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.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Rush Limbaugh

Okay, so we all are aware of Rush Limbaugh, so I'll spare a full biography. The once fat, once relevant, once virile talk show personality and GOP lapdog has had his fair share of moronic moments. In fact, the media watchdog organization, Media Matters, online since 2004, currently has 465 entries on Limbaugh.

I compare the Rush Limbaugh Show to those old Chips-Ahoy ads, claiming "betcha bite a chip!" For those too young to recall, the commercials claimed, essentially, that there were so many chips in one cookie that you couldn't avoid eating one, no matter how small a bite you took. That's the way I feel about Rush. I'll tune into the show every so often, and it usually takes no more than 30 seconds for some idiotic statement to come spewing from his mouth. There is no increment of time short enough to avoid hearing Rush say something dumb, misleading, or just plain wrong. "Betcha say something stupid!"

I don't have the time today, or even this year to recount all of Rush's garbage, but here are some of the greatest hits:

• Claimed (without evidence) that the Virginia Tech shooter "had to be a liberal."



• Said that Parkinson's-stricken actor Michael J. Fox (appearing in a pro-stem cell campaign ad) "didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."



• Regarding disgraced congressman Mark Foley, Limbaugh said "there's not even any real problem with what Foley did," and the Democrats "set Foley up" by possibly threatening or bribing underage congressional pages.



• Blamed food stamps for America's obesity epidemic, claiming the government is "killing the poor with too much food."



• Claimed that Cindy Sheehan (anti-war activist and mother of a soldier killed in Iraq) was a fraud. "Her story is...not real."

Recently, Limbaugh went on the attack again. Interestingly enough, he chose liberals as the target of his bilious nonsense.

On an August 21 broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh claimed that the main reason Democrats feel compelled to combat the genocide in Darfur is to secure the black vote:

What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble.

Limbaugh went on to compare potential U.S. military involvement in the Darfur conflict to the Iraq War, claiming that involvement in Darfur was unnecessary because it did not constitute a "vital national interest."

The problems with Limbaugh's rationale are many. First, Limbaugh is taking the extreme conservative position that humanitarianism is not a worthwhile endeavor. If action by the U.S. does not serve a "vital national interest," then it serves no purpose in Limbaugh's eyes. This egoism permeates throughout all elements of neo-conservative ideology. Anything that aids your fellow man -whether it be public assistance, health care, low-income housing, minimum wage increases - should be vehemently opposed. Meanwhile, in claiming the the Iraq war qualifies as serving a national interest, Limbaugh seems unwilling to come to terms with the fact that the Iraq of 2002-2003 represented no real threat to the United States, or that all or most of the pre-war justifications have since been debunked.

Secondly, Limbaugh is attributing positions to liberals that are, in reality, overwhelmingly bi-partisan. In the same diatribe, he attacked "liberals," not only for their support of action in Darfur, but other "liberal" efforts like dismantling South Africa's Apartheid government and sending humanitarian aid to Tsunami victims. While President Reagan was certainly a staunch supporter of the Apartheid government, the U.S. Congress had enough bi-partisan clout to override Reagan's veto of a bill sanctioning South Africa. You may also recall that the humanitarian effort following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was lead by former Presidents Bush(R) and Clinton(D). Similarly, the Durfur situation is not a polarizing issue in America. In 2006, Congress passed the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, an effort to impose sanctions and aid in peacekeeping. The bill passed the House by a margin of 416 to 3.

I know it really doesn't take this much effort to expose the folly of Rush Limbaugh, but once you get going, it's hard to stop.

Fox News: By the Numbers

Just some interesting figures about Fox News and its viewers:

• Fox News currently devotes 7.9% of their coverage to the ongoing occupation in Iraq, compared to 17.8% for CNN and 15.1% for MSNBC.



• In 2004, 88% of Fox viewers supported George W. Bush, compared to 7% who supported John Kerry
  
  
• Of the three most common misconceptions about the Iraq war, a) there was evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link, b) WMD were found in Iraq, and c) The rest of the world supported the US-led invasion, 80% of regular Fox viewers held at least one of these mis-conceptions, higher than consumers of any other news source. In addition, 43% believed all three misconceptions



• 49% of Fox viewers believe the media treats George W. Bush unfairly.



• Fox News devoted twice as much air time to the Anna Nicole Smith story than CNN and MSNBC.

• In a national political quiz by Pew Research, Fox News viewers scored the lowest of all regular news consumers, lower than Comedy Central, local news, and network morning show viewers. Fox viewers scored in the 50th percentile, meaning that watching Fox News regularly made one no more likely to know current political events than the average American.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Michael Savage

Michael Savage (formerly Michael Weiner) is a conservative radio host, author, and former TV host. Don't ask about the name change. I can only assume Savage was considered to be more "hip" than Weiner, and we all know that when you're an apologist for the neo-conservative elite, you had better have hipness in spades.




Savage has made a career of making outlandish, often troubling assertions and accusations aimed at the American Left. Much of his rantings would make one question if he is mentally competent to be a radio host, or hold any job for that matter. Below are a few of my faves:

• Attributed the Columbine massacre to gender reassignment surgery.


• Claimed a Democratic win in the '06 midterms "could lead to the breakup of the United States"


• Defended the actions of disgraced congressman Mark Foley, claiming "the kid was leading him on."


• Advocated bombing the United Nations.
  

These examples alone are probably enough to diagnose Savage with having paranoid schizophrenia. But his latest hairbrained theory indicated that the man's fragile mind is finally at the point of rupturing.

On July 30, 2007, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts suffered a mild seizure while at home. Savage, ever the opportunist, used Robert's ailment to make conspiratorial, baseless -and downright insane- attacks on unspecified "Democrats." Savage asserted:

Am I to believe that there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying that he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner?

As if baseless allegations weren't enough, Savage took the opportunity to cement his legacy as America's Most Delusional Radio Personality with the following:

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he's had a seizure at age 52. That's a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they're telling us there's no cause for concern and you don't know what to believe.

So if I understand correctly, Justice Roberts had a history of seizures in his 30's, yet a seizure in his 50's is "amazing?" Does Savage actually listen to the words that come out of his mouth? In this example, he provides evidence that his whole previous diatribe was nonsense, and then just keeps on going with it.

The problem with guys like Michael Savage is that they typically reach wide audiences of loyal, uninformed, unquestioning, easily-manipulated conservatives. I actually feel sorry for his feeble-minded listeners. Apparently Savage has some Jim Jones-type effect on his listeners. If you are among the people who listened to Savage spew this garbage and didn't immediately grasp the utter lunacy of it, then God help you because you are a complete moron.

Profiles in Right-Wing Lunacy: Debbie Schlussel

For those unfamiliar with her work, Debbie Schlussel is a frequent editorial contributer to major U.S. newspapers and television news programs. She also runs a conservative blog at www.debbieschlussel.com/. Oh, and she is a lunatic.

Scouring the pages of her blog can yield countless examples of moronic right-wing rants. If that weren't enough, the dearth of comments left by her readers is even more hysterical.

Despite consistently lacking both knowledge and integrity, Ms. Schlussel truly distinguished herself following the April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech University. As Media Matters documented, Schlussel quickly proposed that the school shooting was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. How did she come up with this conclusion?

(Her analysis in quotes):

1. "The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media
reports as a young Asian male"

2. "The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan."

3. "Pakis [her word] are considered 'Asian' "

4. "Were there two [shooters] and was this a coordinated terrorist attack?"

Wow. In just four easy steps, we went from a young asian male to a "coordinated terrorist attack" perpetrated by Pakistani Islamaic extremists. Now that's deductive reasoning Sherlock Holmes would be proud of.

If that weren't enough, Schlussel then found time for some good old-fashoined fear-mongering:

"[e]ven if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students."

As we all recall, the attack was carried out by a mentally ill student. I kind of feel sorry for Ms. Schlussel, because she really wanted it to be a terrorist attack. Imagine the disappointment in her face when she learned of the lone shooter's true identity. Rat's! Another attempt to spew conservative propaganda foiled!

Unfortunately, you cannot see the original posting from Schlussel or subsequent postings by her loyal conservabots. Why? Because after Media Matters critiqued her journalistic integrity, Schlussel removed the entire post from her website. Rather than apologize for the poor journalism, racial slur and fear-mongering, she decided to put in it's place a petty jab at Media Matters:

"I've removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins."

Very nice, Debbie.

Don't let the Senate confirm this whackjob

As you may be aware, President Bush in May nominated Dr. James Holsinger to take over as United States Surgeon General. As the testimony of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona suggests, the position of the nation's top doctor has been politicized to the same degree as many other departments within the executive branch.

The nomination of Dr. Holsinger represents the latest in a long line of appointments, firings, and muzzlings, that have marked the Bush administration. For those unaware of Holsinger's "psuedo-scientific" background, you can check some of it out here. Sure, Dr. Holsinger may not be advocating blood-letting or trepanation, but he's a reactionary all the same.

In the coming months, the Senate Commitee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will decide whether to recommend Dr. Holsinger for Senate confirmation. You can write the commitee at help_comments@help.senate.gov.

Here's a copy of the letter I sent:


Dear Senators,

I implore you to take a stand with regard to President Bush's nominee to the post of US Surgeon General. Senate confirmation hearing should be more than a formality, especially in light of the current scenario of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a conservative, ideologically-driven President.

As the brief careers of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have shown, claims of objective bi-partisanism during confirmation hearings should be taken with a grain of salt given the rampant cronyism exhibited by the Bush White House.

Dr. Holsinger, despite what he may have you believe, is, and always will be a religious ideologue. While science and religion certainly are not mutually exclusive, our great nation deserves to have a chief medical advocate dedicated primarily to the advancement of science and medicine. From what we know of Dr. Holsinger, it can be fairly asserted that his career has been predicated on the perversion of science and medicine, putting political and ideological beliefs ahead of scientific fact. Science, by very definition, implies advancement of knowledge. Dr. Holsinger's views signify a scientific regression, to a time when stem cells were a mystery and people thought homosexuality was a disorder. As a founder of an extreme Christian congregation, I would also have serious concerns about Holsinger's commitment to near-scientific certainties like evolution and global warming.

It is the responsibility of this committee to determine whether the president's current nominee is up to the task of being the NATION'S doctor. I would contend, from what we know about the President's own ideology, his history of extreme cronyism, the recent testimony of former Surgeon General Carmona, and Dr. Holsinger's own extreme views, the Senate must refuse to confirm the present nominee.

As there are several 2008 presidential hopefuls on this committee, I know I will base my vote, in part, upon the decision of this committee's members. I know this appointment would only last a year and a half, but as Bush has demonstrated with this nomination, he intends to push his extreme right-wing agenda until the day he leaves office.

I believe I represent a large number of Americans who desire a return to a time when government appointees served the public interest of all Americans, not the political interest of some Americans.

Sincerely,

Nick Mitchell

Is the Media Gay for Romney?

Judge for yourself. (Courtesy of Media Matters)

Bill O'Reilly: "I mean, look, if you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America."

Dennis Miller: "Not only does he look good. He's good at what he does."

The Politico's Roger Simon: "Strong, clear, gives good soundbite and has shoulders you could land a 737 on."

The Politico's Roger Simon: "Romney has chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest."

Newsweek: "The former governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is so buff and handsome in late middle age that when a brochure from a recent campaign showed him standing, bare-chested, on a swimming float, he was accused of sexually pandering to women voters."

Pat Buchanan: "...he's an extremely handsome man..."

Chris Matthews: "He looks like a million bucks. Everything is perfect. Everything about him is perfect -- his look, his manner, everything, the shirt, never rolled-up sleeves, the tie always tied."

One might expect such astute coverage of national affairs from the likes of Tiger Beat, but we're talking about "respected" members of the mainstream press. Of course, the point is not that all mainstream media is gay, or that Romney appeals to the closeted gay political pundit. The point is that the media is trying its hardest to deflect America's attention away from the real issues and towards nonsense about Romney's "barrel chest." It's sad, really. When compared to a guy like Dennis Kucinich, a small, modest-looking Progressive Democrat with a lot of ideas, it's sad to think that Romney is seen as the better candidate. What ever happened to appealing to the average American? Most Americans are overweight and unattractive. Why isn't Dennis Hastert getting more buzz for '08?

Mitt in '08: Not Happening

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney recently spoke before a crowd in Iowa. A full account of the story can be found here. Long story short, Romney equated his sons' work on his campaign to service to the country. Of course, a gaffe like this wouldn't be acceptable during peacetime, but with an ongoing war in the Middle East, Romney's comments should just about finish him off, sturdy chin and all.

Shockingly, the mainstream media all but ignored the gaffe. Luckily The Daily Show devoted a segment to it, which can be viewed here.

Believe it or not, the Right flocked to defend Romney's comments. Comments on USA Today's blog offered these gems:

"Lets see, what army did Hilly and Barak serve in? Maybe the career politician's wife army, the Wal Mart army or the Nigerian madrassa army."

"Is Mit(sic) Romney running for president or his sons?...They are adults and they make their own decisions. "

"This is America and, right now, there is no conscription so get over it."

"I guess I forgot that Clinton was a war hero, as was Obama and Hillary. And let's not forget that Chelsea was a Navy Seal when she decided to serve her country."

Not surprisingly, these Righties completely missed the relevance of Romney's statements. The point is NOT that Romney's sons chose not to serve in the military. No one is suggesting a parent should steer their children into military service (that's what military recruiters are for). The point of the story is that the ever-hawkish Romney is equating military service with working for your dad's election campaign (and doing so in wartime, no less). There are few things one can do that can compare to wartime military service. Maybe an undercover police officer or firefighter, but I'm pretty certain working on your dad's presidential campaign is not even in the same ballpark as military service. Just because your dad is running for public office doesn't mean you are providing some public service.

The problem with Romney's statement is that he should have stopped talking at: "They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
To add the line: "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president," is disrespectful to the many, many Americans who don't think Romney would make a great president and don't feel his sons' work should be considered "supporting our nation." Last I checked, our nation was made up of many diverse people, not just those who would vote for Mitt Romney, which by recent polls is only about 6-8% of Republicans.

Helping to elect a president is not any service to the country. It is service to one particular candidate from one particular party. In Romney's case, it is a service to a very small percentage of Americans who want to see Mitt elected (as I mentioned, only 6-8% of HIS OWN PARTY!). Given that many of Mitt's views (Guantanamo, the Iraq surge, the environment, health care, Mormonism) are out of touch with MOST of America, one could reasonably argue that aiding Mitt's campaign is actually a DISSERVICE to the country AS A WHOLE.

I have volunteered for my political party before, and I can proudly say I lack the audacity to call my service a "service to the country." I was providing a service to my political party, and no one else. By contrast, our military doesn't discriminate who it supports and defends. The military defends ALL Americans EQUALLY, regardless of gender, race, economic status or political ideology, thus military service qualifies as "service to the country."

Perhaps if Mitt is elected, and his sons were to assume government posts (and not political ones), they could be considered public servants. However, if the current Bush administration is any indication, the office of the presidency doesn't exactly serve all Americans equally either. If you are a GOP campaign contributor, a corporation, an evangelical, a right-wing pundit, or "loyal Bushie," the service you receive from the executive branch is much different from the service the rest of us get.

Shocking: Unpopular Dick Cheney not a fan of polls

I may be a bit biased because I work in a public opinion environment, but I really like polls. Polls, when conducted properly, accurately portray the desires and beliefs of the American people. Not only are polls interesting, but they tell us a lot about how Americans think. Public opinion also has the power to effect public policy, at least among politicians that actually care about their constituents. If you are unaware of this site, http://www.pollingreport.com/ is a site that archives public opinion polls from most major polling organizations.

Sometimes polls are not that useful. Sometimes questions are misleading, difficult for respondents to understand, or the results simply don't tell us much. For example, polls conducted in 2006 for the 2008 Presidential Election are a bit ridiculous.

I still wouldn't go as far as Dick Cheney went with regard to the usefulness of polls. Generally, polls are a great and accurate indicator of current public opinion. When confronted by a question regarding his low approval ratings in a recent appearance on Larry King, Cheney asserted that:

"[T]he polls are notoriously unreliable, in the sense that they change all the time, they bounce around all over the place."

Actually, most polls are notoriously reliable, especially when dealing with matters of fact (for example, exit polls, Nielsen Ratings) or issues like abortion, where the core of the issue changes very little over time.

Speaking of abortion, here is a great example of a particular "unreliable" Gallop poll: In 1980, 25% of Americans thought abortions should be "always legal," compared to 26% today. 53% said "sometimes legal" in 1980, compared to 55% today, and 18% said "always illegal" in 1980 compared to -you guessed it- 18% today. Unreliable indeed.

Here's a graphic illustration of all that "bouncing around" in the abortion survey:



Moreover, when public opinion data do significantly change, it's almost always due to observable events. For example, Bush and Cheney enjoyed high approval ratings after 9/11. These were a direct result of public's belief that the White House did a good job handling the crisis coupled with widespread reluctance to criticize leaders after an attack on the homeland. Their ratings have plummeted today, not because polls "bounce all over the place," but because this administration has been an across the board disaster. Rather than bouncing, Bush and Cheney's approval ratings have resembled a very smooth ride downhill.

Of course, I don't expect Cheney to be a particular fan of polls. After all, his own approval ratings have recently been in the 28-35% range. George W. Bush, meanwhile, has recently polled as low as 26%, the lowest recorded approval rating for a president since Nixon at the height if Watergate. So what does Cheney do when confronted with the undesirable facts about his job performance? He goes on the offensive, attacking the credibility of the entire public opinion industry on Larry King. That's integrity for you.

Welcome to DOWN WITH RIGHTY

By creating Down With Righty, I hope to primarily use this space as a forum to discuss political and societal issues facing America, with a particular emphasis on the radical right-wing agenda. As this blog's subtitle indicates, the dangers of right-wing ideology are many. Of course, conservative politicians and pundits are not the only ones with issues, and I promise to address issues in as unbiased a manner as possible. The problem is, the purveyors of the conservative agenda are often in the extreme minority. Global warming and evolution skeptics, for example, represent an extraordinarily small segment of the political landscape, yet the American public and media often treat these ideologues as viable alternatives.

Essentially this will be a place to collect my thoughts, express opinions, link to interesting (and often disturbing) things on the web, and engage in reasoned debate.