When Isolationism hides itself as anti-Americanism

There is a debate around the spreading wave of Isolationism which is manifested in an unholy alliance between the Hard Left (which ultimately seeks to end the United States) to the Hard Right (which ultimately seeks to create "Fortress America"). Both of these groups have joined forces to strike against those interests which would weaken their "end game" wishes (for the Left, a world where the U.S. if it exists at all, is hobbled and severely weakened and for the Right, where the U.S. exists alone as an island amidst the chaos of an ever confusing and dangerous world).

Being a blog about Zionism and Progressive / Liberal / Centrist politics, we see this in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict where the Hard Left, those that want to destroy Israel out of some misguided sense of ending "Western Colonialism" and who see Israel as a "White nation" (though it is far from that) in the midst of the Third world, has joined with the Hard Right and those who want to simply annihilate the Jewish people out of their own twisted hatred. And so we see these groups come together in coalition that promotes the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement in an effort to deny the Jewish people their legitimate rights to self determination as it is manifested in the Nation of Israel.

However, this desire goes far beyond advocacy in the Israel / Palestine conflict where both the Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East are pieces in a world wide bid for influence, control of resources, and supremacy. This growing wave of Isolationist thinking threatens not only the very fabric and health of the United States but the fabric of the entire world.

We hear that the world is getting to be a "much smaller place". This is very true. Now, people can talk face to face with those on the other side of the globe from the comfort of their living rooms. Ideas can be transmitted throughout the internet, and data can be shared no matter where we are. We can physically see one another and one anothers environs in a way that has never been possible before.

Because of this, the world is more interconnected than ever before. Things that happen thousands of miles away do affect us. Just look at the rate of environmental damage caused by over use of resources and the concurrent problems that this causes. We are no longer able to isolate ourselves from anyone and we have to come up with global solutions to poverty, the environment, and a host of other problems IF we are too maintain both reasonable standards of living and reasonable National goals.

I do think that National interests can survive and thrive in an ever increasingly globalized world (in fact I think it is imperative that they do). Though that seems counter intuitive to the theory that we need one world government. We don't. While the world needs to act in a more coordinated fashion regarding some of our issues (the environment, poverty, and so forth) there is no way right now that people in individual nations would be able to pull this off in any meaningful day to day manner. We are simply too different and have too many different ways of approaching and solving problems.

To people in al-Qaeda their vision is that of a warlord filled vicious theocratic world, where only those who adhere to their particular form of Islam would wield power and where everyone else would exist to serve them as individuals and their crazed interpretation of Islam in general. To those in corporate America who endorse "Randian Capitalism" the world would be a strict plutocracy where the rich would live in cantons and the rest of the world would be their "resource pool". And with all the iterations in between there is simply no way that humanity could come to any sort of peace agreement on how to run day to day government.

So what prompts this piece? It is due to the fact that I see many people both on the Hard Left (as evidenced by most of the folks - not all but most) at leftist blogsites doing their utmost to spread disinformation regarding the U.S. and demanding that it live up to standards that they would hardly ask of other nations. And when it even comes to discussing other nations, it seems that as long as those nations are anti-U.S. anything they do is ok with the Hard Left. They will excuse all of the things they say they stand for in the name of supporting a nation that stands against the U.S. And by doing so are willing to team up with the most vile elements of the polity to support their cause (example the BDS movement).

I also see the isolationist wing of the Republican party doing the same thing. Unable to think beyond (to them) what seems like the most simple or quick solution they simply say, "let's build a corporate state in the U.S. reminiscent of the Gilded Age and screw everyone else". They simply cannot think out their own little boxes, not realizing that while they are building "Fortress America", forces that are hardly sympathetic to America and our interests gain power. These Rightists think only about the immediacy of an issue and simply don't think about the ramifications of said issue. There is no serious thought that goes into "problem solving".. So we see with the "Repeal Obamacare" folks. All they care about is defeating the President, they care nothing for the long term damage they are causing this nation.

The problem is that both extreme's arguments contain half truths throughout. For the Leftists and their complaints about the NSA, they are generally right. The NSA SHOULD NOT be spying to the extent that it is on American citizens. I get that they want to find out what is happening in the world, and that they are protecting Americans from terror. However, I also get that these powers can easily be misused to create what they like to call "the surveillance state". That said, the NSA and CIA have a responsibility towards protecting American citizens so... this is a problematic issue. However, to compare the U.S. unfavorably to groups like Al-Qaeda and to lionize those who would leak our secrets to foreign nations (Edward Snowden) is far from helpful.

On the Right side, the "Libertarian crew" is right about the fact that we can cut the Defense budget by reducing foreign ventures and use those resources to pay private business at home for development projects. Of course at the same time they need to realize that while we can do that to a degree, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the world in a meaningful way and still have a say in our own future due to the fact mentioned previously, that the world is indeed more interconnected and that foreign affairs really do have an impact on our daily lives at macro level.

In the end, one thing that is truly dangerous to the U.S. and the well being of the "free world" is this growing strain of neo-Isolationist thinking. Hamstringing our intelligence sectors will only create a world where America and it's allies (and interests) are threatened. Honestly, the Russians or Chinese certainly have no compunctions regarding the use of any and all tactics to achieve their goals. For the Hard Leftists this is just fine to allow them to thoroughly weaken the U.S. While the Isolationist Hard Right simply doesn't care what other nations do because (and this is sheer idiocy) they think the U.S. can simply "wall itself off" and let the rest of the world burn.

It is important that we do have civilian oversight of our intelligence gathering particularly as it relates to American citizens. Don't take this article as indictment of that. We are a "free nation" because our government has been restrained in its ability to gather information / data on our everyday lives. It is also important that we recognize that "overzealous" gathering of personal data can and often does lead to problematic issue with regards to a "surveillance state". I do not want to live in a nation that monitors my computer usage or my phone records without any kind of just cause.

So.. it is important that we balance our need for privacy with our need for the protections our intelligence sectors provide. What we need here is an honest discussion about how we can best balance the two needs. What we don't need is constant vilification of our nation hidden with rhetoric designed to weaken our nation and its ability to protect its citizens. We don't need those who would propose solutions in a vacuum either supporting or without understanding the nature of our national enemies.

Though these movements currently operate on the fringe, as the Hard Left is no real part of the Democratic Party and the Isolationist Hard Right is only a portion of the Republican Polity, still they represent possible growing threats (as they appeal mainly to the young and idealistic for various reasons), it is important that we understand and expose them for who they are. Of course here in the U.S. they should not be restricted from discussing their viewpoints, but those viewpoints should be exposed for what they really are, an effort to weaken the United States, both at home and/or abroad.

The REAL Benghazi Scandal

Seems like there indeed a Benghazi Scandal, just that it is not quite the one the Republicans and their goofball supporters were claiming.

See, the Republicans and those that suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (and can’t help themselves), were jumping up and down screeching from the rafters that what happened in Benghazi was one of the all time great failures by an administration to protect it’s foreign service workers and diplomats. Then they compounded this lie by trying (in a classic case of projection) that the administration politicized the response to the attack in order to enhance it’s chances for re-election in the 2012 Presidential election.

Well it does seem there was some politicization of the attack, yet this politicization of the attack came not from Democrats but from Republicans and that it was Republicans who shamefully used the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other diplomatic personnel as ways to not only try to win the November election but also have cynically used these deaths to increase their own fund raising, disrupt President Obama’s second term agenda, and take the public’s eyes off of the fact that these people simply refuse to govern responsibly.

In all seriousness, how can Republicans and their supporters claim be so up in arms when many of the same critics of the Obama administration simply sat on their hands, during the Bush Administration when there were thirteen (yep, that’s thirteen) attacks on consular and diplomatic services which were more deadly than Benghazi. I mean, how can one see that (and the incidents which occurred) and not say that this entire clown show (and I use this term because really… that is what it is), is NOT a partisan political effort. Had these folks been outraged to these levels during these previous incidents I would not complain about this obviously partisan attack, but, they weren’t. When Republicans were in charge apparently these failures didn’t warrant this kind of poutrage.

Then, as if this is not enough, Republicans and their goofy supporters started screaming that this was a cover-up on a scale larger than Watergate. Ok, now this should give everyone pause to consider the pure partisan hatred expressed by this charge. Watergate was a scandal because the President of the United States actually ordered a Criminal Break-in of Democratic Party Headquarters. In Watergate you had the President of the U.S. actually ordering an illegal activity.

In Benghazi, you had failures by the State Department to adequately provide security for a consular mission in the middle of a war-torn and chaotic area. The President did not order Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi, the Ambassador decided to go on his own. The White House did not orchestrate a terror attack on the consulate. In no way did the White House or the Administration do anything even bordering on illegal as did the Nixon White House during Watergate.

BUT further than that, the Republicans and their charges were so worked up into a frothy state that they then went on to produce “leaked” emails saying that the White House actually orchestrated a change in talking points to eliminate all references to involvement by al-Qaeda and that they did this to knowingly deceive the public. They maintain that the President had stated that they had “defeated” al-Qaeda and felt that if word of an al-Qaeda attack had gotten out before the election it would have meant trouble for the President’s re-election efforts.

As one sufferer of Obama Derangement Syndrome stated:

“The Obama administration then lied about lying through White House spokesmen, Jay Carney, who insisted that the White House did not force any substantive changes to the CIA talking points which originally sourced the attack to Islamists.”

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it turns out that these comments aren’t quite true and by the term “aren’t quite true” I mean that they are outright lies.

First of all the President when discussing al-Qaeda worldwide never claimed (to my knowledge) that they were utterly defeated. He has made the claim (and rightly so) that in Af-Pak that al-Qaeda has been weakened and that their command structure has been severely compromised but he did not say they were defeated (as has been claimed):

Here is President Obama in 2011 about al-Qaeda - 

In announcing Osama bin Laden"s death Sunday night, President Barack Obama said U.S. military and counterterrorism professionals have "made great strides” in the effort to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaida.

But terrorism experts, U.S. officials and Obama himself say that despite progress in capturing or killing key al-Qaida leaders, the group is still a force in international terrorism.

"There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will— remain vigilant at home and abroad,” Obama said. "...The cause of securing our country is not complete."

AND now it turns out that claims that the White House orchestrated a CIA cover-up… OHOH it turns out that those “leaks” quoted by Republicans were actually FABRICATIONS of emails created by… the Republicans themselves. CBS News is Reporting:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday.”

Apparently the wording of emails from Victoria Nuland and Ben Rhodes were altered to say different things than what the Republicans claimed and that CBS found:

“The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong.

Republicans have charged that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real emails late Wednesday….”

…the Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda."
The actual email from Nuland says: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings."

The CIA agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the CIA's original version, eliminating references to al Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

This story pretty much wipes out the claims the Republicans and their supporters have made regarding any sort of a cover-up.

The bottom line is that no matter what the truth is, Republicans and their long suffering supporters just can’t accept the truth. They continue even in the face of evidence to the contrary to simply ignore reality and rather, just blindly spout talking points. Is that a scandal in itself? Certainly not, that is just plain and simple stupidity.

The real scandal here is two-fold.

The First is that the Republicans actually altered emails and then convened a House investigation based on these altered emails. Simply put, they lied about the content of the emails, fraudulently changed that content and then have wasted taxpayer funds in a blatantly partisan attack on the President of the United States and why, just so they could increase Fund Raising for their members AND so that they could disrupt on going Administration efforts to govern this nation. I do believe that deceiving the American public like this should be investigated and those responsible for this should be held accountable.

Second, once again this shows why no one can take criticism by Republicans or their ODS suffering drones seriously. I mean despite the fact that they are constantly re-buffed by reality, they continue to soldier on in a fantasy world driven only by hatred of President Barack Obama and the fact that in the last election they were soundly defeated. And more over, this hatred has led to the Republicans completely abrogating their duties to the American people as the controlling party of the House of Representatives. They simply refuse to deal with the problems facing our nation and instead are focusing on useless legislation like pointless vote after vote after vote on repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, or refusing to even institute background checks on certifiable lunatics and criminals so that these people can buy weapons.

This is the real scandal about Benghazi – a blatant political attempt to undermine the President and the Government of the United States through lies and forgery by Republicans and their operatives. Now that this scandal is coming to light it will be interesting to watching these folks scurry around now that a light is being shined on them.

More Benghazi Bull&#*

We have been getting a lot of garbage coming from what I like to call Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) “dog and pony show” about Benghazi and the nonsense that the Republican’s and their goofy surrogates are spewing out regarding this. It would be one thing if they actually cared about this incident AND were going to use hearings to better reform the processes in the way the State Department operates and handles security. But what Issa is actually doing is nothing but a complete clown show of a hack job all in an effort to both derail a potential Hillary Clinton Presidential run in 2016, raise funds for the G.O.P. ,  and disrupt any agenda that President Barak Obama might have.

Pretty strong words? Sure. But honestly, I am sick and tired of this nonsense and what it is doing to the United States and our polity. So let’s just see what the Republicans and their goofy surrogates are whining about.

First of all, interestingly enough, while Republicans are calling this “the worst thing evah” (Spelling mistake intentional), they were and are remarkably silent about their own record in the area of attacks on U.S. diplomatic and consular officials.

Bob Cesca writing at HuffPo, points out Republican hypocrisy, when America suffered thirteen (that’s 13) diplomatic and consular attacks during the Bush years and none of the modern day inquisitors involved had very little to say regarding them. Given that, how can we take them or their charges seriously? Did they all of a sudden gain concern for our diplomats? Of course not, it is pretty obvious to anyone that this thing is political theatre and that it is simply a partisan hack job for the reasons stated above.

So let’s break down some of this partisan hackery (new word) even further. First of all, I think it is important for everyone to read the 39 page findings of the Independent review board convened by the State Dept. and run by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. This will put an end to the caterwauling and nonsensical lies spread by Republicans and their goofball supporters.

For instance, Republicans and their goofy supporters claim that if only the U.S. had “sent in the marines” Ambassador Stevens and the four American operatives would still be alive. And further, not only do they claim that the nothing happened, but they actually claim that someone (probably the evil secret Muslim President Barak Hussein Obama </snark>) told U.S. forces to “stand down”.

Well the review board debunks this lie with their action report (tough reading but important) of the night of Sept. 11^th, 2012 on pages 18 – 28 of the report. First of all, one must remember that the consular post in Benghazi was a small one with seven U.S. diplomatic personnel. There were other American assets in the area and these assets DID arrive to help it’s just that they were too late to stop the area from being overrun and the Ambassador and Information Management Officer Smith from dying of smoke inhalation.

Again, read these heartbreaking pages. There was absolutely no interference from Washington concerning response to the pleas for help coming from the Consulate. It is simply amazing to me that the Republicans and their drones would actually make this charge. Everyone did what they had to do once the attack was under way.

Now let’s take on some more of the partisan lies spread by those who would politicize the death of four Americans for their own fundraising and political agendas. Another lie these folks like to spread is concerning whether the President called it terrorism or not, and was that politically motivated. To answer the second part first, I have no doubt that there was some political gamesmanship by the White House here. It is true that certainly having a diplomatic outpost overrun by an al-Qaeda affiliate would look bad for the President, it is an extreme stretch to think it would have ruined the President’s re-election efforts. I can understand his reticence to call this a coordinated operation by al-Qaeda. That said, I don’t see any evidence of any kind of cover-up.

The President and his administration did not say that al-Qaeda worldwide had been defeated as the liars maintain. What they had said was that al-Qaeda in Af-Pak had suffered some very serious losses particularly to it’s leadership cadres and that it was severely weakened in those areas. No one denied that al-Qaeda affiliates were still at large and causing massive amounts of trouble wherever they went, so there goes that piece of nonsense.

On to the charge that the President never said it was “terrorism”. The Washington Post fact checkers say admit that while he did refer to “acts of terror” in a speech on Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, he was being vague and then calls him out for denying he was talking about this days later in an interview. Now, I watched this interview, and no where do I see how the Washington Post came to their conclusions. What I see is a President that is taking a measured approach to a tough situation and waiting for more information to come in before racing to judgment.

On a personal note, this has to be one of the biggest steaming piles of horse manure used in what has become this political circus. Frankly, I don’t give a flying f*&% whether he called this a terror attack or he called it a freakin’ hamburger. It’s just not that important. It really isn’t. What is important is that someone get the facts, and then acts to either A) Bring the killers to justice and B) fixes this to make sure that it never happens again.

Besides what do these dumbasses actually think he was talking about when he referred to “acts of terror” in that speech? Do they think he was talking about egg throwing in New York? For goodness sakes, just how dumb do you have to be to not understand the President was talking about this attack? As my mom liked to say, these folks have “rocks in their heads”.

And how silly has Issa’s sideshow gotten. Well, first he wouldn’t let Ambassador Pickering testify after demanding that the Ambassador do testify. Then he says “Well, we will only let the Ambassador testify – if it’s in Private NOT in Public.

Here is Darrell Issa, talking about how he “doesn’t want this hearing to be a show”:

"The fact is, we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. We had fact witnesses. They testified. We have the Ambassador and Admiral Mullen who conducted and oversaw the [independent review]. We're inviting them on Monday. We'll go through, not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way.

So wait a minute, this whole big PUBLIC hearing really should be only conducted in PRIVATE? HUH????

Now, were there mistakes made here by the Administration that should have been reviewed. Absolutely. And Secretary Clinton conducted just such a review. Anyone reading it can see just how critical that review was. Is there a discussion to be had concerning American security in countries that are unstable and have active al-Qaeda affiliates in them? Absolutely.

Was there a White House cover-up about this? Not in the slightest. Some idiots have even gone so far as to say this is worse than Watergate. Those folks really should check themselves into some kind of mental health institution as their faculties for reason seem to have gone awry. It’s incredible. Here we have people comparing a criminal break-in ordered by the President himself, to some severe mistakes made by senior State Dept. individuals. The two are not even close to being on the same level.

And this is why Republicans and their goofy supporters should never be elected to any office higher than that of Park Bathroom attendant. Because, all they seem to do is waste people’s time with manufactured scandals and irrelevant congressional votes. Just today, the Republicans voted for the 37^th time to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act even though they know that there is no possible way it will get through the Senate and if it did that, the President would simply veto it (and they don’t have the votes to overturn). It’s just a WASTE. OF. TIME.

Meanwhile, instead the House could be working on much more pressing issues such as dealing with Climate Change, Gun Violence, Joblessness, Improving our infrastructure, real immigration reform, and so forth. But no. Not these folks. They have to work on screeching about Benghazi, or yammering about the IRS or any other daily manufactured outrage. These people and their supporters are a bunch of hacks, and honestly their actions do nothing but disrupt the governance of the United States.

I suggest writing to your local Representative and tell them to get on with actually working with the President and Democrats instead of letting the country suffer so that they can achieve their own partisan political ends. It’s nonsense and it needs to stop. NOW!

The President's Trip - An Opinion

The President is in Israel and I for one think this trip is a very positive reinforcement of the President's Pro-Israel, Pro-Two State agenda. For me, the trip cements some opinions of the President that I have held from the very beginning that President Obama is a great and solid friend to both Israel and the Jewish people.

What does this trip tell me?

1. Well, the President is now in his second term. He is done campaigning. He certainly didn't have to make this trip, he doesn't need the help from Jewish voters in swing states anymore.. YET... he still goes to Israel to re-affirm our friendship and commitments to Israel and it's security. Unlike the screeching of Jennifer Rubin and her usual nonsense (I still can't figure out how anyone who gets everything so wrong manages to have a column at the Washington Post but we'll leave that for another day), the President's words are very important.

In his speeches and discussions today, the President laid his understanding of exactly what the State of Israel means to both the Jewish people and the world. But, not only are his words important for Israelis (who are fed a strict diet of FOX News and U.S. Republican nonsensical garbage) to hear, but they are important that the Palestinians and Arabs hear them as well. Because no matter what he says to them, they have been told in very clear and unequivocal terms that the U.S. understands that Israel IS the National Homeland and State of the Jewish people.

2. His third trip to Israel gives President Obama a chance to directly speak to the Israeli people, side-stepping the machinations of the Right Wing, that are completely distraught and feinting at the possibility that their lies regarding the President be exposed. I think he will be clear that he does not call for "retreat to the 1967 borders", a myth that is spread by the right, despite all the availability of transcripts and documentation that he believes in something more akin to the Olmert plan of 2007-08.

Too much of the President's words and actions have been lost to the machinations of the punditry on the Right, who will stop at nothing, tell any lie and twist any truth just to make sure that people believe the worst in President Obama. BUT his history of support, in the U.N., with increased foreign aid (though the "sequester" does threaten some of that), with strongly enhanced security and intelligence cooperation between the two nations tells the TRUTH regarding his friendship.

Now will the Israeli Right (and their American cohorts) be happy regarding any of the President's trip to Israel. I sincerely doubt it. Up until now, they have been the ones to frame the discussion around Israel with their "Agree with us 1000% or you are no friend to the us", lessons learned from the Republican Teahadists here at home.

But this shouldn't be the case. It's time that those of us in the Center and Left stood up to the Republicans and Rightists and hold them accountable for their nonsense. First of all, all of those fans of Mitt Romney, refused to say what Mitt would have done differently. Further, Mitt himself said there was nothing he would have done differently. For instance when pressed on Egypt. Romney stated:

MR. SCHIEFFER: Governor Romney, I want to hear your response to that, but I would just ask you, would you have stuck with Mubarak?

MR. ROMNEY: No, I believe, as the president indicated and said at the time, that I supported his — his action there. (vb1 emphasis)  I felt that — I wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our — our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. But once it exploded, I felt the same as the president did, which is these — these freedom voices in the — the streets of Egypt where the people who were speaking of our principles and the — the — President Mubarak had done things which were unimaginable, and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support.

And why should they own up to this? It doesn't fit their meme that President Obama is no friend to Israel. I mean the guy they were voting for ADMITTED he would do the same.

These are the messages that the Israelis need to hear. Not some spinning FOX head who simply makes up the news wholesale.

But more importantly the President (AS EVERY OTHER AMERICAN PRESIDENT SINCE 1967) has re-affirmed the American commitment to the Two State Solution. The Rightists who now are in J'slem, from the Deputy FM Ze'ev Elkin to the Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, to DM Moshe Ya'alon, to Naftali Bennett and his entire HaBayit HaYehudi Party are firmly AGAINST the two State solution. They have come out with an annexation plan for the Occupied West Bank.

So are we to let these people frame the argument of who is for Israel and who is not? I say no. I stand with our President and the Israeli Center / Center Left in their calls for Two State solution. It is the only way that Israel will remain a vibrant and Jewish Democracy. The President's actions and speeches have stood up to help support Israel in the long run. That is good enough for me, and I as a strong supporter of Israel am glad that Barak Obama is indeed President of the U.S. and is a strong friend to Israel. 

The Numbers are in... More Americans sympathize with Israel

There is a new Gallup poll out regarding Israel, and the numbers are both interesting and positive for Israel.

Here is the release from Gallup

Despite our Presidents love of the Muslim Brotherhood and Democrats and Liberals / Progressives all thinking that "blaming" Israel for all of their own  problems is the way to go (/snark if people are really too dumb to think I believe this nonsense spread by the RJC, ODS Crowd, and their minions), the American people's support / sympathy for Israel is at it's highest levels since the Gulf War of 1991.

As Gallup sums it up:

Bottom Line

Americans' sympathy for Israel is at a high-water mark as President Obama travels there for what is being described as a "maintenance" visit, not a high-stakes effort to restart the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Consistent with attitudes in the past decade, Republicans are significantly more supportive of Israel than are Democrats, although the majority of all party groups tilt toward Israel.

Younger Americans show less favoritism toward Israel than middle-aged adults and, in particular, seniors; however, they are no more likely to favor the Palestinians. They are simply less anchored about whom they favor. Palestinians receive the highest sympathy from Democrats, liberals, and postgraduates, but even among these, support tops off at 24%.

While it is true that Republicans and Conservatives do "support' Israel more than Democrats and Liberals - still the levels of support for the Palestinian cause amongst Americans is minimal.

Here is the raw data:

Republicans - 78% Israelis, 5 % Palestinians,  3% both, 6% Neither, 7% No Opinion
Democrats - 55% Israelis, 19% Palestinians, 7% both, 10% Neither, 10% Both
Independents - 63% Israelis, 11% Palestinians, 5% both, 15% Neither, 5% Both

Conservatives - 77%, 5% 3% 9% 6%
Liberals - 54%, 24%, 7%, 9 % 10%
Moderates - 58%, 12%, 15%, 7%, 8%

So really, MAJORITIES of both Democrats and Republicans... Liberals and Conservatives sympathize (or show favor to Israel).

Personally I think it is good to see that as Americans we can across the board support or friends and allies in Israel. We may not always agree with what they do, but, it is comforting to know that the Jewish people have a friend in the American Polity and that we can continue to hope that our polity continues to reflect it's friendship with the Israeli people and their continued fight to maintain their self-determination against those that would see them disappear

Paul Ryan Channels Big Brother

Hat Tip to Jed Lewiston and his Daily Kos Front Page Diary: Remember when Paul Ryan blamed the attack in Benghazi on the sequester?

In reading Jed's diary something struck me in one of Paul Ryans quotes:

We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights.

Ok... on it's own sounds fine.

Then Ryan goes on to say:

And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we're cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us.

And this is where Ryan channels Big Brother. Allow me quote from George Orwell's Masterpiece 1984:

So... what Ryan here is directly saying is... (In my words): "Let's stand for PEACE and the way we stand for PEACE is to build up our WAR machine to a point where no one will be able to challenge us, because if they do, we will utterly destroy them." Now, aside from the facts that Guerilla movements in SouthEastern and Central Asia give lie to his commentary (after all, we outgunned the Viet Cong and Taliban 10,000 to one and we were able to wreck complete destruction upon their relative nations and yet that didn't stop them). This is a dangerous fallacy that has infected the American Polity in a number of ways.
OH, and before we go on I want to make it clear that I am not an isolationist, I am not a Green, and I have no issue with the United States having a presence around the Globe (though I am certainly not a supporter of "Empire Building"). Further, I fully support the notion that the U.S. and our allies should have what I term a "Stout Defense". But, that said, I also support an honest commentary on what that means and NOT use of Orwellian terminology to create a false meme.

But here... Here is a chart of our Defense Spending relative to the rest of the world

1. United States                  711.0  
2. China                             143.0  
3  Russia                              71.9
4  United Kingdom               62.7
5  France                              62.5
6  Japan                               59.3

Now, notice... IF the U.S. Cut it's military spending by over $ 400 BILLION per year. That's right... you saw it $ 400 BILLION PER YEAR, we would STILL outspend the next five countries on the list added up together.

Let's break that down even further. IF we cut our Defense budget by $ 500 Billion for one year we would still almost outspend our main rivals Russia and China together (they would have us by $ 3 billion).

NOW, does anyone in their right mind think that Al Qaeda for one second looks at our defense spending and says: "HOHOHO America cut it's spending - well they must be weak" and further does anyone even further out really think that our main allies, Britain, France, Israel, Australia, etc... think that we are somehow "weak" even though we are outspending the next five nations (Nations 3 2-#6) collectively???
No.. What this is, is a blatant Orwellian Chant of "War is Peace", "We destroyed that village to save the village".

Paul Ryan's words are hypocritical. His party stands firmly against Democracy (look at his party's efforts to not count the popular vote), his party party stands firmly against individual rights (Marriage Equality, voting rights, civil rights). Ryan talks about Peace but in this, he is only talking about the Peace that comes from utter destruction left in the wake of War.

Musings on Chuck: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I write this diary because even though I in general oppose the Hagel nomination I think it is one of those things that will ultimately end up being about as significant as a "fart in a blizzard" (for lack of a better term).

So here are my thoughts... there are good and bad things about this nomination. In general I still oppose it because I think there are other politicians out there who are Democrats who would be more in line with Democratic Politics. Four names I can think of off the top of my head are General Wesley Clark, Admiral Joe Sestak, Admiral James Webb, and Former Senator Bob Kerrey.

There is also longtime Pentagon official and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy who would be a historic choice given that she would be the FIRST female Defense Secretary. From everything I have read about Flournoy (and (here is an interesting article), she would be a good choice. So there are four names that I think are well qualified, and who could do a fine job AND are also Democrats.

Aside from some what I consider bigoted remarks regarding Jewish Americans and LGBT Americans the irksome thing for me in this nomination is that President Obama felt it was necessary to choose a Republican for this post. I didn't vote for, support or donate to the guy to put Republicans into the highest positions in our government. I really didn't. I voted for President Obama because I don't think the Republican Party is particularly good for our nation (and hasn't been for a long time) and having Republicans in high office is not positive. Chuck Hagel... is a Republican, and yes, though he bucks the establishment of the Party on a few issues, he is still a Republican through and through.

BUT.... again, the Sec. Def. doesn't have the power of the Sec. State and though the position has a guiding voice in government, it doesn't set our foreign policy agenda so really... there is not much there that I think will make any bit of difference one way or the other.

Anyhow, in the past few days I have been inundated with Chuck Hagel news.... Hagel this, and Hagel that. BUT, what is the reality of a Hagel appointment. Well on the Far Right we hear the screechings of the batshit racists who are pissed because they are certain that Hagel will help Iran get nukes, thinks that Hizbollah and Hamas should be our best buddies, wants to drop Israel into the ocean and wants eventually to enslave America to "Teh Ebilz Mooslim Empire" (Ok, that's an exaggeration but really not much of one - check out the bullshit that flows from the Hard Right).

At the same time we have the drooling bigots on the Hard Left who are absolutely positive that a Hagel nomination is the bestest thing in the world since the invention of indoor plumbing AND sliced bread. They are positive that Hagel at Defense means the absolute end of "Teh Ebilz JOOOO / IZRAILEE lobby111!!!!11" and that "Teh Ebilz IZREEL" is finally going to get theirs. Oh yeah and Iran will next become our "bestest friend in TEH WHOLE WORLD"... Just read some of those blogs.

Of course neither the batshit fringers on the hard right or the drooling bigots on the hard left are right. Most likely, none of those things will come to pass should Hagel clear confirmation. We will still be friends with Israel, there will continue to be military cooperation with the IDF. Yes, there will be friction with Israel due to the ascendency of the Hard Right, but and at the same time there will be friction with the Palestinians due to the rising popularity of Hamas and the Religious Islamists within the Palestinian Polity (not too mention friction with Egypt and the future rulers of Syria over that same issue).

The Middle East will come into hard focus in the coming years as the threat of Iranian Hegemony will need to be faced, and the U.S. will be angling towards building a regional coalition against the Iranians. SO, I think that there will be a focus on Israel and the West Bank in regards to the Occupation but, I think that was coming anyway, no matter who the Sec. Def. happens to be. Official U.S. policy stands diametrically opposed to the directions of both the Israeli AND Palestinian polity. Anyway, enough on that.

Although there is one funny aside with regards to the droolers on the Hard Left (particularly where they meet with the batshit Paulbots on the Hard Right). All these fools are absolutely convinced that AIPAC and TEH JOOZ (though they use Zionists and Israelis as cover terms) run the nation and our government. Just read hate sites like Stormfront, davidduke.com and MondoFront - you can see it there. YET, if this is the case, then how in the world did (snark coming) Superhero and all around scourge of the "Jewish Lobby" (Hagel's comment) Chuck Hagel even get the nomination? I mean if AIPAC runs things... that could never have... ROH 'ROH....

All this said and outside of the silly meta regarding the intertoobz, there are some good things about Hagel's nomination as well (at least in my opinion). The guy was a combat vet and was an enlisted man (rather than an officer). He led people in tough situations, made life and death decisions and apparently made them well (according to what I have read). I think he has a distinct understanding of the results of war policy. I can respect that. Though I am not not well versed in his politics as some, it seems that he is a strong advocate for veterans rights and did buck the Reagan administration (actually resigning from his post of Deputy Head of the VA) when they wanted to cut funding over benefits for Vietnam Vets.

SO for that, I think in his post (should he win confirmation) he will be a good addition. I am all in favor of our nation taking care of those who we ask to give everything. I have no issue when it comes to spending my tax dollars on support of veterans and veteran care. Given how crucial that is now, with our soldiers dealing with not one but TWO crappy situations (because Iraq is still really not yet over), I think it important that we have someone in the Sec. Def. post that understands veterans issues in personal terms.

I also support his position on extending rights of habeas corpus to AMERICAN prisoners at Guantanamo (though he voted AGAINST that for all prisoners). And his stand on ending the camp and it's practices there. I also support his stances on NOT capping America's foreign aid budget and support for funding regarding AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

Also, though I think his positions are over-hyped by his supporters (and over-stated by the lunatic fringe), I generally agree that engagement is preferable to "gunboat diplomacy" and ever increasing hyperbolic rantings as people on the right try to resurrect that wonderful time known as The Crusades (/snark). Just because you talk to someone doesn't mean you agree with them or will do what they want. That said, there also comes a time when you can talk as much as you want, but, it is not going to change anything. I think given Hagel's background and voting record on these things, he seems to understand that.

But through all that.. remember that Hagel voted FOR the Patriot Act and its re-authorization. Remember, he also voted to support FISA and EXPAND on Federal Wiretapping. So....

HOWEVER, as I said before in general I oppose Hagel's nomination and think the President is making a mistake here. I can see WHY he is doing it, but, as I also mentioned before, I think there are others that are just as if not better qualified for the position and who are Democrats.

I also oppose the Hagel nomination on a number of other points. One is that, though he did apologize for his vindictive remarks towards Ambassador Hormel (offering only a tepid apology which did not seem particularly heartfelt), he does seem to have an issue with the rights of the LGBT community. From the New Yorker:

When Hagel served in the United States Senate, as a Republican from Nebraska, he consistently voted against gay rights—his record earned him a zero-per-cent rating (three times) from the Human Rights Campaign, the leading gay-rights lobby. Among other things, Hagel voted against extending basic employment nondiscrimination protections and the federal hate-crimes law to cover gay Americans.

As a Jewish American - I also have issues with this nomination. Hagels commentary on the "Jewish Lobby" is frankly DISGUSTING. I don't know where he really stands on Israel as I don't trust the screeching racist dingbats on the Right on anything they say and I understand that he said in 2008 that he felt Israel's character as a "Jewish Nation" was not negotiable. But, that is honestly not that much of an issue to me as the Sec. Def. really doesn't have shit to do with our policy towards Israel and as Peter Beinart commented on "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick" today, (Paraphrasing) "Hagel is certainly NOT the most Anti-Israel Sec. Def. we have ever had... George Marshall and Casper Weinberger were far harder line there".

Finally, I have to say I have issues with this: Hagel has a rating of 84 (reaching into the high 90's during the Bush Admin.) with the American Conservative Union and he received constant high grades from the American Taxpayers Union - I mean... COME ON! That is NOT what I voted for when I voted for President Obama. Someone who is that high on these lists is certainly no one that I could support.
I have to say, that this nomination SHOULD be opposed by liberals and progressives. Why in the world President Obama would nominate ANYONE who has been a staunch conservative is beyond me. I didn't vote for the man to put Republicans/Conservatives anywhere near the White House and inviting them into his cabinet just doesn't sit right here. There are others that would do a great job and who could and should have been considered. And though I do in the end feel that this won't amount to anything, I think the President is making a mistake here and I do think it is important to let him know that it is not necessary or acceptable for him to promote conservatives.

Apparently, I Have Nazi Tendencies

Yep... apparently I have "Nazi Tendencies"...

Silly me, A guy who lived in Israel for a year, was part of many Zionist Youth Groups, speaks a bit of Hebrew, practices the Israeli Martial Art of Krav Maga, goes to services on the High Holidays (Rosh Hashannah and Yom HaKippur), co-founded Team Shalom AND Jews for President Obama here at Daily Kos... well I didn't know this but... I have "Nazi" tendencies.

Just what are these tendencies? Here I will let you read the Facebook conversation that got me called this and you can see for yourselves. This was in response to my saying that the richest Americans should pay their fair share:

xxxx Fair share? I busted my arse 16 hours a day, holidays, Saturdays, Sundays, sun up to sun down for 35 years...and you have the audacity to tell me I am not paying my fair share? All said and done, the Government is in my pocket for over 50 percent!!! You my friend, have Nazi tendencies (vb1 emphasis) and have drank the whole jug of poison. 

xxxx 50 percent of so called "Americans" DO NOT, DO NOT PAY TAXES! Are you effin' kidding me?

ME: Ummm Nazi Tendencies??? I am Jewish just FYI! Wow... And yeah pay fair share. I bust my ass too, at my job AND I run a small business. But I want schools, and roads, and social security that I paid into, and Medicare and all those things. And that is bullshit that 50% of Americans Don't pay taxes. They don't pay Federal Income Taxes but they pay everything else.... Look, only the Nazi's were the Nazi's and Government spending DOES NOT make one a "Nazi". Learn the fucking history man. Ok.. that's it.. this conversation is going nowhere... NAZI's for G-d's sake..

xxxx: Read about Austria, they voted for Hitler. 98% of Austrian's voted for Mr Hitler to rescue Austria from 33% unemployment, 25% inflation and 25% interest rates. So YES NAZI tendencies.

Me: Ok... look xxxx... I'm done here... I know more about the history of the Weimar Republic and the Nazi Movement (the Reich) that followed it than you apparently will ever know. I don't mean to be an ass to you, but honestly this Nazi thing is way out of bounds. So look you may have the last word but I am going to suggest you do a little reading up from real historians abut what actually happened in Germany following WWI. It is nothing like what is happening here and nothing like that is being proposed. SO... have a good day and please drop the Nazi Stuff.. That is like saying: "Well the sky was blue over Germany and so it is over the U.S" - There is absolutely ZERO comparison between the two situations. Not too mention what the Nazi's proposed and did. Just leaving out that. Sigh......

xxxx Our schools are doing fantastic (run by the Feds)...Our roads are the best in the world (run by the Feds)...Social Security - is yours there (run by the feds)...Medicare is solid as a rock (run by the Feds). Shall I go on? The Government can't run anything but the Government. Have you seen the PORK PORK PORK in the bill to HELP SANDY VICTIMS? Get it? Yes, Nazi tendencies? Keep giving the drug addict money! Keep giving power to the Nazis...it is what the Jews did. You do NOT understand history.

yyyyy: How about the new medical device tax.2.3% on anything used in the medical field. Most small companies operate at a 2 to 4 % profit margin. And this is on gross sales not profits. This will cost companies millions, and will sink small companies.A michigan co. already laid off 10,000 employees.My wifes co. is considering taking their manufacturing out of the US and i don't blame them!!!

xxxx: "After America, there is no place left to go"

xxxx: (volleyboy1 - my name was here), "No Nazi comparisons? Sounds like something Hitler would say?"

So what are my Nazi tendencies that he cited... Well it stems from this comment:

Then raise revenue... That means taxes on the $ 250,000 level and cut defense. We spend 6-7 times the amount of the rest of the world combined on outdated and wasteful weapons systems. Let's take care of our own citizens, with strengthening social security, medicare, veterans benefits, etc. We have the money, but, business likes its corporate welfare. Oh yeah, and cut subsides to big oil and close tax loopholes for the rich..... 

I don't hate corporations... but I think they need to pay their fair share AND I don't want to live in a corporate society. So... it's a difference in perspective. BUT I guarantee you that for all the complaining you do about Obama... The real Socialists hate him a lot more than you do. And yes, they really do.

Apparently, according to the wingnuts, a strong social safety net, strengthening medicare, supporting VETERANS RIGHTS, cutting subsidies to Big Oil, and closing loopholes for the rich.. well those are "Nazi Tendencies". Of course, according to the genius I was talking too... Most Jews in Germany (or Austria) at the time supported the Nazi's as well... Who knew.

THIS is what we are dealing with out in the Grassroots of the Republican Party. This is what gets people like Michelle Bachman and other teahadists elected. It is amazing in it's incredible pride in lack of anything that resembles any kind of knowledge. These people's pages are all full of "Support the Troops", "We Love Guns", "Obama is Teh Ebilz, Kenyan, Mooslim, Socialist, Nazi, Communist" type postings. Oh, and these people are not a small group. They certainly are not the majority in the U.S. but not for FOX News, Glen Beck and a whole lot of other people trying.

How crazy is this... these people are from NY (I grew up with these guys). Our town was literally almost destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. AND YET... these folks stand up for the Republican Party despite the fact the people they voted torched Sandy Relief.

And what makes it worse... they think there was "too much pork" in the Sandy Bill so they are happy to wait for a new bill without pork (like that will ever happen) and WITH Offsets because while they get their aid (which is Good Government Aid, they can pay for it on the backs of the Poor who are just a bunch of "lucky Welfare Abusing, Food Stamp collecting, lazy people".

SO... We need to understand that this is what we are dealing with. I can tell you that this is NOT an anamoly. I have heard it before. There is no real rational discourse (or very limited amounts). When supporting a strong social safety net, a just economic policy, support for veterans, makes one have "Nazi Tendencies"... well... what's next?

Republicans Show Us EXACTLY why they should not be in charge

The 2012 election came and went and THANK G-D that not did Mitt Romney not win, BUT, that the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate as well as eight seats in the house. As we approach the "fiscal cliff" (which really is an over-hyped by both sides term), we get to watch the Republicans show why they truly are the party of C.Montgomery Burns (the cartoon villain on the Simpsons) come to life.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans cannot seem to get their act together no matter what. HERE is example No. # 1 - Mitch McConnell actually FILIBUSTERING HIMSELF. 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vfenXNi9HcI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just watch and listen to what the Senators are saying. They are flabbergasted that McConnell would do this, but, even more flabbergasted that the Republicans are going along with it. This, coming a week after Republicans voted against the U.S. supporting the U.N. treaty on disabled persons. It's incredible, that this clown show now known as the Republican Party has even a modicum of support from anyone. I mean, can one imagine if these people had been put in charge of the White House and the Senate? Holy Moly.... I don't think I would trust these people to wash my car, much less run the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. It is incredible.

They simply cannot figure out how to govern. It has gotten so bad for them that Rand Paul, (R-Aqua Buddha and son of crazy person Ron Paul) has come up with this gem:

"I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don't we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? ... All the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them ... and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame."

Now personally, I think this is a great idea. Let's give the President's ideas a chance. Maintenance of the Middle Class Tax cut, coupled with some reasonable Defense Cuts, Real Tax Reform (like eliminating loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, or for private corporate jets to name a few) and effective reform like the Affordable Care Act -sure...I am all in favor of that and apparently so are the American people who delivered the President a landslide victory in the Electoral College and a solid four point win 51% - 47% win in the popular vote (OH.. the irony of that 47% number).

I mean here are the numbers on this:

"This is only the second time in Amore than three years that President Obama has broken 50 percent. And voters see Republicans as more likely to be obstructionist, and have less confidence in their ability to come up with the right solution to the nation's financial woes."

American voters say 56 - 38 percent that Obama and congressional Democrats will make a good faith effort to cooperate with congressional Republicans on important issues. By 51 - 43 percent, voters say congressional Republicans will not act in good faith.

So sure... Rand let's do this. Let's give the American people what they want and what we voted for. Take a shot at it. It might actually show that the Republican Party actually stands in support of their country rather than furthering their party.

So how do the Republicans respond.... They seem to be running around like Chickens with their heads cut off. They can't seem to figure out what to do and simply won't accept the data that the election gave them. I mean here is VP nominee Paul Ryan on NOT raising taxes on the wealthy . And as an added bonus goes on to talk about how President Obama really does not have a mandate, despite the fact that he won by 4% of the general populace (and got 51% of the vote), by over 100 electoral votes, the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate, and Eight seats in a heavily Gerrymandered house (where the Dems. actually got more votes total in the house than Republicans).

As a party, they are simply not fit to lead this country anywhere. So all I can say is thank goodness that these jokers lost the election. America and the world are far better off for it.

Republican Counter Offer on Fiscal Cliff: "Like a Christmas wish list written by kids without access to calculators"

AHAHAHAHA... this is too funny.

Writing at Rachel Maddow's Blog, Steve Benen nails the Republicans as they try to drive the nation off "the fiscal cliff" all so that the wealthiest Americans will not see their incomes after the first $ 250,000 be taxed by a mere 3% more. The greed we are witnessing here is incredible. As Benen writes:

"So, what's the pitch? Under this proposal, Republicans would keep all of the Bush-era tax rates, but accept $800 billion in new revenue. How? Through "through pro-growth tax reform that closes special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates." 

From there, the GOP leaders want to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; cut $300 billion from mandatory programs; cut $200 billion by changing the consumer price index; and then cut another $300 billion in further discretionary spending.

To call this a "counteroffer" is to strip the word of meaning. Under the GOP plan, Republicans get the more than $1 trillion in spending cuts Obama already gave them; Republicans get the entitlement cuts they want; Republicans get hundreds of billions of dollars in additional cuts to programs they haven't identified; and Republicans get all of the Bush-era tax rates they've prioritized.

This isn't a "counteroffer"; it's a Christmas wish list written by kids without access to calculators."

And he is right. The loopholes that the Republicans are talking about would actually more deeply impact the Middle Class than the wealthy.

President Obama is right here to dismiss the Republican offer and it's silliness. It's nothing but a way to screw the poorer end of our society so that Rich can enjoy an ever widening income gap.

Paul Krugman over at the NY Times does a great job breaking this down further.

Here’s where we are right now: As his opening bid in negotiations, Mr. Obama has proposed raising about $1.6 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade, with the majority coming from letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire and the rest from measures to limit tax deductions. He would also cut spending by about $400 billion, through such measures as giving Medicare the ability to bargain for lower drug prices. 

 So what are Republicans offering as an alternative? They say they want to rely mainly on spending cuts instead. Which spending cuts? Ah, that’s a mystery. In fact, until late last week, as far as I can tell, no leading Republican had been willing to say anything specific at all about how spending should be cut.

The veil lifted a bit when Senator Mitch McConnell, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, finally mentioned a few things — raising the Medicare eligibility age, increasing Medicare premiums for high-income beneficiaries and changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security. But it’s not clear whether these represent an official negotiating position — and in any case, the arithmetic just doesn’t work. 

Start with raising the Medicare age. This is, as I’ve argued in the past, a terrible policy idea. But even aside from that, it’s just not a big money saver, largely because 65- and 66-year-olds have much lower health costs than the average Medicare recipient. When the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the likely fiscal effects of a rise in the eligibility age, it found that it would save only $113 billion over the next decade and have little effect on the longer-run trajectory of Medicare costs. 

Increasing premiums for the affluent would yield even less; a 2010 study by the budget office put the 10-year savings at only about $20 billion. 

Changing the inflation adjustment for Social Security would save a bit more — by my estimate, about $185 billion over the next decade. But put it all together, and the things Mr. McConnell was talking about would amount to only a bit over $300 billion in budget savings — a fifth of what Mr. Obama proposes in revenue gains.

In the end the Mitt Romney and the Republicans ran on a platform dedicated to screwing Middle Class and poorer Americans financially, and sacrificing them on some Randian alter of trickle down theory in hopes of maintaining their core constituency's sense of entitlement. It wasn't the Democrats running on giving things away, (as Mitt claimed) it was the Republicans who ran on giving out whatever their big business backers asked for.

In my mind what is best here is that the President learned from his mistakes of the previous years (and the disastrous debt ceiling negotiations of last year). He is taking the "fight" outside of the Beltway and directly to the American People, and bless him for that. The American people need to see just how the Republicans will do just about anything so that the 2% doesn't have to pay one dime more in taxes and they don't care who they take down.

I know that my vote for President Obama was a good vote and I feel a lot better seeing this and knowing that if the President sticks to this, America is truly on it's way back.

Oh, Whatever Should We Do About Conservatives Feeling "Left Behind" By Obama's Reelection?

From Ian Reifowitz over at Daily Kos

Note: Here is an article that speaks to something that I feel deeply about (the division in our country).

I submitted a letter to the editor, which I'd like to share here, in response to a recently published New York Times article titled "In Wyoming, Conservatives Feeling Left Behind."

Laura Clawson summarized the article nicely here, along with the key quotes:

In Wyoming—which is 86 percent white, gets the most federal dollars per capita, and gave Mitt Romney his second-biggest winning margin—Republicans are concerned that the country is being overrun by parasites. No, really, according to one conservative publisher and radio talk show host, "The parasites now outnumber the producers." He's not alone: 

"It's a fundamental shift," said Khale Lenhart, 27, a lawyer here. "It's a mind-set change—that government is here to take care of me." [...]

"It spooks me," said James Yates, 46, a self-made businessman who owns 15 restaurants and employs about 1,000 people. "The young vote and certainly the minority vote went toward the perspective of 'What can I get?' Where the government runs everything, it's completely not sustainable. They don't see that."

In my letter, I call out the extremeness of the people who express this attitude. I realize I'm also a bit snarky toward them in the title of this post. Nevertheless, it is not a good thing for our country if a significant chunk of the population feels alienated, in particular if that alienation is tinged with racial identity and racial animus. It's easy and satisfying to just condemn them and be done with it. 

Now, they do have to change their beliefs.  The question is what can all of us -- not just progressives of course, but our society as a whole -- do to help encourage this change. It's a short letter, but I try to offer a path forward. I hope you find it worthwhile:

The Apocalypse is nigh! America is lost! One Republican county commissioner called for “revolution.” Countless others have signed “secession” petitions. This wildly disproportionate reaction to the reelection of a moderately liberal President suggests that these conservatives aren’t just upset about the role of government. Too many on the right are afraid that the new, more diverse America won’t be like the America they remember (or imagine) from their youth. 

Our challenge as a country is to help these alienated, anxious whites realize that the new, inclusive America also includes them. Republican leaders and, yes, media figures have to tone down their rhetoric, focusing on policy disagreements rather than ginning up anxiety about diversity. Democrats have to continue what they’ve been doing, talking about unity and inclusion, just as President Obama did in his Election Night speech. Whatever our differences, we must remain one people.

PS-Please check out my new book Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, published last month by Potomac Books, where I discuss Barack Obama's ideas on racial, ethnic, and national identity in detail, and contrast his inclusive vision to language coming from Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh and (some) others on the right. You can read a review by DailyKos's own Greg Dworkin here.

Right Wing Jews Are Endangering Israel By Trying To Make It A Partisan Wedge

I have contended in the past that right wing Jews who claim to be motivated by love of Israel to support Republicans are actually trying to do the inverse.  They are motivated by love of Republicans and are to use Israel as a wedge to benefit Republicans.  It is like the tail wagging the dog.  I think this has been completely laid bare in the most recent election.

For people of all political stripes who care about Israel, this presents a huge potential problem.  Like any wedge issue, this one may have its intended effect and divide the electorate.  Given that we have had and currently have an electorate that has been largely supportive of Israel and Americas ties to Israel, this is a very bad thing for people who support Israel.

Support for Israel in American political discourse has long been bi-partisan, and it still largely is.  It is one of the rare issues that is so in our hyper-polarized age, and that has been an amazing gift for American supporters of Israel, allowing us to maintain America's crucial support for Israel through different administrations and Congressional changes.  However, if right wing Jews succeed in making it a wedge, then support for Israel will no longer be bi-partisan.  Support for Israel will be identified with one political party, and then by definition be shut out of power half the time.

-------------------

I read such intense vitriol directed at liberal Jews from right wing Jews.  They think that liberal Jews are all communist agitators who want to bomb Israel off the face of the Earth.  This post from PJ media is a typical example.  It makes me wonder if those kinds of authors and the commenters have ever actually met any liberal American Jews or have ever been to the places where they live. Or if they have ever been to Israel and seen the tremendous political diversity among Zionist Jews there.

It is clear that right wing Jews are trying to drive the message that if you support Israel, you have to be on the right wing.  They've even demonized Alan Dershowitz, who is one of the most important pro-Israel voices in America, because he is a Democrat.  And the amount of vitriol that they've directed at President Obama is astounding, brazenly calling him an antisemite.  Whether one loves or hates his policies, it is clear that the President is not an antisemite, given that people closest to him in his inner circle have included, for example, Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emmanuel (served in the Israeli Army) and Jack Lew (Orthodox Jew).

-------------------

Liberal American Jews won't, en masse, turn on Israel if a wedge is driven by these right wing Jews, but liberal non-Jews will.  There is creeping anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism on the left, as evidenced by the antics at places such as Daily Kos and Huffington Post that have been documented here and elsewhere.  If support for Israel becomes identified in the public discourse as a "right wing" or "Republican" thing, then it will push much of the left to be against that, and into the opposite camp.  That's how polarized American politics works, because most Americans, left and right, buy their politics wholesale and don't follow individual issues carefully.

By trying to force a wedge to boost Republicans, right wing Jews are endangering Israel.

It would be slightly less ridiculous if right wing Jews were at least succeeding in boosting Republicans with these shenanigans, but even that doesn't seem to be the case.  In spite of the last several years of constant shrill vitriol against the President, Democrats, and liberal and centrist Jews, and the hundreds of millions of dollars thrown in by the likes of Sheldon Adelson, the President was reelected this week, Democrats had a substantial nationwide victory, and studies indicate that the Jewish vote hardly moved from being solidly Democratic. 

Support for Israel has been amazingly bi-partisan and enduring in American politics in recent decades, and that has been one of the greatest benefits to Israel as it faces constant challenges from its hostile neighbors.  But now, right wing Jews, by dishonestly presenting support for Israel as exclusively a right wing trait and demonizing famous liberal supporters of Israel, are trying to force American discourse on Israel away from a somewhat broad bi-partisan consensus and toward partisan polarization.  They may very well succeed, and this will profoundly harm Israel.

If right wing Jews really care about Israel, they should cease trying to use it as a wedge, and accept that support for Israel should be bi-partisan to the largest extent possible.  If instead, what they really care about is advancing Repubicans and Israel is simply a means to that end, then it is obvious that they will continue to do as they are doing, and Israel will suffer for it.

PZ PREDICTIONS FOR ELECTION 2012

Ok... Six Months ago I diaried this here and I am going to stick with predictions here on Election Eve.

Here goes...

Popular Vote:

Candidates going either way 49.5% vs. 49%

What do I base this on.... I realize that President Obama has the RV lead AND I realize that the LV voter numbers are skewed Republican in this particular race. That said, I believe that voting shenanigans (and I include vote fixing on machines) in Ohio, and Florida will simply change dynamics there. I think they will change dynamics enough to throw those states (yep, I am painting Ohio Red) to Mittens. It will simply be stealing votes and noting more. If people in Ohio had a fair shake I think the state would reflect the polls but they don't and their Republican Secretary of State will make sure that people don't have that.

As for Florida, Governor Rick Scott treats voting in the same way as Kim Il Jong did. As we have seen, they are running things like it was a "third world nation". Personally, I just don't see this one breaking our way with him in that seat and his administration running the show down there.

THEN finally, I think Hurricane Sandy will depress voter turnout in NY and NJ. I think the President STILL wins handily there but, I just think the after effects of the Hurricane will drop Democratic voter numbers.
If there were no Republican shenanigans in Florida or Ohio I would gladly predict the vote totals to go hard for the President but I just don't see it at this point. I think it will be within .5% either way.

Electoral Vote:

I think it ends up 272-266 in favor of President Obama... .

How do I get there. I believe the President carries all of his base states PLUS Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I give Virginia to the Repubs, along with N.C., Florida, and the too be stolen Ohio.

I believe that while the Republicans have turned out strong in early voting in Colorado, I think people underestimate the Latino vote and what that can do there. Given the President's superior ground game, I believe that this will be enough to tip the scales to him.

I fully understand that the Ohio scenario seems wacky but given the events of 2000 (in Florida) and 2004 (in Ohio), I think we have a Republican party that will stoop to any low to steal an election and frankly that no one will do anything about it. HOWEVER, I don't think that they will be able to steal this one because the President is too strong in all of those other states.

As for the Senate:

I go with my one of my favorite politicians Elizabeth Warren to win her race. I think that Claire McCaskill wins her race in a nail biter against Todd "legitimate rape" Akin, BUT I think that Joe Donnelly loses to Richard "Rape is just G-d's plan" Mourdock because people are just that stupid (if you doubt me just look at the fact that there are Rep.'s Bachman, West, Walsh just to name a few).

All in all I think the Dems. hold the Senate at 50-48 (with the independents caucusing with the Dems.)
Now hopefully I am wrong and this is a big win for President Obama. BUT in all of my years (all 50 of them) I have seen things I list that make me a bit less optimistic for this election season. STILL, I think the President will win the election and I would be surprised if he didn't. I do though, think it will be a nail biter.
There are my predictions... What are yours?

Mitt says: "Vote for me... Or Else"

According to TPM Mitt Romney has decided to go all out and tell the American people: "Vote for Me or else...."

Yep, he is telling us that if we don't elect him, his party will trash the U.S. Economy.

Romney said that Obama “promised to be a post-partisan president, but he became the most partisan” and that his bitter relations with the House GOP could threaten the economy. As his chief example, he pointed to a crisis created entirely by his own party’s choice — Republican lawmakers’ ongoing threat to reject a debt ceiling increase. Economists warn that a failure to pass such a measure would have immediate and catastrophic consequences for the recovery. 

“You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress,” Romney said. “He has ignored them, attacked them, blamed them. The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy.”

So basically, he is saying unless we vote for him... Republicans will shut down the U.S. government. Rather than saying that Republicans should compromise and work towards solving America's problems first, he admits that the only thing Republicans care about is maintaining power.

And of course... here is the ultimate projection (hypocrisy)...

“I won’t spend my effort trying to pass partisan legislation that’s unrelated to economic growth,” Romney said. “From day one, I will go to work to help Americans get back to work.”

Saying this as he is supported by a party that is saying "Pass our Partisan concerns or we will shut down the country's economy"... Just one more reason why we have to GOTV like mad for the President and for Congress, and make sure that these hacks cannot continue to hold America hostage.

Mitt Romney's Latest Endorsement

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ltCIEbLMaQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ltCIEbLMaQg

C. Montgomery Burns endorsing Mitt....

OF course the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd and their masters over at the RJC will be saying "But, but, but.... Mitt's a better friend of Israel (despite the fact that he would do absolutely NOTHING different than President Obama would do with regards to Jerusalem and Egypt, and would indeed simply do nothing at all with regards to working on a Peace deal, and despite the fact that these critics actually live in the U.S. and despite their wildest fantasies neither live in Israel nor have the guts to make Aliyah - if they even know what that is).

But remember these folks also think that regardless of the 47% comment, the support for a candidate who throws his weight behind a Senator who thinks Women's bodies can shut down pregnancy after a "legitimate rape", the fact that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to eviscerate Medicare, the fact that Mitt Romney wants to do away with (and privatize) FEMA, and host of other nonsensical positions that somehow, on some plane of reality, in some distant galaxy a man who supports the baptism of Holocaust victims to the Mormon Church is a friend to both Jews and the American people.

This is the perfect endorsement for Mitt... Now he just need the racist vote (which he has to fight Ron Paul for) and he has the perfect triumvirate: The Greedy, The Stupid, and the The Racists.  Perfect.

"Etch-A-Sketch" EXPOSED Point-By-Point: New York Times Details Romney's "Modulation"

POSTED FROM IAN REIFOWITZ OVER AT DAILY KOS

What's so great about this front page New York Times article is that it is a straight news piece, not something on the opinion page. Nevertheless, the article offers a simply devastating, piece-by-piece analysis of the incredible shape-shifting candidacy of Mitt Romney. It's a blow-by-blow account of Romney's attempt to Etch-A-Sketch away his "severely conservative" positions and rhetoric of the past 12 months and more and replace them with the new-found, bipartisan, "moderate" Mitt of the past four weeks. For a reminder, here's an Obama video including the "severely conservative" remark, and other choice statements by the Governor.

The article describes how Romney shifted his rhetoric on a whole host of topics. He's gone from emphasizing the need for two parent, heterosexual families to praising single moms. Romney has stopped talking about how Barack Obama is essentially a European socialist who doesn't get America, and now gushes about how "Democrats love America too," and about how well he'd get along with them.

But the article's author, Michael Barbaro, doesn't let Romney off the hook. He doesn't criticize Romney for his "modulation," he merely offers his analysis of the situation. Barbaro notes that a good chunk (one-third) of recently polled voters in a New York Times/CBS survey believed that Romney is more moderate now than before he was nominated. Barbaro notes that, although this may have been a necessary move, it is "one that holds peril for Mr. Romney."

Barbaro continues:

The tone and substance of his closing argument risks raising the questions about consistency and authenticity that have dogged him, tracking with his muddied stance on issues like amnesty for young illegal immigrants, Pell grants for college students and limits on abortions.

Barbaro reminds us of Romney's characterization of himself as a "severely conservative" governor, and broadens out the contrast between then and now.

Rewind to the primaries: Mr. Romney sounded much less centrist. He said then that Tea Party members, known for their uncompromising rigidity, would find him “the ideal candidate.” He also questioned his rival Rick Santorum’s conservative credentials, citing a vote to fund Planned Parenthood.

This article is no partisan, slashing attack. What it represents, however, is the mainstream media -- symbolized by the front page of the New York Times -- accepting the reality and the narrative of Mitt Romney as an unprincipled politician who will literally say anything, even if it directly contradicts his own positions. His willingness to lie is, of course, another issue. On that as well, however, the NYT had a front page article on Wednesday that made it clear to readers (without using the word) that Romney was, well, lying in his statements and his ad about Chrysler/Jeep and jobs being moved to China. 

The Etch-A-Sketch won't work. The media, finally, is starting to do it's job. Now it's our turn to do our job, and get out there to help re-elect Barack Obama.

PS-Please check out my new book Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity, published last month by Potomac Books, where I discuss these issues in greater detail. You can read a review by DailyKos's own Greg Dworkin here.

Need a laugh? Check this out

Looking for a good laugh... Here you go: The Tea Party gets a news site

Yep... as if they didn't already have FOX News, Drudge, Breitbart, CNN (lately) and many other outlets, now they have their own News Site.

Of course their site is merely a repeat of Drudge and RNC Talking points. But look what is at the top of their page.... The group that wants to bring "morality" back into politics.... features everyone's favorite adulterer Dinesh D'Souza and touts his hacktastic movie "2016"

Amongst their features... there are gems like this: The Polling Spread in Ohio: Is it real?

Over the last few months, there has been a raging debate over the demographics that most of the pollsters are using both nationally and in state polls. As the race has narrowed down the stretch, this has become particularly relevant in Ohio, which is likely to be the decisive state if the election turns out to be a nailbiter. 

Out of the last 19 polls of that state, the breakdown has been 14 (Obama) vs. 4 (Ties) vs. 1 (Romney).

The good news is that the one Romney victory was the latest poll, by Rasmussen, which had Mitt up 50-48.

Can you say mo-men-tum, boys and girls?

Okie Dokie then... forget the dynamics of this race, every poll out there and the fact that... there is this:

Ohio, as usual, is harder to measure, since the state doesn’t have traditional party registration. Polling last week showed Obama winning the early vote by between 26 and 30 points. A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows his advantage at 26 points and an automated SurveyUSA poll shows that margin is down to 16. A late Friday poll from CNN showed Obama winning by 21 among people who already voted or planned to vote early. The polling suggests that Obama is clearly building an early vote advantage in Ohio, even as we don’t have the party registration numbers to back it up.

And...

Let’s Get Real, General Powell….It IS about Race where the author opins:

No Republican, not even the biggest RINO Republican, could ever endorse someone like Obama based upon his policies, his moral (or in my opinion, immoral) compass, and his blatant disregard and disrespect for the Constitution and our system of government.... 

....To accuse Sununu or anyone else of racism for saying that Gen. Powell’s support of Obama is steeped in racial allegiance is outlandish, especially given how we have seen the black community react when “one of their own” dares to express support for Romney over Obama.

Yeah, because accusing someone of voting along racial lines because he supports the President is NEVER racist... Nope... Not at all...

And finally the ultimate Republican whine: "How come we get nailed with all the "gotcha" questions... why doesn't the media do that to Democrats"

Here are some suggestions for the future for Republicans.  First, we need to start demanding that we have conservative moderators.   If we cannot get a conservative moderator, then we should either boycott the debates or demand instead that there be a Lincoln-Douglas style debate with no moderator. 

Second, Republicans need to take debating lessons from Newt Gingrich.  Gingrich is the master at taking a gotcha question and using it to beat up on the media or his opponent, whichever is more convenient.

Finally, we Republicans should stop trying to speak for God.  I don’t speak for God.  It is too far above my pay grade.  We have priests, bishops and other clergy to do that.

As for Richard Mourdock, he is one of the best candidates the Republicans have advanced this year.  The fact that worthless RINO’s Richard Lugar (who he beat like a rented Democrat) and John McCain would turn their back on Richard is just more of an endorsement.

But there is much more than just these gems...

Personally, I think that the Teahadist News Site will be about as factual as those tabloids that you see at the supermarket (like the Globe, or the Weekly News) but, you never know... it is possible they can top those places. I guess those in the ODS crowd will have yet another place to post their lies and racist drivel.