Fear Won the GOP Presidential Debate

Overall, there seems to be any consensus as to who won the Republican Presidential debate last night.  Yes, Jebbie Bush got in a few licks against The Donald and reminded the audience that the Geneva Conventions still exist (not that his idiot brother and Dick Cheney let that bother them), but seemingly there is little movement to be seen in polling numbers.  But, as a piece in Politico, there was indeed one winner: fear or perhaps more accurately, fear mongering.  And the overall solution the GOP clown card offered is belligerence, calls for "troops on the ground," and, of course, killing Muslims.  In the process, the would be commanders in chief showed most were not ready for prime time.  Ted Cruz may hay released classified information, Chris Christie talked about talking face to face with the king of Jordan who has been dead for 16 years, and as noted in a prior post, Ben Carson advocated for killing women and children in the fight against ISIS.  Sadly, the mainstream media is doing its best to whip up fear and anxiety and, thus are aiding the GOP.  Here are highlights from the Politico piece:

[I]t’s accurate to say that the debate was all about terrorism—how to fight it, how to keep Americans safe from it, and how much Americans should be freaking out about it. CNN’s panelists asked no questions about jobs, wages, the impending Fed rate hike, health care, energy, infrastructure, the federal budget, the federal deficit, the Supreme Court, financial reform, abortion, race, or any other domestic issue unrelated to homeland security. “Americans are more afraid today than they’ve been at any time since 9/11,” Wolf Blitzer declared, and the main theme of the debate—from the candidates, but arguably from the network as well—was that they ought to be even more afraid.

Immigration was a prominent topic, but mostly in the context of keeping jihadist refugees out of the U.S. Energy came up, but only in the context of reducing U.S. dependence on oil from terror-supporting nations. Guns came up, but only in the context of Obama’s proposal to deny guns to Americans on the terror watch list. The economy barely came up, although Kasich did say strengthening the economy would help defeat ISIS. Rand Paul brought up the federal debt in his closing statement, calling it the greatest threat to U.S. security.

Polls after the Paris and San Bernardino attacks have found that terrorism has become the most pressing issue for the public. It’s a complex issue, worthy of debate, and last night’s focus on terror produced several interesting disagreements among the Republicans—over regime change and foreign entanglements, over domestic surveillance, over Syrian refugees and border security. But CNN’s implicit assumption was that non-terror issues are no longer as important for 2016. “You all have different strategies for keeping America safe and that will be the focus of our debate tonight,” Blitzer said at the outset.

There was little acknowledgment during the conversation that Americans have anything to fear from anything other than terrorists, or that the terrorist threat could be anything but dire. In fact, since 9/11, more Americans have been killed by lightning strikes than by terror attacks—and way more Americans have been killed by car accidents or preventable diseases. But that doesn’t mean Americans feel safe, especially when cable news is wall-to-wall terror coverage. There’s a fine line between covering anxiety and creating it.

Rand Paul also suggested last night that Americans shouldn’t overreact, that “we defeat terrorists by showing them we don’t fear them.” But that was a minority view on the Republican stage, as the candidates generally agreed that our military is in shambles, our president is weak, and ISIS is an existential threat. There was no sense that the U.S. spends more on its military than the next seven countries combined, and little mention of the thousands of bombs the U.S. and its allies are already dropping on ISIS.

Nobody really explained how all that belligerence would defuse a threat that can manifest itself in homegrown Americans, like the health inspector who killed his colleagues in San Bernardino. And there wasn’t much discussion of the potential for military action abroad to create unintended consequences. But near the end of the debate, Trump complained that more than a decade of U.S. intervention in the Middle East has achieved nothing, while costing trillions of dollars that could have been spent upgrading U.S. roads, bridges and airports.

It was a profound attack on the interventionist Republican foreign policy of the 21^st century; Carly Fiorina immediately pointed out, correctly, that Trump’s rhetoric echoed the Democrats. And needless to say, it was the only time anyone mentioned infrastructure.

In truth, other than waging endless war and ignoring huge domestic problems, the GOP clowns offered no real solutions - which is par for the course.

Iowa Republican's Shocking Ignorance

MISSING PHRASE: Moron

I continue to lament that today's Republican Party has become the party of ignorance, racism and extremism.  The examples are many, but one that is telling is Joni Ernst, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Iowa.  One indication of Ernst extremism is her appearance before the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition, an organization that wants special rights for Christofascists and which might as well hand out KKK robes at its gatherings (in Virginia, the equivalent is The Family Foundation).  Ernst latest batshitery is her argument that states can "nullify" federal laws that states - read Christofascists - don't like.  The Daily Beast looks at this proud GOP cretin who ought not be running for any public office.  Here are highlights:

Joni Ernst, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Iowa, appears to believe states can nullify federal laws. In a video obtained by The Daily Beast, Ernst said on September 13, 2013 at a forum held by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition that Congress should not pass any laws “that the states would consider nullifying.”

“You know we have talked about this at the state legislature before, nullification. But, bottom line is, as U.S. Senator why should we be passing laws that the states are considering nullifying? Bottom line: our legislators at the federal level should not be passing those laws. We’re right…we’ve gone 200-plus years of federal legislators going against the Tenth Amendment’s states’ rights. We are way overstepping bounds as federal legislators. So, bottom line, no we should not be passing laws as federal legislators—as senators or congressman—that the states would even consider nullifying. Bottom line.”

[S]he co-sponsored a resolution that says “the State of Iowa hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.” It was introduced in response to “many federal mandates [that] are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

States cannot nullify federal laws, of course.

As Erwin Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional law scholar and Dean of the University of California, Irvine Law School, told The Daily Beast, nullification is expressly forbidden under Article VI of the Constitution. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Chemerinsky also noted that the Supreme Court had dealt with this issue as recently as 1958, when in Cooper v. Aaron, a unanimous decision signed by every justice on the court, it was made clear that states could not nullify federal laws or Supreme Court decisions.

Ernst’s comments mark yet another chapter in what has been an ugly Senate campaign. Democrats have tried to depict her as an extremist and suggested that the Iowa state senator supports impeaching President Obama. In contrast, the Republicans have slammed Braley as being an out-of-touch liberal trial lawyer who is willing to sue his neighbors over minor squabbles and who looks down on those without advanced degrees.

The race is currently considered a tossup by outside observers and polling has Ernst and Braley in a dead heat.

The GOP Descent Into Insanity: 64% of Republicans Are Birthers

How does one begin to describe the mass insanity that has taken over the Republican Party?  My Republican ancestors would be spinning in their graves if they could see the batshitery that now qualifies as mainstream GOP thought.  Ditto for William F. Buckley, Jr., who worked to bring intellect and reason to conservationism.  Now, to be a Republican one literally must have had a lobotomy or be clinically insane.  How else to explain the findings of a new Fairleigh Dickinson University survey of register voters that found that 64% of Republicans are so-called "birthers" who continue to believe that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States.  Apparently, Hawaii doesn't qualify as a part of the nation in the minds of those who inhabit the fetid swamp that is today's GOP.  A piece in Salon looks at the off the charts delusion of Republicans.  Here are highlights:

A whopping 64 percent of Republicans think it’s “probably true” that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life, including his possible birthplace, according to a new nationwide survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind project examining Americans’ belief in political conspiracy theories.

The report goes on to state that purported levels of knowledge generally reduces susceptibility to belief in birtherism and conspiracy theories and birtherism in general - except among Republicans where claimed knowledge of current events has an opposite effect:

In general, higher levels of actual knowledge about politics tends to reduce belief inconspiracy theories. In the poll, respondents were asked a series of four questions about current events, and respondents who were able to answer more questions correctly were less likely to endorse the conspiracy theories. Fifteen percent of people who got none of the questions right thought that three or four of the conspiracies were likely, compared to three percent of those who answered three or four correctly. Education also tended to reduce belief in the conspiracy theories.

However, the relationship between current events knowledge and belief in conspiracy theories is conditional on partisanship. Among Democrats, each question answered correctly reduces the likelihood of endorsing at least one of the conspiracy theories by seven points.Among independents, each additional question reduces it by two points. For Republicans,though, each additional question answered correctly tends to increase belief in at least one of the theories by two points.

Given that evangelical Christians - the mainstay of today's GOP - have lower levels of education and higher levels of belief that the Bible is literally true in every respect, perhaps the staggering levels of birtherism correlate simply correlate to the increasing ignorance of the GOP base.  Whatever the cause, it is sad that a political part that once valued intelligence, education, logic and reason has been reduced to a group of ignorance embracing Neanderthals. 

Virginia's GOP Created Fiscal Cliff

An article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch looks at the Commonwealth of Virginia's own approaching fiscal cliff.  It's interesting that many of the problems cited that will make Virginia less competitive in the future and more fiscally insolvent track directly to the policies of the Republican Party of Virginia and its refusal to raise taxes to fund desperately needed spending on transportation, infrastructure and education.  While not specifically mentioned in the article I would also cite the Virginia GOP's continued push for reactionary social policies that make the state unattractive to progressive businesses that are hesitant to try to relocate employees with almost Medieval laws on equality and women's rights.  Should Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli be elected governor next November, the state's decline would likely accelerate. Here are some article highlights:

A national task force says Virginia may be heading toward its own version of a “fiscal cliff,” despite the state’s well-deserved reputation for prudent financial management.

Virginia could be heading for a major fall because of its reliance on federal government spending and its failure to fashion a sustained source of revenue for transportation improvements essential to economic growth.

“The problems that threaten other states the Task Force studied also threaten Virginia; but, most of the problems are less worrisome thanks to the state’s sound financial management and good fortune,” the report states. “The two exceptions are potential cuts in federal spending and chronically unmet transportation needs.”

The study released this month also raises concerns about the decline in state spending for public education, the gradual privatizing of higher education by substituting higher tuition and fees for state support, and declining state investment in infrastructure because of limited debt capacity.

Options for raising revenues to pay for public services are dwindling, especially for Virginia’s 170 counties, cities and towns, it says, while costs are rising, especially in the state’s bare-bones Medicaid program for the poor and the public employee pension obligations that the state has systematically underfunded.

“The state’s planning documents indicate that Virginia’s general fund revenues will not be adequate to fund obligations from prior years (debt service and pensions), keep up with health care costs, restore recession slashes to local aid, improve health and education services, and maintain and improve transportation and other infrastructure,” the report concludes.

[O]ne of the advisers on the Virginia report said the state is living off past accomplishments that can’t be sustained without changes in approach.  “The problem now is we need some investments,” said James J. Regimbal Jr., a former Senate Finance Committee budget analyst who advises local governments on fiscal policy and recently authored a biting critique of the McDonnell administration’s approach to funding transportation through tolls and private partnerships.

Local government advocates focused on the report’s warning of a reckoning ahead in the next four to six years as Virginia runs out of money for transportation improvements and other investments.  “We’re coming to a time in which the ‘Virginia way,’ which means relying on economic growth to generate the revenue that pay for public services, is no longer going to be able to pay the tab,” said Neal Menkes, director of fiscal policy at the Virginia Municipal League.

Virginia is more dependent on federal spending than any state in the country, said the task force, which noted that Moody’s Investors Service already has placed the state on a credit watch because of the potential for federal spending cuts that could cost the state 122,800 jobs, $7.3 billion in wages and $10.5 billion in annual state gross product.

Transportation is the other elephant in the room for state policymakers, the report states. “Inadequate funding has proved chronic and resulted in the substitution of capital funds for operations and maintenance and a growing dependence on federal funds.”  The task force notes gridlock on transportation funding since Virginia last increased the gasoline tax 25 years ago, as well as changes in vehicle efficiency and driving habits that have eroded the value of the tax by 45 percent.

Virginia’s Medicaid program ranks 48th in the country in eligibility and benefits even though the state ranks seventh in per capita income, the report notes. Expansion would bring an estimated $21 billion in federal spending the first seven years and generate more than 30,000 jobs in health care by some estimates, as well as provide health coverage to more than 400,000 Virginians without it.  But expansion also would cost Virginia more than $1 billion over 10 years, according to the McDonnell administration’s most recent estimate, at a time when Medicaid costs outpace revenue growth to pay them.

In the end, the task force suggests that Virginia faces a politically difficult decision about taxes and investments.  “Will the state’s leaders determine which crucial public investments must be made?” it asks. “Will they make the case to taxpayers for the need to raise revenues and use the golden AAA credit to leverage those revenues for tomorrow’s infrastructure?”

As long as the GOP controls the General Assembly and the governorship, the answer to the study's last question is a resounding "no."   Virginia will continue to decline thanks to the Virginia GOP's backward and greed driven policies.