount VA, my first online community I joined was the Emperor's Hammer, a online gaming community based and organized around the theory that we were all members of the Imperial Fleet. Rather than go into a further explaination of what this organization's purpose was, you can go find out for yourself from the link above. The reason I'm telling you this, is that I needed a screename. I chose Tuz due to it being short, easy to spell and easy to remember. This worked very well for me, for years, until the late 90's when many sites started having minimum character counts for many of their login names. I added Y2K to this, as this was the year I graduated highschool, in 2000. Tuz became Tuzy2k.
Anywho - in 1998, when I first decided on a domain name for my website, I came up with Tuzworld. This site was originally just a page of links for my own purposes. In 2003 it became a blogger account and in 2005 was exported into a Wordpress install. It is 2009 and I've now decided to move to squarespace.....and ditch tuzworld.com. I get a lot of questions as to what Tuzworld means, and to me, it meant something but to many other people - it doesn't. Furthermore, I want to be identified with what I do online with myself in the offline world. To this reason I've went with the new, completely unoriginal, JoelHousman.com
The party of Beavis and Butthead
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
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
"Pre-existing condition"? Is it just me or is this absolutely cringeworthy? I mean, I really don't like Jindal.
But 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:
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
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.