What do you know, another Republican a-hole

"Testing...testing...is this thing on?"

Perverse sex scandals are becoming the norm for Republican politicians of late. It seems like almost every week, Americans are treated to a fresh story of some womanizing, adulterous conservative, likely elected on a campaign of "family values." From South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's hot South American tryst to Senator John Ensign's affair with and subsequent payoff of a campaign staffer's wife, GOP sex scandals are starting to become commonplace.

But not this one.

Yesterday, KCAL-9 in Los Angeles reported that Michael Duvall, a Republican state assemblyman from Orange County, admitted - during a state assembly meeting - to having an elicit affair. This piece of human excrement bragged to a colleague about several women he was sleeping with (neither of whom was his wife, it appears). Oh, but it gets better. Duvall was speaking into a live mike without knowing it and the conversations were recorded. ThinkProgress has coverage of it here.



In addition, the two women were allegedly lobbyists for a utility company. Duvall was vice chairman of, you guessed it, the utilities committee. Duvall bragged openly about spanking the women and gave descriptions of their underwear. As you might expect, Duvall has been described by supporters as one who has voted "time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California."

Evidently this behavior was neither novel for Duvall nor surprising to many of his colleagues. KCAL-9 reporter Dave Lopez stated in the piece that:

According to sources, he loves to talk about his 'sexual conquest.' The source goes on to say "it makes us all feel very uncomfortable, but it's very difficult to get him to change the subject.''

I tried to find some good hypocritical "family values" stuff on Duvall from his own website before it was taken down, but alas, I was too late. All that remains of his campaign website is a one paragraph resignation statement:

"I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction for my colleagues in the Assembly, who are working hard on the very serious problems facing our state. I have come to the conclusion that it would not be fair to my family, my constituents or to my friends on both sides of the aisle to remain in office. Therefore, I have decided to resign my office, effective immediately, so that the Assembly can get back to work."

Unlike fellow Republicans Ensign (w/ an employee), Sanford (w/ Argentine lady), David Vitter (whore) or Larry Craig (random airport restroom patron) , at least Duvall had the common decency to resign his office when his sexual indiscretions were exposed. If a double standard exists between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, it is for good reason. To my knowledge, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton and John Edwards didn't campaign with "family values" as a central issue, nor did they almost exclusively court these values voters. But apparently, as far as values voters are concerned, you can sleep around whenever and with whomever you want, but if you support a gay person's right to marry or believe in evolution, well, then you have no values.

While this story might seem like just another "gotcha" moment for the GOP, it really underscores some very serious problems with our government. The fact that at least one of the women was a lobbyist for the very industry Duvall was charged with regulating should not be taken lightly. While it is no secret that lobbyists and their corresponding corporate interests will readily throw money at politicians, throwing pussy at them is something entirely new to me. I can only imagine the board meeting where this was thought up:

CEO: Okay people. We need to have greater influence over the state utilities committee. Let's think outside the box here. Who is on that committee?

Woman #1: Uh, isn't that creep Michael Duvall like the vice chairman?

CEO: Yeah, I think you're right. What do we know about him? He likes to brag about sexual conquests. He's obnoxiously pro-values, so he probably hates his wife. Hmmm....We could send him some hookers, right? But in this economy, who has money for hookers anymore?

Woman #2: Uh, sir... Couldn't WE just fuck him?

CEO: Excellent idea!!! I like the way you think. Now let's get some lunch.

Now admittedly, I don't know all that goes on behind closed doors, but it's a fair to assume that many politicians are already richer that shit, to whom corporate payoffs may not amount to much. It's also not much of a stretch to assume some corporations and lobbying firms maintain women on their payroll to perform exactly this kind of function. If so, it's disgraceful, yet just more evidence that the American political system is gradually being flushed down the toilet.

One final amusing tidbit from the Michael Duvall saga. A source for KCAL-9 claimed that Duvall was overly cautious with what he said or did in Sacramento, saying "you gotta be real careful with what you say up here, because they could have microphones hidden in a salt shaker."

Uh, yeah.... Or hidden in a that microphone in front of your face. Priceless.

Isn't It Ironic...

The many faces of John McCain

During the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain has reversed course on more issues than one can count. Today, however, McCain outdid even himself when he called for a suspension of his campaign to deal with the present economic crisis. Actually, I would assert that McCain's announcement to return to the Senate is really more irony than inconsistency.

Irony #1: Just last week, McCain, amid a catastrophic meltdown in the financial sector, claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Today, McCain referred to the same economic environment as an "historic crisis." While leaders like McCain and President Bush have ignored the economic warning signs for months, McCain now seeks to claim that he's the one out in front of this issue. That's quite a bold attempt, considering McCain and his GOP buddies were complicit in stripping our financial system of the very safeguards that are meant to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the first place.

Irony #2: The idea that McCain wants to suspend political activities to get work done in the Senate is, in a word, laughable. McCain has not cast a single vote in the Senate since April 10th. By comparison, Barack Obama has voted 99 times since Senator McCain's last vote. McCain has missed a whopping 64% of Senate votes since the 110th Congress was sworn in January of 2007, by far the most of anyone in the Senate. In fact, the only other members of the Senate missing more than 15% of votes either ran for president (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Brownback) or had severe health issues (Tim Johnson, brain hemorrhage, and Ted Kennedy, brain cancer). McCain hasn't felt the need to show up for work for five and a half months, yet now is calling on a suspension of the 2008 campaign to fix a failing economy his party was responsible for creating. I guess that might be funny is it weren't so reprehensible.

Irony #3: Last week, Senator McCain dismissed Obama's concerns over the crashing economy as "political opportunism." If that was indeed the case, McCain has taken that opportunism to a whole new level. By "beat[ing] Obama to the punch" as the Associated Press put it, McCain has in essence forced Obama to either suspend his campaign and risk looking like a Johnny-come-lately, or go ahead with the campaign and be seen as insensitive to the economic crisis. Jumping at an opportunity to put your opponent in a political paradox is the very epitome of "political opportunism".


I think Obama did the right thing in refusing to suspend the campaign. Of the two options, he chose the one that made him look like more of a leader than a follower. Plus he got in that little jab about being able to "deal with more than one thing at once." The ultimate irony - and the reason I believe McCain is taking this siesta - is that by going back to congress to "work on the economy," he won't have to answer as many difficult questions about the economy.

Where are all the conservative bumper stickers???

Recently I've seen a lot of bumper stickers on cars espousing a variety of political views. Interestingly (at least where I live) these stickers almost exclusively portray "liberal" sentiments or values. From "War is not the answer" to "Impeach Bush," liberals have cornered the market on bumper self-expression.


I started to imagine examples of possible "conservative" bumper stickers, and as I did so, I started to understand why you don't see very many. Almost every conservative slogan or talking point I could conceive was either ridiculous or just downright offensive when I imagined it prominently displayed on one's vehicle. Perhaps "Pro Life" is fairly innocuous, probably only offensive to abortion doctors and victims of a rape-induced pregnancy. And conservatives don't own the American flag, so only bumper stickers that are belligerently patriotic could be considered to be "conservative."


With that in mind, I thought I would utilize some free time at work - along with the Microsoft Paint program pre-installed on my PC - to provide some examples some of the more ridiculous and inconsistent conservative values:

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: John Yoo

It seems as though with each passing week, Americans are learning more and more about the disturbed conservative mind of John Yoo. Currently the quintessential fish-out-of-water (he teaches law at UC Berkeley), Yoo worked in the Department of Justice under George W. Bush when the legal underpinnings of unitary executive rule were being established. As it turns out, Yoo - then a fairly low-level DOJ staffer - authored several influential memos supporting the legality of torture, unitary executive power and the suspension of habeas corpus. Because of the far-reaching scope and questionable legality of these memos, Yoo is currently facing charges of war crimes while the National Lawyers Guild is calling for Yoo to be fired and disbarred.

Some of Yoo's greatest hits:

Torture

In 2002, Yoo helped author the now infamous "Torture Memo," which was essentially a liberal interpretation of the interrogation techniques allowed by international law. The memo defined the illegal practice of torture as "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." It also stated that the infliction of such pain must be intentional. Such narrow definition of torture opened many loopholes with which the U.S. could conduct a host of "enhanced interrogation techniques." So when the President says the United States "does not torture people," he is technically right, because his administration has exempted itself from international treaties and the Justice Department has worked to redefine torture to legalize what interrogators were already doing.

Habeas Corpus

Keeping with the unprecedented idea that combating terrorism was primarily a military operation, Yoo has argued that the 4th Amendment need not apply to counter-terrorism efforts. This memo concluded that, "the Fourth Amendment [has] no application to domestic military operations," essentially stating that even U.S. citizens under the protection of the constitution are not immune to illegal search and seizures, as long as the country is engaged in any kind of "War on Terror." Of course this is a frightening conclusion. Simply put, the president can determine what is considered terror, who can be considered an enemy combatant, and when and how the military should be used. This leads to a remarkably brash definition of presidential powers, which will be described next.

Unitary Executive Power

Yoo is a proponent of consolidated executive power during wartime. Yoo stated in a 2001 memo:

In both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution, Congress has recognized the President's authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11 incidents. Neither statute, however, can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.

Yoo also stated in a 2005 debate that no treaty could prevent the President from authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, including crushing the testicles of a detainee's child. According to Yoo, the authority to torture "depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." So, in essence, the President is above the law. Yoo believes there is no law that can limit Presidential powers during wartime, and that the legality or illegality of an interrogation technique is determined solely by what the President thinks.

We can now start to see the neoconservative mindset come into focus. If presidential powers increase when the nation is at war, it's no wonder that the United States has been at war for all but one year of the Bush presidency. And the "Global War on Terror" isn't so much a single operation, but an infinite campaign to somehow eradicate something that can never fully be eradicated. It would be akin to the President declaring that as long as there is crime to fight in the U.S., the president alone can determine how to define crime, how to deal with criminals and which parts of the constitution he needs to adhere to. Like crime, there always has been, and always will be throughout history, acts that could be defined as terrorism.

It would be interesting to hear how Yoo, who has also been a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, feels about unitary executive power when a Democrat is in the White House. Luckily for us, Yoo has in fact contradicted himself numerous times to fit his political agenda du jour, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald documented last July. Yoo has flip-flopped on presidential use of the military, use of executive privilege and FISA laws. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, expect Yoo to moderate his views on executive power to fit his own political agenda.

---

If John Yoo's sick totalitarian view of constitutional government weren't enough to cement his place among the insane, he recently delved into the world of election politics, the results of which are equally troubling.

In a March 24, 2008 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Yoo blasted the Democratic Party's use of superdelegates in the nomination process:

That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat's radar. This from the party that litigated to "make every vote count" in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.

ThinkProgress highlighted Yoo's hypocrisy, as one who would criticize a party's "undemocratic" nomination process while at the same time espousing totalitarian views of the executive office.

More troubling than Yoo's hypocrisy, however, is his startlingly vapid argument. As simple as it may seem to most, Yoo fails to grasp the fact that primary elections do not elect a president. In fact they are not really "elections" at all, but a nomination process, a process that is much more democratic than most other democracies around the world and more certainly democratic than at earlier times in our nation's history. Primary elections were not seen in the United States until the 20th century, and before that relied completely on congressmen and political bosses to nominate a presidential candidate.

Yoo makes the fundamental error of conflating a primary election (a method by which a political party has determined it will nominate it's candidate) with a national election. Yoo claims that the "delegate dissonance wasn't anything the Framers of the U.S. Constitution dreamed up. They believed that letting Congress choose the president was a dreadful idea." The problem with Yoo's analysis is the notion that the founding fathers had some concept of political primaries. They barely had knowledge of political parties, and certainly didn't lay down any foundation as to how parties nominate their candidates.

In addition, one could easily argue that the Democrat's is a more democratic nominating process than that of the Republican Party. The RNC employs a "winner-take-all" system similar to the electoral college in the general election. By allocating delegates based on a percentage of popular votes won, the Democratic nominating process is more representative of the general public than the Republican system. For example, let's say a state has 10 delegates at stake in the primary. In the Democratic Party primary, if Candidate A wins 60% and Candidate B wins 40%, then Candidate A wins six delegates to Candidate B's four. In a Republican primary, Candidate A wins all ten delegates. The Republican system is one that says, essentially, "Get on board with the leading candidate, or your vote won't count." Doesn't sound very "Democratic" to me.

Yoo is correct that the superdelegate system does have the ability to stymie the hopes of a more populist candidate. In close primary elections, as we have this year, the idea is that the superdelagates are there to help cast a deciding vote for the more "mainstream" candidate. This year, we would have to assume that candidate is Hillary Clinton, and the populist is Barack Obama. If the superdelegates are here to overrule the will of the common Democrat in favor of someone whom they feel is more of a Washington "insider" (Clinton), then, I would not care for that kind of system.

It's not that Yoo is incorrect in noting that certain flaws exist in the superdelagate system. It is the fact that he somehow believes primary elections should be governed by the the same standards as general elections that completely invalidates Yoo's position. Yoo's column, while not unusual by WSJ's standards, is special in its purely partisan scope and utterly untenable premise. From what we have seen from Yoo thus far, it is safe to assume that the Op-Ed was less an educated critique of the Democratic nominating process than a petty partisan jab at what is perceived as a divided party.

A Wolf in Elephant's Clothing?

Last week, a Mark Deli Siljander, a former Michigan congressman and Reagan appointee to the United Nations, was indicted on charges he helped raise funds and lobby for an organization with financial ties to Al-Qaeda.

Siljander, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981 until 1987. He then served as a U.S. representative to the United Nations General Assembly for one year. In his private career, Siljander worked for a Christian Conservative Non-profit Organization, a Washington DC Lobbying Firm, and later for the Islamic American Relief Agency, the organization charged with aiding a known Al-Qaeda terrorist.

Clearly it is a shocking development when a former U.S. congressman is indicted for aiding a terrorist organization. However, if you have been paying attention to the right-wing talking heads and occasionally the mainstream media, the real surprise in this story might have been: "Shouldn't this guy have been a Democrat?"

For years, Republicans, as well as the right-wing media have been obsessed with telling the American people that the Democratic Party is the "Al-Qaeda Party." Presumably based in very reasonable Democratic objections to the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, domestic spying, and other questionable Republican anti-terror endeavors, right-wingers have scored political points perverting the Democrats' desire to preserve basic constitutional freedoms with some Democrat-Al-Qaeda alliance. Since Republican policies run in contrast to most Americans' best interests, the party decided after September 11th that one of the few winning issues they had left, national security, would be exploited at all costs. According to a July 2007 poll, when rating the political parties on different issues, Republicans were rated higher than Democrats on just three of 20 issues: moral values, a strong military, and national security. Even then, Republicans were viewed as stronger on national security by a mere 3 to 2 margin over Democrats, whereas Americans favored Democrats on their "strong" issues - global warming and health care - by a margin of about 5 to 1.

The point is, that Republicans will beat the drum of national security for as long as they are seen as strong in that area. As Americans became disenchanted with "staying the course" in Iraq, for example, Republicans largely stopped campaigning on that issue. To keep from losing their grip on one of their few remaining selling points, Republicans must:

A) Continually remind Americans that we are under attack from radical Islam, and

B) Make themselves appear stronger than Democrats on fighting Islamic terrorism.

One component of this strategy has been the effort to link Democrats and other liberals with radical Islam. Below are a few (actually a lot of) examples of this going on in the media:

• Just this week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that "mullahs" in Iran are hoping for a Democratic victory in 2008 because a Democrat would allow Iran to continue it's supposed nuclear weapons program. According to Bolton, Iran is "thinking about...the Democratic nominee winning. I think they’re going try and string this thing out in hopes that they’ll find some more pliable administration in the White House." While it would certainly be to the benefit of Iran to not have a sabre-rattling lunatic that has talked openly about preemptive war, Iran halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, so a Democrat in the White House would be irrelevent in this regard.

• Conservative author and newspaper columnist Dinesh D'Souza attacked liberals in his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I guess the title pretty much sums it up, but yes, he claimed that 9/11 would not have happened if not for liberals.

• John Gibson, on his radio program in August of 2007, claimed that certain Democrats may have bargained with Al-Qaeda before the November 2006 elections, presumably because an Al-Qaeda attack would benefit Republicans in the election. Gibson went as far as to announce, "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda."

• Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had this photoshopped picture of Osama Bin laden posted on his website (notice Bin laden's party affiliation):
  

• In 2006, Glenn Beck told newly-elected congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat and practicing Muslim, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." As outrageous as that statement might be, at least Beck called the congressman "Sir."



• A 2006 New York Post editorial regarding the Senate confirmation hearings of controversial U.N. ambassador John Bolton, claimed that, "Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America's enemies that they don't have allies on Capitol Hill." The editorial also claimed that terrorists "were rejoicing last week and feeling emboldened in the wake of the Dems' victory."



• Weeks before the 2006 Congressional Election, Rush Limbaugh claimed that "The key voters...in this year's election are the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists," and that increased violence in Iraq at the time meant that "the terrorists around the world, and particularly, those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today."



• In 2006, after President Bush exploited the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to drum up support for the unrelated Iraq War, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of those critical of the Bush speech, “I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.”



• After the death of Iraq insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) issued a statement suggesting Zarqawi was only a "mere sliver" of the Iraqi violence and that anti-U.S. violence will continue as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. Radio host Don Imus responded by suggesting Kucinich might take Zarqawi's place as leader of the anti-U.S. insurgency.



• Leading up to the 2006 Congressional Election, VP Dick Cheney suggested that voting for Iraq War critic Ned Lamont over the hawkish Joe Lieberman would embolden "the al Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."



• In a posting at GOP Bloggers, contributor Jon Roth cited a disputed article in the far right Wall Street Journal opinion page in leveling serious accusations on Democrats opposed to the warrantless surveillance program. According to Roth, critics of the illegal program, who sought to hold the government and telecommunications companies accountable for violating Americans' privacy rights, were "Aiding al-Qaeda against America" and had the nerve to label any criticism of the surveillance program "treason." (An interesting side-note to this blog post. Roth later suggested that President Bush went after the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity with "gusto." Seriously. That's his word, not mine. I suppose if with "gusto" means making sure no one involved with the leak ever has to testify or spend one night in jail, while no charges are ever brought against the people who actually leaked Plame's identity, then yes, "gusto" works just fine.)



• Following the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and subsequent regime change in Spain, media figures started suggesting that terrorists might seek to use violence to oust George W. Bush in 2004. Chris Matthews claimed this put Democratic candidate John Kerry in a pickle: "Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?"



• Rush Limbaugh asserted that al Qaeda terrorists "want Kerry, they want the Democrats in power. They'd love that -- I mean, based simply on what they're saying and how they're reacting to what happened in Spain. I'm not guessing."



• Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said before the 2004 Presidential Election that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."



• Ray Kraft of Family Security Matters, still undaunted by the lack of any Iraq-al Qaeda link, suggested that the Democrats' April 2007 effort to set a timetable for the withdrawl of U.S. troops in Iraq was tantamount to surrender. Kraft suggested that supporters of withdrawl were giving aid to the enemy, thus being guilty of treason. Kraft also stated that if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq, the world would "incrementally surrender to the religious totalitarianism of Jihad." It is unclear how the United States could surrender from a conflict we have already claimed to have won:

• And while not directly asserting any ties between the Democratic Party and al-Qaeda, no discussion of the politicization of Islamic terrorism would be complete without the infamous GOP attack ad of 2006: (video here)
  

First of all, no one is celebrating the fact that a former United States congressman has ties to al-Qaeda. I'm just waiting for the Rush Limbaugh's and Dick Cheney's of the world to apologize for all the innuendo, inference, and outright suggestion that the Democratic Party is in allegiance with al-Qaeda terrorists. I'm not getting my hopes up.


Of course, these claims are so utterly ridiculous for one main reason: When it comes to who they want to kill, Islamic Jihadists do not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats.

Jihadists have said for years that they will kill any and all Americans. Osama Bin Laden himself addressed the American people in a tape released before the 2004 election, saying, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." The idea that al-Qaeda would be "rooting" for Democrats or that Democrats seek to give "aid and comfort" to the terrorists is so ludicrous that it's amazing the notion has persisted as long as it has.


The real irony of this alleged Democrat-al-Qaeda partnership is that during the few times Islamic terrorists have discussed U.S. political parties, it has been the Republicans they have sided with. Remember the Madrid bombings? The group widely thought to be responsible for the attacks "endorsed" Bush in 2004:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

But because Democrats seek to preserve constitutional freedoms and global credibility, as well protect the lives of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, they are seen as being in league with al-Qaeda, when the goals of the two organizations could not be more disparate. Yet you continue to hear these connections made among the right-wing media and some of the mainstream media as well. In reality, 9/11 occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Osama Bin Laden, supposed public enemy number one and poster boy for the GOP's "Get Tough On Terror" campaign, has not been captured in over six years since the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the relatively easy capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush's failure to apprehend the founder of al-Qaeda with a $50 million bounty on his head is almost beyond comprehension.

The only real link you ever hear between al-Qaeda and the Republican Party is among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and while these theories are probably inaccurate, the movement has been branded by the mainstream media as complete folly.

If there is a silver lining in the Mark Deli Siljander saga, it is this: One would hope that the next time a politician, pundit, or member of the mainstream media alleges some link between Islamic terrorism and the Democratic Party, he/she stops and remembers that Mark Deli Siljander was a Republican.

SCHIP: More Hypocrisy from the Right

Less than one week after asking congress for an additional $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, President George W. Bush has vetoed a bill expanding SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) by $35 billion. The program, which would be funded entirely by an increase in cigarette taxes, would extend health coverage to over 4 million more children.

Now this veto alone is not really cause for alarm or cries of hypocrisy. Conservatives have long sought limited government and lower taxes, and expanding SCHIP does not jive with this vision of small government. Where the disingenuous underbelly of the conservative leadership comes to light is in the PR spin in support of the veto. Now I am not particularly fond of politicians using children to support their political agendas. No Child Left Behind and Bush's Stem Cell Veto quickly come to mind as largely Republican agendas bolstered by the use of children as visual aids. The supporters of the SCHIP bill certainly were guilty of this as well, parading out 12 year-old SCHIP recipient Graeme Frost to speak of the benefits of the program. If a program or a bill has merit, then I don't see the need to have children endorsing it. Call me crazy, but I actually trust most politicians to be better at making and interpreting legislation than children.

So say what you will about using children as political props, but if you are going to criticize Democrats for their employment of this tactic, you had better damn well have never employed it yourself. Yet, in a twist of irony that would make O. Henry jealous, Republicans quickly went on the attack following young Frost's address. A spokesman for congressman John Boehner (R-OH) said on Sept. 28:

“To use an innocent young child as a human shield and misrepresent the position of the president of the United States is, frankly, beyond the pale."

For those that are unaware, this guy with the impeccable tan is John Boehner:

This is also John Boehner (circled in red) at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act:




This is also John Boehner, handing out school computers for Visa:


No one is saying that giving kids laptops on behalf of a major financial institution is necessarily evil, nor is posing with kids for the signing of a controversial educational program, essentially a thinly-veiled effort to dismantle the public school system in the United States. But similarly, having a child speak on behalf of a very beneficial social program like SCHIP (however you may feel about this political tactic) is not in any way devious in and of itself. What is devious is the fact that Republicans would attack Democrats for employing a tactic that has become a staple of conservative policy making in recent years.

As if it weren't enough for the GOP to call the kettle black, they have now launched an all-out attack in an effort to discredit the 12-year Frost as a child of privilege and luxury. Conservative bloggers have led the way. Freerepublic.com's icwhatudo posted the discovery that Graeme and his sister both attend private schools. Freerublic.com is the self-touted "premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." What was left out of that scathing report was the fact that Graeme attends the school almost entirely on scholarship. His sister, permanently disabled from a car accident, attends a special-needs school, the entire cost of which is paid by the state.

In addition, the Frosts's Baltimore home has been the subject of much scrutiny, as estimates of it's value have ranged from $400,000 to $500,000. Now, as a resident of Los Angeles, the first thing I say is, "yes...and?" $400,000 here gets you a two-bedroom, 1-bath, hardly enough to house the 6-member Frost household. In Baltimore, $400,000 buys you a pretty decent home. But the bloggers fail to mention that the Frosts actually paid about $55,000 for the home in 1990, and inflated real estate markets, an improved neighborhood, and improvements made to the home have increased the home's value. The value of the Frost's home is really insignificant as it relates to a family's ability to pay for private health care. It's not as if the house is some liquid asset, that can be converted into cash whenever the family needs it. For a family of six taking home a reported $45,000 per year, it's not really a mystery that a major car accident involving multiple children could cause financial hardship.

The right-wing's attack on the Frost family is wrong in several ways:

1. Graeme Frost is 12 years old.
2. Most of the claims made against the Frost family have been found to be completely false or conveniently incomplete
3. Attacking a single child in no way refutes the value of SCHIP.

So, clearly, the Frosts are not what we would think of as "dirt poor." The point of all this is that in the United States, the nation with the most expensive healthcare in the world, you don't have to be dirt poor to be unable to afford to insure the health of your family.

What the Right doesn't want you to know is their real concerns behind SCHIP, and why the have embarked on such a fervent attack to stop it's expansion. The American Right sees the expansion of SCHIP as the first phase in an effort to bring about a national socialized healthcare system. What the Right fails to mention (or come to grips with) is that 72% of Americans favor the expansion of SCHIP.

But, come on, that's just health care for kids, right? Everyone wants healthcare for kids, don't they? Well, no they don't. The big-business neo-conservatives don't want healthcare for kids. Big Pharma and Big Healthcare don't want healthcare for kids. And, sadly blind followers of President Bush, even when it would be to their benefit, don't want healthcare for kids. Also it's not only that most Americans want healthcare for kids, but a majority of Americans favor a universal healthcare system for all Americans, even if it means higher taxes.

The SCHIP debate is just the latest in a vast right-wing effort to shrink government to the point where it serves essentially no function. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

While the preamble is not a binding document, it should be noted that the founding fathers saw fit to include "promot[ing] the general Welfare" in the introduction to laying out the foundation of law in the new nation. In recent years, conservative ideology has sought to promote the welfare of only an elite few. Conservatives would have you believe that those unable to afford health insurance have no one to blame but themselves. Yet, as estimates of the uninsured in America approach 50 million, one has to believe that in reality, it is the nation's leadership that has failed these people.

GOP in '08: Pinning Their Hopes on Symbolic Patriotism

How can hundreds of the Right-wing's most decorated brass hide behind a 3/4" square piece of, well, decorated brass? When it's the hundreds of pro-war Republican congressmen and Bush administration officials taking safe refuge by donning the ubiquitous American flag lapel pin.

Recently, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama explained in a campaign speech that he no longer wears his American flag lapel pin because of what it had come to symbolize.

...I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic....My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

The whole thing is really a non-issue. I mean, it's a lapel pin, and Obama only brought it up because a reporter questioned him about it. It's not as if he called together a press conference or put the word out in a prime time TV ad. Of course, I don't need to tell anyone how Joe Righty felt about Obama's comments:

"Seeing something wrong with a flag pin or the flag ain’t too sharp. What an ASS!!!!!" - comment from stuckonstupid.com

Here's your textbook right-wing kneejerk reaction. "Look, everyone! Obama hates the American flag! I always knew there was something fishy about that guy, what with that weird name and tan complexion."

"Remember, he WAS wearing one after 9/11. Then he feels the need to put out a press release when it takes it off. He's a pandering piece of crap." - comment from RedState.com

First of all buddy, after 9/11, everyone was wearing a lapel pin, sporting T-shirts or driving around with those car window flags. If there was a positive consequence of 9/11, it was the temporary boost in the sale of cheaply produced patriotic merchandise imported from China. But I digress....The point is, if you finally decided to take down those American flags from your car windows, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. It doesn't make you un-American. And as I mentioned earlier, Obama was responding to a question specifically about the pin, so no, lapel pins are not going to be a central issue on the Obama '08 ticket.

"I have no flagpole at the moment to hang Old Glory, but proudly hang my Blue Star flag in my bedroom window until The Man comes home. Also, I place my ‘Support the Troops’ yellow ribbon magnet on the front of my car, so leftist hippie morons know precisely why I am about to run them down." -comment from MichelleMalkin.com

Very nice. Let everyone know what a great American you are right before you threaten to run your fellow Americans over in your car. The right really does it with class, don't they?

"If you cannot display an American Flag lapel pin to show Patriotism, you are NOT worthy of American air." - conservative blog Take Our Country Back

How about this: If you cannot display any patriotism other than displaying an American Flag lapel pin, you are NOT worthy of American air.

Fortunately, not everyone got it wrong. On Redstate.com of all places, a user commented:

"The only country I can think of where citizens are required to wear pins to prove their patriotism and loyalty is North Korea. Look closely at a picture of North Koreans, and you'll see the ubiquitous little lapel pins of Dear Leader.

He's also not wearing a sandwich board that says 'I love my Mom,' but it doesn't mean he doesn't. Let's let the man accessorize in peace."

Many of these flag-impaled lapels adorn suits belonging to some Republicans who have, in recent years, been "less than patriotic" to put it nicely. Some have been downright bad Americans. Yet the lapel pin remains, not as some symbol of one's inner character, dedication to that which is noble or devotion to country, but as a quick reminder that "Hey, you can't question my character or patriotism! See here? See this lapel pin?"

(more to come...)

The GOP: One Big, Horny Elephant

Politicians and civic leaders have for many years proven to be just as vulnerable to "sins of the flesh" than your average American. Certainly both Democrats and Republicans have had their fair share of scandal. Democrats, for example, can boast the infidelities of JFK, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, to name a few. While nothing can excuse the actions of these men, there is something that makes the sexual infidelities of Republicans much more insidious. Democrats do not typically campaign on the platform of moral values. If they do, they certainly do not do so by pointing out the moral flaws of their opponents. In contrast, Republicans consistently pander to the social conservatives, or Religious Right, earning votes with tough talk about morality.

All this makes it all the more amazing that the GOP almost constantly finds itself embroiled in some sexual scandal. The most recent case involving Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, seems to be more the rule than the exception. Here's a review of some of their more recent lapses in moral judgement:

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): Craig allegedly solicited sex from an undercover police officer in a restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Craig pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct. Rather than apologize, Craig denied the allegations, regretted having plead guilty, and, most importantly, let the world know that "I am not gay. I never have been gay." Not surprisingly, Craig is a staunch supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to impose bans on same-sex marriage.

Glenn Murphy Jr. (former national chair of the Young Republicans): Murphy resigned his post with the Young Republicans after allegations surfaced that he performed an unwanted oral sex act on a 22-year old man while masturbating. Murphy and the victim had attended a Young Republicans function earlier that evening, and had been drinking. Murphy contended that the act was consensual, interesting because the victim claimed to have been asleep at the time. In 1998, Murphy was accused of a nearly identical sex act, but no charges were ever filed in that case due to lack of evidence.

Senator David Vitter (R-LA): Vitter's phone number appeared on a customer list supplied by the so-called "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Despite the fact that the records dated back to 1999-2001, and there was widespread public knowledge of the existence of the lists since May of 2007, Vitter waited until the lists were disclosed in July 2007 to admit to using the prostitution service and issuing an apology. Vitter (who is married), also a supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment, has in the past attacked the "Hollywood Left" and Bill Clinton for infringing on the sanctity of marriage.

Rev. Ted Haggard: The former preacher at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, and former head of the National Association of Evangelicals admitted to "sexual immorality" after allegations surfaced that he paid a man for sex and methamphetamines. Haggard met with President George W. Bush or his advisers on a weekly basis, and it has been said that "no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism."

Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL): Foley resigned his seat in the House of Representatives in September 2006 after sexually explicit and/or inappropriate emails and instant messages sent by Foley to underage congressional pages surfaced. Foley also is reported to have had sexual liaisons with former congressional pages. At the time of his resignation, Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.

Florida State Rep. Bob Allen (R): Another member of the Florida Gay Republicans Caucus, Allen was arrested in July of 2007 for allegedly offering to perform oral sex on an undercover police officer for $20. When asked about the incident, Allen claimed he made the offer out of his fear of a "pretty stocky black guy." Because we all know that when you're about to get your ass kicked, offering the other guy a BJ usually tends to smooth things over. The arresting officer's report differed from Allen's account, claiming it was Allen who approached the officer in a bathroom stall and propositioned him. Interestingly enough, Allen supports a Florida state ban on gays adopting children.

Dick Morris, political strategist and commentator: Despite having worked on President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign, and being a self-proclaimed "bipartisan" Morris prefers to work exclusively with Republicans and is certainly ideologically conservative. Morris has since gone on the attack against the Clintons and other Democrats, is currently featured on Fox News and the ultra-conservative Newsmax.com. Morris resigned from the Clinton staff in 1996 after a lengthy and much-publicized affair he was having with a prostitute. It's unclear whether or not sucking the toes of call girls is part of Morris' "family values" agenda.

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House): Ohhhh, where to begin....Newt's first wife was his former high school math teacher. While married, Newt had an affair with a campaign staffer, which ultimately led Newt to divorce his first wife while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer. Newt later remarried, until that marriage was again dissolved due to an affair he was having with another member of his staff. In fact, Gingrich, who helped spearhead the House's impeachment of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, was having the affair at the same time as Clinton's impeachment.