The Wandering Donkey

The Party of Hypocrisy

I haven't posted much lately and I won't promise that the posts will become more regular. I have to see if I can help this video go viral though:

Good jobs Dems. Don't let the country forget the spending spree our "fiscally conservative" friends went on for the last eight years. And don't let them try to blame it all on their "War on Terror" either.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Keep your eye on Huntsman

A week or so ago, Utah's Republican Governor Jon Huntsman surprised and shocked people by announcing his support of civil unions. No reason he had to. Just did. In a state that opposes that idea 70-30%.

Now, at the time the speculation was that he was positioning himself nationally. He has no intention of running for a third term as Governor of Utah. He is considered a contender for the Republican nomination. But open support of civil unions? Wow.

Now, he has come out, in an interview in the Washington Times, and called the Republican congressional leadership "inconsequential."

"I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."

Now if that isn't a shot across the bow I don't know what is. Just dismissing Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner out of hand? Whoa! Wonder how he feels about Michael Steele? The Washington Times also posted video of the interview:

Now that is one scary guy. I don't mean George W. Bush, Vice President Dark Lord or Sarah Palin scary. I mean, if he were to be nominated, he might actually attract votes kind of scary. Imagine, a Republican that wants to have a results oriented message for the voters. A Republican who wants to identify and fulfill the needs of the voters. It's terrifying!

Fortunately for us, I don't think it's going to happen. In 2012, at least. The way things are playing out thus far, it still appears that the Republican Party hasn't fallen far enough to understand that it's the right wing nutjobbies that are the problem with their brand, not the solution. Thus, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal grandstanding about how he will reject about 2% of the stimulus package coming his state's way. Exactly the sort of empty rhetoric Huntsman talks about in his interview. But it's what the "right" wants at the moment.

Huntsman will position himself as the leader of the party if he plays his cards right but not until after 2012. I fully expect the GOP to fall flat on it's collective face in it's rush to the right in both 2010 and 2012. They'll blame 2010 on Obama's popularity and how lucky he was that the recession is starting to lift. It will take a Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin running on a hard right platform and losing badly in 2012 for them to finally start dismissing the idea that they aren't "right" enough.

In other words, I expect 2012 to be kind of like Ford/Reagan in 1976 but in reverse. Oops! We went too far to the right!

If they're smart, they'll learn the lesson sooner and maybe Huntsman will have a real shot in 2012. He resembles, in some ways, the John McCain I might have voted for in 2000 without the 'maverick'. (Although the civil union thing belies that.) That is worrisome to those who want a Dem in the Oval Office. I don't think the Republicans will be smart enough to do it in 2012 but 2016? He's obviously drawing a line in the sand with Jindal. (And not the wishy washy Mitt Romney kind either.)

While I would generally much prefer a Democrat to a Republican in the White House, I could live with what I've seen so far of this Republican. Therein lies the danger. I have seen plenty of political blowups and flameouts in presidential races in just the last 3 years. So who knows what may be 3 or so years down the road? But if this guy is still hanging around at that point, I think it would be best if President Obama kept his eyes open to this Governor if he wants to get a second term.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

The legend of Chippy the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse

If there is one thing that Americans are good at, particularly of late, Republican Americans, it is manufacturing stories out of whole cloth. Our latest, great example is Chippy (there is no Chippy, I just felt like adding a name to go along with all of this) the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. You see, Chippy and his kind are endangered and might need some help to survive. Chippy and his friends also appear to be harmless and somewhat cute, even to one who isn't a particular rodent fan.

Enter the Grand Old Party. You see, unlike Disney, and some of the rest of us, the GOP doesn't think it matters a rats a$$ that Chippy and friends are cute, much less help the ecosystem they inhabit and thus be an important priority to help. Of course, it wouldn't help create jobs if they did happen to have $30 million allocated to help save them. That money would obviously simply be handed to them so they could waste it on alcohol, crack cocaine and tiny little whorehouses. So it is a crime to them that that very thing is written right into the stimulus bill! To help Chippy and his friends, who also happen to live in Nancy Pelosi's district, drink, get high and get laid!

Mike Huckabee decried the foul rodents on FOX News! Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA) decried them! The Washington Times wrote an article about them! Wow, what a break finding out about this! This could have screwed up everything! It represents less than 1/200^th of 1% of the stimulus package! How did we manage to find out about this!

Well, according to Greg Sargent at The Plum Line:

Yesterday a House Republican leadership staffer circulated a background email, which I obtained, charging that GOP staffers had been told by an unnamed Federal agency that if it got money from the stim package, it would spend “thirty million dollars for wetland restoration in the San Francisco Bay Area — including work to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.”

The GOP staffer’s email didn’t say what agency it was. It didn’t say the money was actually in the package — just that an unnamed agency had said they would spend it on that if they got it.

But don't we need to verify this with someone who actually might know what is in the bill? I mean, this has been locked up tighter than a standard version Dick Cheney bunker. What does Pelosi's office have to say?

Well the Washington Times article has one line:

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi said Republicans "fabricated" the claim.

But, because their core constituency wouldn't think it matters a a rats a$$ that Chippy and his friends are cute, much less help the ecosystem they inhabit and thus be a priority to help, the Washington Times spends the rest of the article casting doubt upon that one sentence of fact (which, please note, only includes one quoted word) that comes from a source that might actually be credible.

What else does Greg have?

But I just contacted the House GOP staffer who wrote the initial email laying out this talking point, and he conceded that the claim by conservative media that the mouse money is currently in the bill is a misstatement. “There is not specific language in the legislation for this project,” he said.

The staffer held to the claim that the mouse money would ultimately be spent, however, arguing that the bill’s passage would ensure that money would ultimately go to the unnamed agency. “If the bill passes, the project will be funded according to what the relevant agency told our staff,” he said. “The bottom line is, if this bill becomes law, taxpayers will spend 30 million on the mouse.”

What! Talk to the source of the entire controversy! What Voodoo Witch Doctor Magic is this!? OH!!! Journalism. Oops. We forgot for a second!

It is quite unsuprising that the "source" proceeds to defend the extrapolation that he/she initially made. Standard Bush-Cheynian "We think it will happen, therefore it must be so" GOP thinking.

Not to sound like a late night infomercial: But WAIT, Greg has more!

But Pelosi’s staff disputes even this point, arguing that the only projects being referred to here are federal wetland restoration projects — and that this wasn’t even Pelosi’s project to begin with, despite claims about “Pelosi’s mouse.”

“There are no federal wetland restoration projects in line to get funded in San Francisco,” Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill said. “Neither the Speaker nor her staff have had any involvement in this initiative. The idea that $30 million will be spent to save mice is a total fabrication.”

Hey! More Voodoo Witch Doctor Magic! Why isn't he "chopping" up that long quote from the spokesman! OH! Yeah! My bad again! Actual journalism!

Now, I know that I am biased but I think that Nancy Pelosi, knowing that this has already been all over the news, isn't going to call this a "total fabrication" unless it's a total fabrication! She is many things but she is not that stupid. John Boehner, maybe, but not Pelosi.

So it is that Chippy is a non-starter as a story. At least for most of us. Somehow, even when the text comes out on the bill, disproving Republican claims, I am sure that Chippy and his friends will live on in right-wing neocon talking point sheets. So, do us all a favor, spread the word. Chippy and his friends are not going to get drunk, stoned and laid from this stimulus package. They should be so lucky. They will be lucky to survive extinction.

Have news organizations such as The Washington Times cut back so much that they can't make a couple phone calls? Somehow I think they know the original source. You can only wonder why. Laziness or something more?

Regardless, because of all of this, someday, an old grumpy House Minority Leader who has spent most of his life trying to become Speaker whilst it always remained out of reach will give an interview. And Eric Cantor will recall the utter horror of discovering funding for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in the legendary Stimulus Package of 2009. ;)

Update:

They are still at it. As Greg and TPM are reporting they've decided to stick by the story that the money will find it's way to Chippy and company somehow. What's really sad about that is that this is the best they can come up with? Thirty million for Chippy? Less than 1/200th of 1% of the entire bill? Here's Rep. Tom Price on the House Floor:

This is no longer "almost" comical. Although I guess it plays well with the conservative base back home.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

It's cheaper than having your own experts

You may have heard RNC Chairman Michael Steele spouting off about how:

the Republican plan would create 6.2 million jobs, twice the number created under the Democrats' plan, at half the cost.

Well, as Elana Schor and Eric Kleefeld have reported, though those numbers come from a credible source, using them as they are being used is questionable at best.

The numbers come from a study done by now Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer and her husband, David Romer in March 2007. The study concludes that the net effect of a tax increase of 1% of the GDP would be a loss of 2.2% - 3.0% in the GDP. Catch that? Tax Increase. Although the studies discusses 'tax changes', nowhere does it put forward the idea that a tax cut equal to 1% of the GDP would necessarily result in a 2.2% - 3.0% increase in the GDP. That's just the Republican's on the Ways and Means committee deciding that they can just flip it and it will necessarily follow.

That 6.2 million jobs number is directly derived from the great assumption that you can just flip the math around and get that number. The Ways and Means Republicans take the 2.2% - 3.0% growth number and then apply the math that Romer is now using to that assumption and come up with 6.2 million jobs. Look at it here (page 5 will show you how they got their numbers).

As Kleefeld quite rightly points out:

There are two problems here. First, that paper didn't actually examine tax cuts, but instead looked at the negative effects of tax increases under normal circumstances. The Republicans' predictions about tax cuts come from flipping the numbers around and assuming the mirror-image effects.

And furthermore, they've totally ignored the fact that we are in an abnormal scenario right now, with different fundamental underlying assumptions.

I am not sure if it worries me more that Steele, Boehner and Co. are using these numbers just to win the political fight or whether they might actually believe them. Given their apparent lack of intellectual curiosity, it might be the latter that is happening. That is scary.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.