The "Drugster" Is At It Again

Yesterday on his radio show, Rush (the drugster) Limbaugh described a new Oreo that will have both chocolate and vanilla cream as a "biracial" cookie and said that "it isn't going to be long before it's going to be called the Or-Bam-eo or something like this." Limbaugh later called it the "Or-Bam-eo" himself.

The Chicago Tribune article that Limbaugh was referencing mentions nothing about race, of course, and it certainly doesn't describe it as a "biracial" cookie.

Limbaugh is clearly aware of the use of the word "Oreo" as a racial slur.

In 2005, Limbaugh repeated the dubious allegation that former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele had Oreos thrown at him in 2002 while he was running to be lieutenant governor of Maryland.

Limbaugh was discussing NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb's statement that some criticism of his play was related to race. Limbaugh listed Steele among the "names of people that the NAACP has tried to destroy." From a transcript on Limbaugh's website of his December 15, 2005, show (subscription required):

LIMBAUGH: But Donny, let me tell you something. You know, you think you're a crusader here, pal, and on the football field you may be. But when it comes to forging progress for blacks, let me give you some names of people that the NAACP has tried to destroy:

Does the name Clarence Thomas ring a bell? Have you heard of Clarence Thomas, Mr. McNabb? Have you heard of Condoleezza Rice? Have you seen some of the cartoons that the mainstream press has written about Condoleezza Rice, talking about how she got where she got because she's performed sex acts on George W. Bush, portraying her as nothing more than an Aunt Jemima and accentuated her African-American features to make her look like a step-and-fetch-it idiot? Have you seen any of this, Mr. McNabb? Does the name Michael Steele ring a bell? Michael Steele is a lieutenant governor of Maryland, not far from Pennsylvania. In fact, it borders Pennsylvania. It's not far from Philadelphia. I don't know if you know about this, but he wants to run for the Senate, and the NAACP and the white liberal plantation owners of this country are out trying to destroy Michael Steele. They're throwing Oreo cookies at the guy when he goes out and makes a speech, and they're claiming he's "black on the outside, white on the inside." Does the name Thomas Sowell ring a bell? He's one of the most brilliant economists and writers in this country who is regularly impugned along with any other successful black conservative in this country by no less than the Reverend Jackson and others from the NAACP.

Once a racist always a racist, and truly the “drugster” is a racist!


NFTOS

TREASON I SAY

Speaking recently in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said that “printing more money” is “almost treasonous”:

If this guy (Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke) prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion.

Accusing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of treason is not only inappropriate, but also betrays a certain ignorance of history on the part of Governor Perry. Under Reagan, after all, the Fed was happy to increase the monetary base.

Governor Perry has drawn fire for his statement from conservatives, including none other than Karl Rove, who said that Perry’s remark was “not Presidential.” “You don’t accuse the chairman of the federal reserve of being a traitor to his country,” Rove told Fox News. Other former Bush aides have made similar criticisms.

But the Bush camp didn’t seem to mind such language back in 2000, when Perry — then Bush’s Lieutenant Governor — said that supporters of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) were “almost treasonous“:

Lt. Gov. Rick Perry, casting his Republican primary ballot early Monday, plugged George W. Bush’s presidential candidacy and urged Texans to join him in voting for the Texas governor.

“Wherever your political philosophy might be, if you’re not for George Bush being the next president of the United States, I consider that to be almost treasonous if you’re a Texan,” Perry said.

It’s instructive to consider how Perry responded in 2000 versus today. Back then, Perry’s aides moderated his language. His spokesman informed the Associated Press that the Lieutenant Governor was simply being “humorous.” No such excuse was offered today. Greg Sargent reports that, given another bite at the apple, the Perry camp “is not disavowing the implied threat in his original remarks.”  
 
Treasonous, Unconstitutional, Founding Father's, OH MY! The monotonous, reoccurring theme of the radical right.



NFTOS

"Gay Families Are Not Families"

Says Michele Bachmann

On Sunday’s Meet The Press, host David Gregory challenged Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann on some of her anti-gay views. After grilling her about whether sexual orientation would be a factor she’d consider in making presidential appointments, he asked whether a same-sex couple raising children constitutes a “family.” She doesn’t:

GREGORY: Can a gay couple who adopt children, in your mind, be considered a “family”?

BACHMANN: When it comes to marriage, and family, my opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think that’s been my view —

GREGORY: So a gay couple with kids would not be considered a “family” to you?

BACHMANN: You know, all of these kind of questions really aren’t about what people are concerned about right now.

 
Bachmann then tried to downplay the importance of the question, even though, as Gregory pointed out, Bachmann has said that same-sex marriage is a “defining political issue of our time.” Bachmann simply responded, “I think my views are clear.”



The 2010 Census shows that there are at least 13,718 same-sex couples living in Bachmann’s home state of Minnesota, and 2,372 of those couples report raising children. If those are not “families,” it’s unclear what Bachmann thinks they might be.

NFTOS

The Real Rick Perry

Top 10 Things Texas Gov. Rick Perry Doesn’t Want You To Know About Him.

With widespread discontent on the right over their current presidential field, all eyes are trained on a likely new entrant: Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

Perry, who has been elected governor three times and served for more than 10 years, enjoys bona fides from social conservatives and Tea Party-types alike. Glenn Beck even described Perry as a man he was so enamored with that he wanted to “French kiss.”

However, as conservatives fawn over their newest presidential hopeful, it’s worth taking a closer examination at his record as governor. On issues across the board, from Perry’s support for dropping out of Social Security and Medicaid to his state’s abysmal pollution levels and his proposal that Texas secede from the United States, the Republican governor has amassed a record of far-right extremism.

Assembled are the top ten hits from Perry’s tenure as governor:

(1) PERRY ALLOWED THE EXECUTION OF A LIKELY INNOCENT MAN, THEN IMPEDED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTER: In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Huntsville, Texas after being convicted of arson and the murder of his three children. Even after significant evidence emerged showing that arson had not caused the fire (thus exonerating Willingham), Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. Five years after Willingham was executed, a report from a Texas Forensic Science Commission investigator found that the fire could not have been arson. As the commission prepared to hear testimony from the investigator in October 2009, Perry quickly fired and replaced three of its members, forcing an indefinite delay in the hearing.

(2) PERRY WANTS TO REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS, ENDING DIRECT ELECTION OF U.S. SENATORS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX: In his 2010 book Fed Up!, Perry called the 16th and 17th Amendments “mistaken” and said they resulted from “a fit of populist rage.” The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income taxes, which is the single biggest source of revenue, accounting for 45 percent of all receipts. The 17th Amendment took electing U.S. senators out of the hands of political insiders and allowed the American public to decide their representation instead. If Perry had his way, the federal government would be stripped of its current ability to fund highway construction projects, food inspectors, and the military, and the American public would not even be permitted to elect their own senators.

(3) PERRY PROPOSED LETTING STATES DROP OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICAID: Despite the programs’ importance and popularity, Perry has argued that states like Texas should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and Medicaid. Were Perry to have his way on Social Security, “the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system,” notes Ian Millhiser. On Medicaid, in addition to stripping 3.6 million low-income Texans of their health care, Perry’s proposal would actually hurt, not help, the state’s budget deficit. This is because, as Igor Volsky writes, opting out of Medicaid would take “billions out of the state economy that goes on to support hospitals and other providers,” while forcing hospitals “to swallow the costs of caring for uninsured individuals who will continue to use the emergency room as their primary source of care.”

(4) TEXAS IS THE COUNTRY’S BIGGEST POLLUTER, BUT PERRY SUED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR DISAPPROVING OF THE STATE’S AIR QUALITY STANDARDS: Texas is the biggest polluter in the country, leading the nation in carbon dioxide emissions. However, when the EPA published its “disapproval” of the state’s air quality standards for falling short of the Clean Air Act’s requirements, Perry sued the federal government to challenge the ruling. Perry’s environmental record doesn’t end there. He is a global warming denier who called the 2010 BP oil spill an “act of God” while speaking at a trade association funded by BP.

(5) PERRY DESIGNATED AS “EMERGENCY LEGISLATION” A BILL REQUIRING ALL WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS TO HAVE SONOGRAMS FIRST: In January, Perry proposed requiring all women seeking abortions to have a sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. Under the bill, doctors would be required to “tell a woman the size of her fetus’ limbs and organs, even if she does not want to know.” Before a woman is permitted to have an abortion, physicians are also forced to provide an image of the fetus and make the woman listen to the sound of its heartbeat. Perry designated his proposal as “emergency legislation,” allowing the bill to be rushed through the legislature. He signed it into law last month.

(6) PERRY GUTTED CHILDCARE SERVICES EVEN AS TEXAS CHILDHOOD POVERTY HIT 25 PERCENT: Facing a $27 billion budget deficit this year, Perry decided to gut child support services, despite a report from the Center for Public Policy Priorities that found nearly one in four Texas children lived beneath the poverty line. Instead of raising revenue like California, a state facing a similarly sized deficit, Perry scaled back more than $10 billion of child support over two years. As Think Progress’ Pat Garofalo noted, these cuts were proposed despite Texas’ possession of a $8.2 billion rainy day fund.

(7) PERRY WAS A STRONG SUPPORTER OF TEXAS’S ANTI-SODOMY LAWS: Perry was a strong proponent of Texas’s anti-sodomy law that was struck down in 2003 by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. Calling the law “appropriate,” Perry dismissed the Court decision as the result of “nine oligarchs in robes.” Even after being struck down, Perry supported the Texas legislature’s refusal to remove the law from its books.

(8) PERRY IS A STIMULUS HYPOCRITE WHO LOUDLY CRITICIZED FEDERAL RECOVERY MONEY BUT USED IT TO BALANCE HIS STATE’S BUDGET: As the nation struggled to avoid economic collapse in 2009, Perry was a vocal critic of Congress’s recovery package, even advocating that Texas reject the money because “we can take care of ourselves.” Months later, after Perry was able to balance the state’s budget only with the aid of billions in federal stimulus dollars, Perry again repeated that he would reject federal funding, arguing that the government “spends money they don’t have.” Five months later, Perry again took advantage of federal funding to issue $2 billion in bonds for highway improvements in Texas. Even so, the state faces a $27 billion budget deficit.

(9) PERRY SAID THAT TEXAS MIGHT HAVE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES: One hundred and fifty years ago, Texas and other southern states seceded from the Union, resulting in a bloody Civil War. 148 years later, Perry floated the idea that Texas may again have to secede because of a federal government that “continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” Perry was roundly criticized for his proposal, yet he repeated his threat the next month on Fox News, telling host Neil Cavuto, “If Washington continues to force these programs on the states, if Washington continues to disregard the tenth amendment, who knows what happens.”

(10) DESPITE HAVING THE WORST UNINSURED RATE IN THE COUNTRY, PERRY CLAIMS THAT TEXAS HAS “THE BEST HEALTH CARE IN THE COUNTRY” : On Bill Bennett’s radio show last year, Perry claimed that “Texas has the best health care in the country.” In reality, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents of any state. More than one in four Texans lack coverage; the national average is just 15.4 percent. As such, there are more uninsured residents in Texas than there are people in 33 states. Despite Texas’s low coverage rates, the state has some of the most restrictive Medicaid eligibility thresholds, and Perry has even proposed dropping out of the program. Texas also has an inordinately high percentage of impoverished children, yet Perry opposed expanding the successful State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

If we have learned one thing from Glenn Beck, its that republicans and prophets are a frightening political concoction!

NFTOS

Is That Really What The Constitution Says?

Rick Perry Says Social Security And Medicare Are Unconstitutional.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has, to say the least, a very odd understanding of the Constitution. He thinks Texas should be able to opt out of Social Security, and he believes that everything from federal public school programs to clean air laws are unconstitutional. Yet in an interview with the Daily Beast’s Andrew Romano, Perry makes his most outlandish claim to date — Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional:

The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you?

[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by “general welfare”?

[PERRY:] I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.

But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution.
[Silence.]

Perry’s reading of the Constitution raises very serious questions about whether he understands the English language. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness.

Moreover, Perry’s belief that Social Security and Medicare must cease to exist not only puts him well to the right of his fellow Republicans in Congress — who recently voted to gradually phase out Medicare — it also puts him at the rightward fringe of the GOP presidential field. Not even Michele Bachmann has gone on record claiming that America’s two most cherished programs for seniors violate the Constitution, although she did invite a Fox News analyst who shares Perry’s beliefs to lecture her fellow lawmakers on what the Constitution requires.

When House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) released the GOP’s plan to slowly eliminate Medicare, it was the most conservative budget proposal anyone had seriously considered in generations. Perry’s agenda, however, makes Paul Ryan look like Ted Kennedy.


NFTOS

What Classifies as a “Super Committee”?

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced today their picks for the fiscal super committee created by the debt ceiling deal, naming Sens. Jon Kyl (AZ), Pat Toomey (PA), Rob Portman (OH), and Reps. Jeb Hensarling (TX), Dave Camp (MI), and Fred Upton (MI) to the body. The committee is tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November, and one of the key issues will be whether revenue increases are included. Basic economics and the American people call for increasing revenues, with a new CNN poll showing 63 percent of Americans want the committee to raise taxes on the wealthy, but several of the GOP picks are hard-right conservatives who likely oppose such a “balanced approach.” Other critical issue will be entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, and whether the committee makes cuts to military spending.

Here’s what you need to know about each of the GOP super committee members:

REP. JEB HENSARLING (TX): Super committee co-chairman Hensarling only has a tenuous grasp on economic facts, repeatedly making false claims about the deficit and debt and “falsely characteriz[ing] the debt limit fight as a consequence of spending policies enacted by President Obama and past Democratic congresses.” He has called Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid “cruel Ponzi schemes,” and believes that recessions are just “a part of freedom.” Hensarling has said corporate tax dodging is a good reason to cut the corporate tax rate. He also consistently carries water for Wall Street’s biggest banks, saying that bank profits should trump consumer protection.

SEN. JON KYL (AZ): Kyl is the number two Republican in the Senate and takes a hard line on taxes. He walked away from debt ceiling negotiations because Democrats wanted to raised taxes on those who make more than $500,000 a year, but he insisted there should not be a dime of increased revenues. He has also strongly defended tax subsidies for oil companies, and opposed ending an accounting gimmick that deprives the Treasury of up to $72 billion over the next five years in corporate taxes. He is also a staunch defender of military spending and is not afraid to twist arms to get it. For example, he held up the START treaty and extension of the Bush tax cuts late last year to extract more money for nuclear weapons. Like many Republicans, he has voted to privatize Social Security and supported the House Republican budget, which would effectively end Medicare. To his credit, however, he said he did not support tying an increase in the debt ceiling to a Balanced Budget Amendment.

SEN. PAT TOOMEY (PA): Toomey firmly believes in the GOP fantasy that tax cuts don’t actually cost anything, telling Fox News that “it’s not clear” that extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting corporate taxes would decrease revenues. He is firmly in favor of privatizing Social Security because he believes that “personal [Social Security] accounts lead to personal prosperity.” He has said he supports the budget passed by House Republicans (which would effectively eliminate Medicare) and released his own budget proposal that would turn Medicaid into a block grant, severely slash domestic discretionary spending, and likely result in a big tax increase on the middle-class that would fund tax reductions for the rich and corporations. However, Toomey does support cuts to defense spending, saying, “There is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want.”

SEN. ROB PORTMAN (OH): President George W. Bush put Portman in charge of his Office of Management and Budget in order to meet “our goal to cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009.” Under Portman’s watch, the deficit nearly tripled. During the debt ceiling debacle, Portman was one of the GOP senators who actually entertained defaulting as an “opportunity to get our fiscal house in order.” Considering privatization “the greatest force in the universe,” he also suggested privatizing Social Security to bail out bad investors and voted in 2005 to divert Social Security dollars to create private accounts. He did hedge on all-out support of Ryan’s budget plan, but ended up supporting it. Believing that “spending, not tax cuts, causes future deficits,” Portman ran on the idea that “any tax increase would hurt the fragile economy.” As such, he’s continually advocated to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and is pushing to balance the budget in 10 years without a single tax increase. However, Portman did state in the past that he would support defense cuts as “the Pentagon has to be part of the discussion.”

REP. DAVE CAMP (MI): As the lower chamber’s chief tax writer, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Camp is a dogged defender of the wealthy. During the debt ceiling debacle, Camp actually declared that he’d rather have a bigger deficit than see taxes go up on “rich people.” In his struggle to find “a least damaging place” to raise revenue, Camp landed on one “free-riding” group of people that could stand to pay more: the poor. Of course, the preservation or pursuit of tax cuts — like the Bush tax cuts — will further increase the deficit. Camp, however, offers the familiar GOP idea that their expiration creates “uncertainty” and point blankly stated, “I don’t think you have to pay for extensions of current law.” Indeed, the only tax policy Camp seems to be (rightly) wary of is a tax repatriation holiday. Having already declared tax increases “off the table” on Obama’s previous debt commission, Camp is more likely to push a balanced budget amendment and the other disastrous cuts he backed in the House Republican “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan. As for entitlement programs, Camp wavered and then voted in support of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to end Medicare.

REP. FRED UPTON (MI): Though best known for his hard shift rightward toward global warming denial, Upton also backed the radical House Republican budget, the even more radical “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan (which would take spending to a level not seen since the 1960s), and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. However, his position on revenues is a bit wishy-washy. He has said tax increases are “just not going to be part of the equation,” but has not ruled out tax reform that lowers rates but brings in more revenue through the elimination of tax loopholes and credits.

Can we say that the aformention republicans are "The GOP’s Not-So-Super Committee"?

All of the GOP members of the super committee, meanwhile, have signed anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s pledge not raise any taxes under any circumstances and support a Balanced Budget Amendment, which even former Reagan economics adviser Bruce Barlett calls unworkable, “dopey,” and “mind boggling in its insanity.” If the committee cannot agree or Congress does not adopt their recommendations, a “trigger” of deficit reduction measures, including big defense cuts, will automatically go into place — an option many progressives say could be better than anything the committee may put forward.

If you haven’t had your fill of radical republican choke and puke politics wait, a heavy dose is right around the corner. A good friend sent me this great quote regarding the teas and their holy than thou take on patriotism, and it goes like this:

“Dear Tea Party Patriot, Benedict Arnold thought he was being patriotic too.”


NFTOS

A “Must Read”

Michelle Bachmann’s ‘Must-Read’ List Included A Book That Claims Blacks Were ‘Better Off In Nearly Every Way’ Under Slavery.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) has already made one slavery-related gaffe during her presidential campaign, signing a pledge produced by the Iowa FAMiLY LEADER that included language suggesting black children were better off under slavery than they are now. Bachmann offered half-hearted apology at the time, saying she had only signed the “candidate vow,” not the part that included slavery, and compared it to “economic enslavement” brought on by taxes.

But in his profile of Bachmann released yesterday, The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza revealed that Bachmann’s “worldview” on slavery goes much deeper. In 2002, then-state Sen. Bachmann’s campaign posted a “must-read” list of books on her web site. Included in the list were the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and a book titled, “Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee,” authored by J. Steven Wilkins. The Lee biography includes this apologetic passage:

Northerners were often shocked and offended by the familiarity that existed as a matter of course between the whites and blacks of the old South. This was one of the surprising and unintended consequences of slavery. Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded on racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause.

After explaining the “cruelty and barbarism” of “pagan” Africa, he goes on:

The fact was (and is) easily demonstrable that, taken as a whole, there is no question that blacks in this country, slavery notwithstanding, were “immeasurably better off” in nearly every way [than they were in Africa].

In Lee’s view, however, emancipation could only be accomplished successfully if it was gradual. Time was needed for the sanctifying effects of Christianity to work on the black race and fit its people for freedom.

Abolitionism was not the best answer.

The idea that the relationships between white slave owners and black slaves were not founded on racial animosity has no basis in history. Whites viewed themselves as inherently superior to blacks, who were bought and sold as property and, for population counts, were worth only three-fifths of a white person. The idea that sanctifying blacks through Christianity made them “immeasurably better off” than they would have been in Africa, meanwhile, ignores the utter loss of humanity caused by enslavement. It ignores the untold number of blacks who died on slave ships, the sale of blacks at auctions as if they were livestock, the families split up at an owner’s whim, and the loss of all basic human rights, not least of which was their own free will.

Bachmann has a history of using slavery analogies, and she has made multiple mistakes regarding American history already in her campaign. None, however, is nearly as disturbing as her love for a book that attempts to explain away the horrors of slavery by rewriting history to make it seem like it was a minor price to pay for the sanctifying favors whites did blacks by bringing them to America as slaves.



NFTOS

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade the United States’ credit rating Friday night came with clear shots at congressional Republicans who had refused to consider tax increases in the deal to raise the debt ceiling. S&P criticized Congress for allowing new revenues to drop from the “menu of policy options,” criticizing “the majority of Republicans in Congress [who] continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues.” The National Journal proclaimed it “hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans.”

Unlike his party’s presidential candidates and several of his congressional colleagues, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) seems to have heard that blast, as he sent a memo to congressional Republicans today acknowledging S&P’s calls for tax increases. Despite hearing those calls, however, Cantor is urging his colleagues to ignore them:

Not only has Cantor chosen to ignore S&P, he has his facts wrong about the American people. Polling conducted by the New York Times and CBS News found last week that half of Americans did, in fact, support the inclusion of new revenues in the debt deal, and numerous polls have shown wide support for ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, a proposal that would reduce the federal deficit by $830 billion over the next decade. S&P today called the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which would save $4 trillion in the next decade, one of the major steps in restoring the nation’s AAA credit rating.

Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&P’s analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong. In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.

As we have said from the beginning of the year, the new Republican Majority was elected to change the way Washington does business. We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hard working families and business people. People understand Washington can’t keep spending money that it doesn’t have. They want to see less government – not more taxes.

Given that S&P downgraded the U.S. in part because of political instability brought on by the GOP taking the economy hostage, Cantor urging his colleagues to ignore the agency’s warning likely won’t help the government’s attempts to avoid yet another downgrade in the future.


NFTOS

The Proof Is In The Pudding

Reuters reports: “The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor’s on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world’s largest economy.” The new rating is AA+.

In explaining their decision Standard & Poor’s cites both the decision by Republicans in Congress to turn the debt ceiling into a political football and the Republicans intransigence on tax increases. Some excerpts from the release:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.

It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Standard & Poors indicates that they could improve their rating for the U.S. if “the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating.”

UPDATE: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-adviser-blames-tea-party-downgrade-155220470.html
NFTOS

Tea Party Hobbits

A refresher course on what the teas are really all about.




























Enjoy your weekend readers, and thank you for your continued support to our blog. We are almost at 9 million readers in a little over a year. We never envisioned this when we created NFTOS. This following truly proves the progressive movement is strong.

Roger A. West
Editor-in-Chief
NFTOS

Spoken Directly From the Horses Posterior

Eric Cantor says: Entitlement Promises ‘Frankly, Are Not Going To Be Kept For Many’

During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said he is ready and willing to slash entitlements like Medicare, because, in his opinion, Americans have to “come to grips with the fact that promises have been made that frankly are not going to be kept for many“:

What we need to be able to do is to demonstrate that that is the better way for the people of this country. Get the fiscal house in order, come to grips with the fact that promises have been made that, frankly, are not going to be kept for many. The math doesn’t lie.

Republicans have been saying for months that they want to preserve programs like Medicare and Social Security for all people over the age of 55, but that those under 55 will have to shift into a different program. But Cantor’s pronouncement is maybe the most explicit explanation that, under the GOP’s vision, the government would be actively reneging on promises made to those who haven’t yet hit the arbitrary age of 55.

Of course, the math would look much better, particularly on Social Security, if the GOP were to back off its insistence that the government not collect a single dime in new revenue. Meanwhile, Jacob Hacker, political science professor at Yale University, has called the GOP’s scheme to raise the Medicare retirement age “the single worst idea for Medicare reform” since it “saves Medicare money only by shifting the cost burden onto older Americans caught between the old eligibility age and the new, as well as onto the employers and states that help fund their benefits.”


NFTOS

What The Debt Ceiling Will Really Cost Us

Debt Ceiling Deal Will Cost 1.8 Million Jobs In 2012

The Economic Policy Institute, a top nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the deal struck this weekend to raise the nation’s debt limit will end up costing the economy 1.8 million jobs by 2012. Today the Senate is expected to approve the package passed yesterday by the House and send it to President Obama. But while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the deal does nothing to address chronic joblessness.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”

Top economists and CEO’s have also weighed in against the deal and said that GOP concessions to the Tea Party will cost our economy dearly. Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian warned that the deal will lead to less growth, more unemployment, and more inequality. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman called the plan “a disaster” and “an abject surrender” that will “depress the economy even further.”

The Center for American Progress’s Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden argue that while the deal “goes straight in the wrong direction,” Congress can redeem itself by using the so-called “super committee” mandated by the bill to focus on job creation. The committee, made up of six Republicans and six Democrats, is tasked with finding an additional $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years, and must report a plan by Thanksgiving.

Linden and Ettlinger write, “It’s especially important for the committee to produce a plan that creates jobs and spurs growth because the committee’s proposals will come on top of a set of already-dramatic spending cuts that will have adverse economic consequences.”



NFTOS

Republican Motto

"NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT A CRISIS TO PUNISH THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I guess this about says it all. I've been asked of late what did I learn most about this debt ceiling crisis. I've learned to never vote republican!

Here is a great read on why we are in this ugly scenerio. While the radical teas will be in denial, this clearly paints the picture of why America is in the state of chaos it is in.

NFTOS

United States Gets World Grand Distinction

As ‘Irresponsible,’ ‘Worst Kind Of Absurd Theatrics,’ U.S. Politicians A ‘Laughing Stock'.

The rhetoric over raising the debt ceiling had become increasingly harsh as Democratic and Republican congressional leaders trade barbs back and forth. But as the U.S. inches closer to defaulting on its debts for the first time in history, criticism of Congress is starting to come from beyond our own borders. From France and Germany to China and India, countries around the world are angry that American politicians play with the possibility of a U.S. default like a yo-yo with little regard for the international economic system that depends on American solvency.

Radical Tea Bags

Despite China’s traditional preference of staying out of the domestic affairs of other nations, senior Chinese officials’ frustrations are growing louder and louder. Stephen Roach, the non-executive chairman of Morgan Staley Asia, said senior Chinese officials told him the debt ceiling debate in the U.S. is “truly shocking.” “We understand the politics,” a Chinese official said, “but your government’s continued recklessness is astonishing.” And newspapers around the world are voicing discontent with Congress’s handling of the debt ceiling:

The German mass-circulation Bild: “What America is currently exhibiting is the worst kind of absurd theatrics and the whole world is being held hostage… Most importantly, the Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition.”

French newspaper Le Monde:”The American politicians supposed to lead the most powerful nation in the world are becoming a laughing stock.”

Chinese state-owned newspaper Xinhua: “Given the United States’ status as the world’s largest economy and the issuer of the dominant international reserve currency, such political brinksmanship in Washington is dangerously irresponsible.”

Conservative German Die Welt: “There are few signs of self-doubt or self-awareness in the U.S. The Tea Party movement sees the other side as their enemy. Negotiations with the Democrats, whether it’s about appointing a judge or the insolvency of the United States, are only successful if the enemy is defeated. Compromise, they feel, is a sign of weakness and cowardice.”

The founding documents of many nations around the world take their inspiration from and quote the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. But now, foreigners don’t seem to be too inspired watching the intransigent wing of one political party that controls one house of one branch of the federal government hold the entire U.S. hostage. American soft power has taken a self-inflicted hit as a result of the debt ceiling debate.

Even though Congress seems to have managed a deal and they should be able to deliver a bill to President Obama’s desk today raising the debt ceiling before default, but the damage to our international standing has already been done. Other nations won’t forget how some members of Congress were so careless to allow the international economy fall into another financial disaster in order to score a few political points.

David Frum says his Republican Party should focus on the economy and jobs, but it's so pessimistic and panic-stricken that it's willing to sacrifice America's well-being for a point.



NFTOS

Tea Party Has Their Own Kind Lambasting Them

“They’re playing Russian roulette and all the chambers have a bullet.”

Echoing his colleague Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) teed off on House Republicans’ brinkmanship on the debt ceiling, saying intransigent GOP congressmen are willing to risk destroying the county’s economy to get what they want. Voinovich told Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson:

“They’re playing Russian roulette and all the chambers have a bullet.” “They’re flamethrowers. ‘We’re going to get what we want or the country can go to hell.’”

Meanwhile, Bruce Bartlett, a former policy adviser to Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush, lambasted House Republicans yesterday on MSNBC’s Hardball for playing with fire on the debt ceiling:

I think at this point, there’s nothing that can pass the House of Representatives. … I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people, and rightly so.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Even House Speaker John Bohener (R-OH) admitted that “a lot” of his caucus members are willing to unleash economic “chaos” to get their way on the debt ceiling.


NFTOS

Boehner Can't Seal The Deal

BREAKING NEWS:

Majority whip: "House will not vote tonight on Speaker John Boehner's latest proposal to raise debt ceiling, and cut spending."

House Republicans called off a vote late Thursday night on Speaker John Boehner's plan to raise the nation's debt ceiling while enacting sweeping cuts in government spending, but the possibility remained that the measure could come up on Friday.

The delay in voting on the proposal revealed a deep rift within the GOP that could undermine the party's latest attempt to avoid an unprecedented national default and stave off potential economic catastrophe.

Boehner was unable to muster sufficient support from his own caucus to guarantee his proposal would pass in the face of expected unified Democratic opposition.

Whether Boehner can push the measure through remains an open question. Tea party-backed conservatives staged a virtual revolt against the bill over the past two days, complaining that it doesn't do enough to shrink the size of government and stem the tide of Washington's red ink

Mr. Boehner can't control his radical banshees, so no vote tonight. Mr. President invoke your exec power and slam the 14th amendment down their throat. The rubber just doesnt meet the road for Johnny, and his party is in complete disarray! 

The majority leader can't pass a bill with his own party, what does this say? Radical teas whom never ever held office before now hold the world at bay, and time is ticking toward economic disaster. Have we learned our lesson yet about voting republican? We have a obligation to our debt readers, whether you like it or not its reality.

We here at NFTOS hear the thunder of the 14th amendment walking the halls of justice or at least the halls of the White House -  how aprapo is this, as republcians always invoke a amendment or two in their daily screed....not sure they ever heard this one before, as its hard for them to count pass that second amendment.





NFTOS

Bachmann And The 14th Amendment

Bachmann: "Invoking 14th Amendment Would Effectively Make Obama A Dictator."


In an interview with CNN’s Kiran Chetry on American Morning, GOP candidate Michele Bachmann dismissed the idea that President Obama could simply move to raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment, saying to do so would make him effectively “a dictator.” Bachmann described any move to unilaterally end the immediate debt crisis unconstitutional. “Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes,” Bachmann said. “It’s Congress that does the spending. The President is prohibited to do that. If he had the power to do that he would effectively be a dictator.”

NFTOS Editor -In- Chief Roger West says: "Now envision this; if the tables where turned, and this was a rightie POTUS (President of the United States) invoking the14th amendment - this would be his or her God given right to do so, and he/she better damn well invoke it, becasue our fore fathers said we could....all this while waving the Gadsden flag (Don't tread on me) which has literally nothing at all to do with radica teas and their ideology!"

 
We have written many stories on the teas and their obsession with the Gadsden Flag.
 
 
 
NFTOS

Radical Teas Are Willing To Crash World Money Systems

Boehner: ‘A Lot’ of republicans want to force default, create ‘Enough Chaos’ to pass balanced budget amendment.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said yesterday that some members of his own caucus who are refusing to agree to a compromise debt ceiling deal are hoping to unleash “chaos” and thus force the White House and Senate Democrats to make bigger concessions than they’re already offering. As many as 40 House Republicans, especially Tea Party members and freshmen, have demanded nothing short of changing the Constitution to include a balanced budget amendment before they would vote to raise debt ceiling, even though that has zero chance before the U.S. faces potential default on Aug. 2.

Speaking on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show this morning, Boehner agreed that failing to raise the limit before the deadline would be devastating, and said the “chaos” plan won’t work when asked by Ingraham what’s motivating the recalcitrant Republicans:

BOEHNER: Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.

Listen here:


Boehner offers only political calculus for why this Tea Party plan wouldn’t work. He completely ignores the devastating effect a downgrade in U.S. debt and potential default would have on the American people and the global economy, who happen to be innocent bystanders to this high-stakes hostage negotiation.

Many on the left have been arguing all along that some Republicans are more interested in extorting concessions than addressing the debt issue, and are willing to blow up the economy if they don’t get their way — it’s refreshing, if troubling, to see that their leader agrees.


NFTOS

The Truth About The Tan Man’s Plan

How Boehner’s debt plan produces ‘The Greatest Increase In Poverty And Hardship’ in American history.

Picture courtesy of Taylor Jones

John Boehner’s debt ceiling proposal would add $1 trillion to the current $14.3 trillion debt limit (which would be expected to allow the government to continue borrowing into April of 2012), reduce spending immediately and cap future spending to save $1.2 trillion over 10 years, and establish a 12-member joint committee of Congress charged with reporting back to both chambers by Nov. 23 with recommendations to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.8 trillion over 10 years. The plan also calls for a vote on a constitutional balanced budget amendment before the end of 2011.

It’s a plan that the usually “mild-mannered” Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is describing as “tantamount to a form of ‘class warfare’” that “if enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.” Since Boehner’s blueprint contains no tax increases and his first round of cuts targets discretionary spending, the joint committee will have no choice but to achieve its $1.8 trillion in budget reductions by cutting entitlement spending, Greenstein explains:

As a result, virtually all of that $1.8 trillion would come from entitlement programs. They would have to be cut more than $1.5 trillion in order to produce sufficient interest savings to achieve $1.8 trillion in total savings.

To secure $1.5 trillion in entitlement savings over the next ten years would require draconian policy changes. Policymakers would essentially have three choices: 1) cut Social Security and Medicare benefits heavily for current retirees, something that all budget plans from both parties (including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan) have ruled out; 2) repeal the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansions while retaining its measures that cut Medicare payments and raise tax revenues, even though Republicans seek to repeal many of those measures as well; or 3) eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, parents, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. There is no other plausible way to get $1.5 trillion in entitlement cuts in the next ten years.

In short, the Boehner plan would force policymakers to choose among cutting the incomes and health benefits of ordinary retirees, repealing the guts of health reform and leaving an estimated 34 million more Americans uninsured, and savaging the safety net for the poor. It would do so even as it shielded all tax breaks, including the many lucrative tax breaks for the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and corporations

Congressional Quarterly’s Richard E. Cohen also reports that Boehner’s powerful panel has “no precise parallel” and will have to overcome severe logistical hurdles. “The panel would then be required to complete its work before Thanksgiving — a period of less than four months that includes the monthlong congressional August recess, two additional weeks of scheduled House breaks and three other weeks when the Senate is slated to be gone.”

It would also “have to work with existing House and Senate committees with longstanding jurisdictional claims on the issues in play and build majority support in both chambers of a divided Congress. The GOP has already cautioned that it “will not appoint any members who will approve tax hikes,” a selection criterion that “Reid and Pelosi would most certainly not follow.” The committee’s recommendations would then face up-or-down floor votes in the House and Senate without additional amendments.

John Boehner Follows Eric Cantor On Flip Flop Mentality

After Boehner releases plan that doesn’tcCut entitlements, he rejects Reid plan for not cutting entitlements.

Just days from a potential default, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) this afternoon rejected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) plan for raising the debt ceiling, saying he can’t support any plan that doesn’t cut entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Reid’s plan, just hours old when Boehner aimed to kill it, essentially called the GOP’s bluff, giving them exactly what they have been asking for all along — spending cuts matching the increase in the debt ceiling and no new revenues.

The White House had already signed onto Reid’s conservative plan, making it the best hope of averting a crisis since Boehner walked out of negotiations Friday. “This is an offer that Republicans can’t refuse,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Apparently not. The Reid plan “makes no changes to the biggest drivers of our deficit and our debt and that would be entitlement programs,” Boehner said at a late afternoon press conference, flanked by other GOP leaders. This demand seemed to be a brazen moving of the goal posts, as entitlement cuts never appeared to be red-line demand for Republicans for raising the debt ceiling.

Boehner put forward his own debt plan this afternoon, which presumably would address his newly discovered demand. But Boehner’s office told staff members of his own caucus that his plan wouldn’t touch Social Security, Medicare, or the Affordable Care Act. RedState blogger Erik Erickson — who has been fielding calls for “absolution” from GOP members all day — obtained “bullet points from one of the individuals who got briefed at the staff level on John Boehner’s proposal” that make this very clear:

In a way, this makes sense, as the Boehner and Reid plans have nearly identical methods for making entitlement reforms — a 12 member committee to make deficit reduction proposals. From a fact sheet on Reid’s plan:

Establishes Joint Congressional Committee to Find Future Savings. In addition to $2.7 trillion in concrete savings, the Senate package will establish a joint, bipartisan committee, made up of 12 members, to present options for future deficit reduction.

From a fact sheet on Boehner’s plan:

The framework creates a Joint Committee of Congress that is required to report legislation – by November 23, 2011 – that would produce a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.8 trillion over 10 years. The committee would be made up of 12 members, three each appointed by the Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senator Majority leader and Senate Minority Leader.

It’s beyond troubling when, just eight days from a potential default, the Speaker of the House is rejecting plans he apparently can’t accurately characterize based on demands that didn’t exist just days earlier.


NFTOS

Eric Cantor is Mr. Flip Flop

Cantor opposed short-term debt ceiling increase, now calls Obama’s opposition to short-term increase ‘Indefensible’

Last Friday, Speaker John Boehner told the House GOP caucus that he is preparing a short-term bill that would raise the debt ceiling for about six months, despite Obama’s pledge to veto such a measure. On the call, Majority Leader Eric Cantor blasted Obama for opposing it. The Wall Street Journal reports:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor indicated in his remarks during the conference call that Republicans don’t want to give President Barack Obama a debt-ceiling deal that lasts past the 2012 elections. Mr. Cantor called the president’s insistence on a deal that carries through the election purely political and indefensible.

But late last month, Cantor himself vehemently opposed a short term deal:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pushed back hard Tuesday against Senate Republican suggestions of a scaled-back, short-term debt deal, saying it’s “crunch time” in White House budget talks and “if we can’t make the tough decisions now, why … would [we] be making those tough decisions later.”

“I don’t see how multiple votes on a debt ceiling increase can help get us to where we want to go,” the Virginia Republican told reporters. “It is my preference that we do this thing one time. … Putting off tough decisions is not what people want in this town.”

Standard and Poors, a credit rating agency, agrees that a short term deal would be bad for the nation’s credit. In a July 14 release S&P wrote “We may also lower the long-term rating and affirm the short-term rating if we conclude that future adjustments to the debt ceiling are likely to be the subject of political maneuvering.”

NFTOS

And We Wonder Why Watchers Of Faux News Are So Misinformed

A Climate of Deception: How Fox News Distorts the Climate Debate

NFTOS

Only On Fox (Faux) News

Fox Host: Free Birth Control Is Liberal Conspiracy To ‘Eradicate The Poor’

You have got to be kidding right?!?!?!  

Greg Gutfeld Faux News

 
Public health officials and women’s rights groups are cheering the recent recommendation of the Institute of Medicine that “health insurers should pay for a range of services for women at no cost, including birth control, counseling on sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS screening.”

But unsurprisingly, many on the right immediately lashed out at the decision, denouncing it as “feminist pork” or tantamount to government-sponsored abortion. Some particularly vile reactions came from Fox News, where host Greg Gutfeld said eliminating birth control co-pays was part of a much more sinister leftist plot:

GUTFELD: If you’re talking about free birth control, who’s going to use free birth control? The people who can’t afford it. So the left has figured out a way to eradicate the poor, and it’s by eradicating the poor!

On another Fox News segment, the contributor and host decided that birth control wasn’t necessary if women would “just stop having irresponsible sex.” Fox News’ America’s Newsroom’s Heather Childers discussed the IOM recommendation with Sandy Rios, president of Family-PAC Federal. Rios personally attacked a female physician who supported the decision as “a disgrace to our gender.” She then proposed that women don’t really need birth control, saying, “Let women stop having irresponsible sex - Let’s stop making excuses and providing a way to get women out of trouble when they should be responsible in their behavior.”

Childers quickly agreed that it’s “not too much to ask for everyone to stop having irresponsible sex.”

In the U.S., 15.3 million women use hormonal birth control, which is one of the most frequently-prescribed medications in America. Rios’ accusation is ironic given that most women think they are behaving responsibly precisely by using birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But Fox News apparently believes those 15.3 million just need to stop sleeping around.

Contraception improves women’s health and reduces the need for abortions, but the cost is often prohibitive for low-income women. The IOM’s ruling opens the door for government-subsidized birth control, which a recent national poll found 78 percent of Americans support.

We here at NFTOS are never amazed of the chatter that comes from Faux News, but even this rheotric is over the top.


NFTOS

The Arrogance And Chutzpah Of Eric Cantor

It takes a special kind of arrogance to play chicken with our economy just to satisfy your personal quest for political power. Unfortunately, Virginians already know that if anyone is capable of doing just that, it’s Congressman Eric Cantor....

Cantor standing in background...where he belongs

For years now, Cantor has been an embarrassing fact of life for the people of this Commonwealth. From his patented sneer to his condescending tone and his record of putting right-wing special interests ahead of working Virginia families, he has made a career of climbing the political ladder by any means necessary without regard for what’s best for our state or our country.

While serious leaders in Washington are working to reach a deal to cut spending and raise the federal debt ceiling, Cantor is standing in the door, defying the President and even his own party in pursuit of his own personal agenda. If Cantor succeeds in sinking a deal, the United States could default on its debt and we could sink right back into another recession. We can’t allow that to happen.

Why is Mr. Cantor so pompous you ask?

Perhaps it’s because he rose to the top so quickly. Eric Cantor was elected to the House of Representatives in 2000. After only one term, he was appointed Chief Deputy Republican Whip. This made him a major Washington insider while still in his thirties.

Or, it might be the fact that the Seventh District of Virginia was designed as a safe district for Republicans. Eric has been reelected four times, never getting less than 63% of the vote cast. The district has been represented in the Congress by Republicans since 1971. In the last three presidential elections, the district has voted Republican.

Or, maybe it’s because Representative Cantor has led a charmed life in Washington. Although he was closely connected with the corruption of Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay, Mr. Cantor came away unscathed.

I guess it’s not surprising that Eric Cantor radiates an aura of arrogance. He is the golden boy. He is destined to rise to higher positions of power in Washington. And Eric Cantor is not going to let a little thing like debt ceilings get in his way.

Does Eric Cantor like to talk to his constituents? Sure, he will gladly talk with any constituent so long as he or she is committed to his position. Those constituents are bound to further inflate his ego. But he doesn’t want to see or hear from those who oppose him. First of all because anything they might say is obviously wrong. Second because he doesn’t want any of the real voters in Washington to think that he is anything but the most beloved favorite son of the Seventh District.

One other thing—because he is a golden boy and his constituents are mere mortals, Eric Cantor doesn’t expect anyone will notice if he says a few things that are very radical. For example, Eric has the chutzpah to be the lone guy in this debt ceiling debate. Here’s a guy who has been a Washington insider for at least the last eight years and he thinks we won’t notice if he portrays himself as an outside reformer. Eric also portrays himself as a fiscal conservative. When exactly did this transformation take place? When he lusted for advancement in the party and therefore voted consistently with the Bush Administration, Eric Cantor voted to cut taxes and to significantly increase federal spending. During the years when George W. Bush was president, Eric Cantor voted to increase our federal debt by an outrageous four trillion dollars. Eric Canter a Fiscal Conservative?

Eric is like most radical teas, clueless of reality, and delusional on his visions of hardcore choke and puke republican politics.
 
 
NFTOS