Palin Lunacy; Trump + Gollum; Trump Supporters Are 'Single Men Who Masturbate To Anime'

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are getting a bit rough and tumble in their primary race, but it is nothing compared to the lunacy surrounding the Donald Trump campaign which ranges from an incoherent Sarah Palin - what else is new? - to rants by GOP strategists who are venting over the elements of the insane GOP base that are supporting Donald Trump.  I find Trump's embrace of Sarah Palin's endorsement particularly interesting because it was John McCain's nomination of of Palin as his VP pick that drove my late mother to say "I'm done" to the GOP back in 2008.  Meanwhile, I find GOP strategist Rick Wilson's comments on Trump supporters to be both hysterical and likely 100% on point.   And then there is Ran Paul's equating of Donald Trump with Gollum.  First, some of the commentary on Trump is receiving via the New York Daily News for his embrace of Palin:

Just when you thought it was safe to take politics seriously again, gaffe-prone Sarah Palin stepped back on the presidential stage Tuesday to endorse her spotlight-loving, soulmate — Donald Trump.

Palin, the former Alaska governor turned vice presidential candidate turned political pundit, stood side by side with the billionaire business mogul turned casino owner turned Republican presidential front-runner to tell an Ames, Iowa, crowd how Trump will save America.

“I am here because, like you, I know it is now or never,” Palin told the cheering crowd.

Just when you thought it was safe to take politics seriously again, gaffe-prone Sarah Palin stepped back on the presidential stage Tuesday to endorse her spotlight-loving, soulmate — Donald Trump.

Palin, the former Alaska governor turned vice presidential candidate turned political pundit, stood side by side with the billionaire business mogul turned casino owner turned Republican presidential front-runner to tell an Ames, Iowa, crowd how Trump will save America.

“I am here because, like you, I know it is now or never,” Palin told the cheering crowd.

The match made in reality show heaven was a setback for Trump’s GOP opponents, especially Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had closed the gap with Trump in recent weeks in Iowa.

The comments of GOP strategist Rick Wilson about Trump's white male supporters almost made me burst out laughing.  Crooks and Liars has the details.  Here are excerpts:

While explaining that he believes that Donald Trump's success in the Republican party does not mean that establishment conservatism is dying, GOP strategist Rick Wilson dismissed the "childless single men" who support Trump's presidential bid.

"The fact of the matter is, most of them are childless single men who masturbate to anime. They’re not real political players. These are not people who matter in the overall course of humanity," Wilson said of Trump supporters on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes."

Then, lastly there is Rand Paul's equating of Trump with Gollum from the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Here are excerpts from Politico:

Sen. Rand Paul has a new attack line against Donald Trump: The tycoon is Gollum from J.R. R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings.” 

In a Facebook post, Paul writes, “One candidate on this national stage wants you to give him power. He tells you he is rich, so he must be smart. If you give him power he claims he will fix America, but there is another tradition in America. A tradition that believes that power corrupts, and that our goal should be not to gain power but to contain power or limit Presidential power.”

Electing Gollum should not be our objective,” Paul continues. “This race should be about which candidate will best protect you from an overbearing government. I am the only one on this national stage who really doesn’t want power or dominion over you. I want to set you free, I want to leave you alone, and I want a government so small you can barely see it.”

A picture of the real estate mogul is at the top with the text, “Electing Gollum should not be our objective.”

As I said when Trump first entered the race, get out plenty of popcorn!!

Fantasies and Fictions at G.O.P. Debate

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman adds to the slaps downs being give to the Republican Party and its would be nominees in the wake of the GOP presidential debate on Wednesday evening.  As noted in an earlier post yesterday, the Republican Party is increasingly un-tethered from reality and now is most focused on restating talking points that will win points with the racist, homophobic, misogynist base of the party or adhere to an fantastical ideology that wants to recreate a version of the 1950's that never existed except perhaps for the privileged positions held by whites.  Here are column highlights:

I’ve been going over what was said at Wednesday’s Republican debate, and I’m terrified. You should be, too. After all, given the vagaries of elections, there’s a pretty good chance that one of these people will end up in the White House.

Why is that scary? I would argue that all of the G.O.P. candidates are calling for policies that would be deeply destructive at home, abroad, or both. But even if you like the broad thrust of modern Republican policies, it should worry you that the men and woman on that stage are clearly living in a world of fantasies and fictions. And some seem willing to advance their ambitions with outright lies.

You’re probably tired of hearing this, but modern G.O.P. economic discourse is completely dominated by an economic doctrine — the sovereign importance of low taxes on the rich — that has failed completely and utterly in practice over the past generation.

Think about it. Bill Clinton’s tax hike was followed by a huge economic boom, the George W. Bush tax cuts by a weak recovery that ended in financial collapse. The tax increase of 2013 and the coming of Obamacare in 2014 were associated with the best job growth since the 1990s. Jerry Brown’s tax-raising, environmentally conscious California is growing fast; Sam Brownback’s tax- and spending-slashing Kansas isn’t.

Yet the hold of this failed dogma on Republican politics is stronger than ever, with no skeptics allowed. . . . . The only candidate talking sense about economics was, yes, Donald Trump, who declared that “we’ve had a graduated tax system for many years, so it’s not a socialistic thing.”

If the discussion of economics was alarming, the discussion of foreign policy was practically demented.

Indeed, the only candidate who seemed remotely sensible on national security issues was Rand Paul, which is almost as disturbing as the spectacle of Mr. Trump being the only voice of economic reason.

The real revelation on Wednesday, however, was the way some of the candidates went beyond expounding bad analysis and peddling bad history to making outright false assertions, and probably doing so knowingly, which turns those false assertions into what are technically known as “lies.”

Mr. Christie’s mendacity pales, however, in comparison to that of Carly Fiorina, who was widely hailed as the “winner” of the debate.

Some of Mrs. Fiorina’s fibs involved repeating thoroughly debunked claims about her business record. No, she didn’t preside over huge revenue growth. She made Hewlett-Packard bigger by acquiring other companies, mainly Compaq, and that acquisition was a financial disaster.

But the truly awesome moment came when she asserted that the videos being used to attack Planned Parenthood show “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” No, they don’t. Anti-abortion activists have claimed that such things happen, but have produced no evidence, just assertions mingled with stock footage of fetuses.

So is Mrs. Fiorina so deep inside the bubble that she can’t tell the difference between facts and agitprop? Or is she deliberately spreading a lie? And most important, does it matter?

I began writing for The Times during the 2000 election campaign, and what I remember above all from that campaign is the way the conventions of “evenhanded” reporting allowed then-candidate George W. Bush to make clearly false assertions

Now we have presidential candidates who make Mr. Bush look like Abe Lincoln. But who will tell the people?

Once again, part of the problem is easily identified: the mainstream media that refuses to expose and call out GOP lies.   This conduct lead to the Iraq War fiasco, yet the media has learned nothing.  If anything, it has become even more irresponsible. 

House GOP Faces Shutdown Crisis

With Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz racing to Kentucky to complete their self-prostitution to the Christofascist element of the GOP base, House Republicans face a crisis: will they shutdown the federal government in an effort to defund Planned Parenthood or will they reject the demands of the spittle flecked rants of the Christofascists?  With only 26% of respondents supporting the lawless behavior of Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, a government shutdown could prove disastrous for the GOP in 2016.  The Hill looks at the crisis that faces the GOP leadership.  Here are highlights: 

House Republicans will huddle in a pivotal closed-door meeting Wednesday morning as they face mounting pressure to defund Planned Parenthood — including threats to shut down the government.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who’s seeking the GOP presidential nomination, will headline a rally with several pro-life groups outside the Capitol on Thursday, calling on Congress to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood in the spending bill that must be passed by Oct. 1 to avert a shutdown.

 Conservative outside group Heritage Action for America says at least 28 House Republicans have signed or plan to sign a letter demanding that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team block Planned Parenthood funding. The group is urging leaders to hold a special conference meeting to discuss “atrocities” carried out by the nonprofit healthcare group.If that many House Republicans stick to those demands, Boehner would have no wiggle room to pass a stopgap government spending bill.

Boehner, who’s in his third term as Speaker, is in a particularly precarious position this month. He’s had a target on his back all year — Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) rolled out a symbolic resolution right before the August recess to boot Boehner from his leadership post.

And there’s concern among some Boehner loyalists that conservative foes will force a vote to oust him this fall if he cuts a deal with President Obama and Democrats to fund the government without addressing the fetal tissue controversy.

But those in Boehner’s inner circle say he would prevail if such a vote were called.

Boehner and his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are in no mood to reprise the shutdown of 2013. They believe another headline-grabbing crisis would severely damage the party at a time when they’re trying to show that Republicans can govern and take back the White House.

None of the bills would be likely to pass the Senate, however, where rules allow the minority to filibuster legislation. And Republicans fear they’d be blamed if a shutdown resulted from the impasse.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday called on House Republicans to hold bipartisan negotiations over 2016 spending. And the White House raised pressure on congressional negotiators, reiterating that Obama would not agree to any legislation that keeps sequester spending levels.

GOP aides said Tuesday it’s unlikely that language for the CR would be released this week. Before the August recess, Boehner said that Congress would likely need to pass a CR by the Oct. 1 deadline in order to buy more time for larger budget and spending negotiations.

The House will be in session for only 12 days this month before funding for the government runs out.

GOP Candidates Rush to Praise Kim Davis and Subvert the Constitution

Driving home I was listening to a constitutional law scholar on a POTUS satellite radio.  The topic?  The GOP 2016 presidential candidates flocking to support anti-gay County Clerk Kim Davis and breathlessly prostituting themselves to would be Christofascist voters in the GOP primaries. Not surprisingly, the scholar had little good to say about these candidates and he flat out slammed their ignorance about the U.S. Constitution.  Perhaps the most shocking - and desperately pandering - comments came from Mike Fuckabee Huckabee who proved he is unfit for the office of president or any other elected office.  But Huckabee is not alone in his desire to toss the U.S. Constitution into the toilet.  The Hill looks ate the GOP candidate reactions.  Here are excerpts:

The Kentucky clerk who has been jailed for refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples is getting full-throated support from several Republican presidential candidates.

Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) blasted a judge's decision Thursday to hold Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt of court. 

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Paul said on CNN's "Wolf," citing his home state clerk's "heartfelt conviction.

Cruz, a vocal opponent of the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage this summer, also rebuked the judge.  "Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny."

"Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America," Cruz said in a lengthy statement posted to his campaign website next to a bright red button for supporters to donate to his White House bid. 

Huckabee, the first to offer a strong defense of Davis this week, blasted putting her in custody in a series of tweets on Thursday afternoon, calling it an assault on religious liberty.

One Huckabee tweet stated:  

Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country. We must defend #ReligiousLiberty!  

Huckabee went on to say that he was headed to Kentucky to visit Davis.  And former Hindu, Bobby Jindal likewise jumped on the pro-Davis band wagon of political whores.

Call me a cynic, but those riding the GOP clown car who are the most vociferous in their support for Davis are all at the bottom end of the polls.  They will literally do anything to catch the eye of the unwashed masses of the Christofascists in the GOP base.  

White Supremacist Hate Group Leader Donated to Paul, Cruz and Santorum

Up until the aftermath of last weeks murders in Charleston by Dylann Storm Roof and the discovery of Roof's blog, many Americans had likely never heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens ("CCC") even though it has regularly had Republicans and hate merchants like FRC's Tony Perkins address its meetings.  Sadly, CCC and groups like it represents a growing  faction within the GOP base.  A faction that Republican candidates often court through dog whistle racist statements.  Now, it turns out that CCC's president has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates, including presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum.  The Guardian looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

The leader of a rightwing group that Dylann Roof allegedly credits with helping to radicalise him against black people before the Charleston church massacre has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republicans such as presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum.

Earl Holt has given $65,000 to Republican campaign funds in recent years while inflammatory remarks – including that black people were “the laziest, stupidest and most criminally-inclined race in the history of the world” – were posted online in his name.

After being approached by the Guardian on Sunday, Cruz’s presidential campaign said it would be returning all money the senator had received from Holt.

Holt, 62, is the president of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a Missouri-based activist organisation cited by the author of a manifesto-style text that was posted on a website registered in Roof’s name along with photographs of the gunman. The FBI said on Saturday it was investigating the website.

Holt said it was “not surprising” that Roof was apparently informed by the group’s website as it reported race relations “accurately and honestly”. However, he added: “The CofCC is hardly responsible for the actions of this deranged individual merely because he gleaned accurate information from our website.”

Holt has since 2012 contributed $8,500 to Cruz, the Texas senator running for the Republican presidential nomination, and his Jobs, Growth and Freedom Fund political action committee, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. On some filings Holt’s occupation was listed as “slumlord”.

He has also given $1,750 to RandPAC, the political action committee of Paul, the Kentucky senator and presidential contender, and he gave $2,000 to the 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. . . . . A further $1,500 was donated by Holt to Santorum . .

Holt has also distributed tens of thousands in campaign contributions among prominent Republicans in congress, such as Representative Steve King of Iowa ($2,000), Se

nator Tom Cotton of Arkansas ($1,500) and Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona ($1,000). He also gave $3,200 to the former Minnesota congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.

See the full article for some of the foul propaganda Holt disseminates.   One truly needs to consider what these Republicans truly stand for if Holt is so willing to give money to them.. In my view, all are extremists and push a conservative - read subtly racist - right wing agenda and believe that only white conservative Christians are "real Americans.".

In Iowa, GOP Candidates Stress Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

If one wants proof of just how shamelessly Republicans prostitute themselves to the Christofascists, look no farther than Iowa where every would be GOP presidential candidate is stressing his opposition to marriage equality.  Never mind the poll after poll is showing majority support among Americans for same sex marriage rights.  In today's GOP, it is all about whoring oneself to the Christofascists, spittle flecked homophobes, and thinly veiled (sometimes not even veiled) white supremacists.  It's ugly, but that is what has become of the Republican Party.  A piece in Politico looks at the GOP self-prostitution.  Here are highlights:

Leading Republican presidential candidates came to Iowa Saturday to assure social conservatives that they still oppose gay marriage, despite shifting public attitudes and the recent backlash against religious liberty laws.

Speaking to some 1,000 evangelicals at the Point of Grace Church in this suburb of Des Moines, a procession of presidential candidates expressed support for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to re-ban gay marriage if the Supreme Court recognizes a right to such unions.

Many GOP elites, in the donor and operative class, want to move beyond gay marriage. They think it’s a losing issue for the party in the long-term and makes outreach to younger voters more difficult. But social conservatives are the most influential constituency in the caucuses, which kick off the nominating process.

[T]he candidates tried to outdo one another on who could speak out most strongly against a right to gay marriage.

“Marriage as an institution existed before even government itself,” declared Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, kicking off the five-hour Faith & Freedom Summit, at which nine likely presidential candidates spoke. “The institution of marriage as between one man and one woman existed even before our laws existed.”

Scott Walker noted that he voted for Wisconsin’s constitutional ban and defended it through the judicial process, until the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court ruling that his state issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Bobby Jindal got out front on the topic by writing an op-ed this week that was headlined, “I’m holding firm against gay marriage.” There were hundreds of printouts of the piece, which ran in the New York Times, scattered throughout the mega-church.  The Louisiana governor’s speech was interrupted twice by standing ovations as he pledged his support for a religious freedom law in his home state that’s as strong as the one enacted in Indiana. 

Steve King, the Republican congressman from northwest Iowa, devoted his entire speech at the event to arguing that a Supreme Court decision recognizing a right to gay marriage would be illegitimate.

Ted Cruz is seen by many Iowa GOP insiders as having the upper hand right now with social conservatives. But the Texas senator has taken heat in the state this week for appearing at a fundraiser at the home of two openly gay men.  . . . Cruz vigorously defended his appearance at the fundraiser, which he said does not reflect his steadfast opposition to gay marriage. Asked twice if he was aware that a 23-year-old had apparently overdosed on drugs at the same apartment where he went for the fundraiser just six months ago, Cruz declined to answer. . . . . He declined to say whether he regretted the venue choice but attacked the media for covering the appearance.

Jeb Bush skipped the cattle call – this crowd is unlikely to go for him in the caucuses – but sent a surrogate to speak for him. Jordan Sekulow told the room that “Gov. Bush supports traditional marriage.”

One of the only potential candidates who did not mention gay marriage in his speech was Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator who is trying to appeal to libertarians and social conservatives. He’s taken a nuanced position, in which he says he believes in traditional marriage but that the law should be neutral on the matter and that it should ultimately be up to the states.

 

The GOP Primary Is Where Ideas Go to Die

Since the GOP establishment foolishly allowed the Christofascists to hijack the party base, the intellectual level of the party has been in a death spiral.  The party that once respected science, education and progress has been replaced by a party where ignorance is celebrated and science and modern knowledge are scorned.  To court favor with the fetid swamp that is the GOP base, would be political candidates must eschew thought, logic and innovative plans and instead embrace the mantras of the most ignorant and extreme elements of the party base.  A column in The Daily Beast looks at how the GOP base and GOP primaries is where ideas go to die.  Here are excerpts:

So now we have us some candidates, on the Republican side. Who’s the big kahuna? Jeb Bush? He keeps getting called front-runner, and I suppose he is, even though the polls sometimes say otherwise. Scott Walker? Certainly a player. Rand Paul? Pretty bad rollout, but he has his base. The youthful, advantageously ethnicized Marco Rubio? Some as-yet-unannounced entrant who can hop in and shake things up?

Each has a claim, sort of, but the 800-pound gorilla of this primary process is none of the above. It’s the same person it was in 2008, and again in 2012, when two quite plausible mainstream-conservative candidates had to haul themselves so far to the right that they ended up being unelectable. It’s the Republican primary voter.

To be more blunt about it: the aging, white, very conservative, revanchist, fearful voter for whom the primary season is not chiefly an exercise in choosing a credible nominee who might win in November, but a Parris Island-style ideological obstacle course on which each candidate must strain to outdo his competitors—the hate-on-immigrants wall climb, the gay-bashing rope climb, the death-to-the-moocher-class monkey bridge. This voter calls the shots, and after the candidates have run his gauntlet, it’s almost impossible for them to come out looking appealing to a majority of the general electorate.

You will recall the hash this voter made of 2012. He booed the mention of a United States soldier during a debate because the soldier happened to be gay. He booed contraception—mere birth control, which the vast majority of Republican women, like all women, use. He lustily cheered the death penalty. 

He is a demanding fellow. And he is already asserting his will this time around. Why else did Bush endorse Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s religious freedom bill in an instant, only to see Pence himself walk the bill back three days later? Bet Jeb would like to have that one back. But he can’t. The primary voter—along of course with the conservative media from Limbaugh and Fox on down—won’t permit it.

[A]s it happens, some of these candidates come to us with a few serious and unorthodox ideas. . . . Now, there is to be sure another Rubio, one who’d feel right at home on Parris Island. He is apparently now the quasi-official blessed-be-the-warmakers candidate, with his reflexive hard lines on Iran and Cuba. Along with Senate colleague Mike Lee of Utah, he also has put forth a tax plan that would deplete the treasury by some $4 trillion over 10 years—for context, consider that George W. Bush’s first tax cut cost $1.35 trillion over a decade—in order that most of those dollars be placed in the hands where the Republicans’ God says they belong, i.e., the 1 percent of the people who already hold nearly half the country’s wealth.

I think it’s a safe bet that we’ll see the neocon Rubio and the supply-side Rubio out on the stump. But the Rubio who wants to make life better for indebted students and working-poor childless couples? Either we won’t see that Rubio at all, or we will see him and he’ll finish fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire and go home. You can’t be a smart candidate in a party that wants to be stupid.

Maybe the fear of losing to Hillary Clinton and being shut out of the White House for 12 or 16 consecutive years will tame this beast. But the early signs suggest the opposite.

After all, how did Scott Walker bolt to the front of the pack? It wasn’t by talking about how to expand health care. It was by giving one speech, at an event hosted by one of Congress’ most fanatical reactionaries (Steve King of Iowa), bragging about how he crushed Wisconsin’s municipal unions. That’s how you get ahead in this GOP. I’d imagine Rubio and Paul and the rest of them took note.

Of the announced candidates of both parties, the only grown up who will discuss ideas is Hillary Clinton.

Rand Paul’s Terrifying Vision for America

(Credit: AP/Jim Cole)

Rand Paul has formally announced that he is joining the GOP clown car of those seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency.  Paul's announcement follows that of GOP extremist, Ted Cruz, and as with Cruz, Paul's vision of America is pretty frightening, especially if one isn't one of the demographics favored by today's GOP: white, straight, selfish, greedy, and conservative Christian. Part of Paul's vision is a radical free market world that would be the delight of vulture capitalists but which ought to send chills down the spines of the rest of us.  A piece in Salon looks at Paul's Ayn Rand like vision for America.  Here are excerpts:

Sen. Rand Paul, who announced his candidacy on Tuesday, has offered up a detailed vision for how to change America: his “Economic Freedom Zones” plan, an exhaustive 50-page blueprint for giving the country a radical free-market face lift. The plan, which was originally introduced as legislation in 2013, was championed by Paul’s wife Kelley during his campaign announcement today, while the senator himself alluded to the bill as a centerpiece of his economic vision.

Paul’s big idea is to take the country’s most economically distressed places and use them as a laboratory for experiments in removing government and allowing hyper-capitalism to govern. Detroit is the candidate that leaps to mind, especially since Paul chose the old Motor City as the backdrop for his public introduction of the bill.

But while Detroit is the standout candidate for the “bankrupt or economically distressed areas” Paul’s bill aims to radically change, the criteria are written loosely enough to make vast amounts of the country eligible for so-called “economic freedom.” In the end, selection can be at the discretion of the Treasury Secretary, a presidential appointment. Cities, counties and municipalities don’t have to be in bankruptcy like Detroit but simply be “at risk of insolvency.”

This is not a carefully targeted experiment. Vast sections of the country could be targeted and made into these zones. . . . So what happens in these zones?

Well, for one, taxes for the rich are slashed to an insane rate of 5 percent. That goes for corporations, too: 5 percent. It’s 5 percent for everybody, basically, far lower than the already ambitious 17% flat tax he proposes for everyone else. Capital gains taxes are essentially nonexistent in the zones, and even payroll taxes are reduced substantially to 4.2% for both employer and employee. You might ask, “But isn’t that how Social Security is funded, through payroll taxes?” Yes, but the revenue lost by slashing social security inputs in the zones is made up by the rest of us, according to the bill. Because freedom.

Of course, if taxes just aren’t your thing at all, zone inhabitants of means can have their charitable contributions counted as tax credits, not deductions.

The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts are effectively made toothless and null in “Freedom Zones,” with crucial regulatory linchpins expertly eliminated in the bill. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act looks to be toast as well. Also, any National Heritage Area, which includes our many Native American sites, lose any protection in a zone designated for “freedom”; they are now simply real estate.Paul’s bill embarks on an ambitious school privatization plan in the zones, because freedom for children is exposing them to the cold and indifferent winds of the capitalist market in their schooling.

Paul goes all in, priming the privatization pump by mandating that local school money–tax dollars–be funneled to for-profit schools if students choose to exit the public system. And predictably, up to $5,000 of tuition paid to a for-profit school is a tax credit, not a deduction, in the zone.

This is Paul’s vision. Senator Paul was serious about the bill. He enlisted Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as his cosponsor on the bill and noisily buddied up with President Obama–a risky move for a Republican hopeful–to lend credence to his zones idea. Paul’s pre-campaign has already been a cringeworthy series of clumsy rhetorical reversals on his more extreme views. But no amount of focus-grouped campaign rhetoric can erase a 50-page, detailed outline of his economic vision.

Be afraid - very afraid.

2016 Presidential Candidate Family Members Likely To Make Trouble

Most of us do not get to pick our family members other than perhaps who we choose to be our spouse.  Even then, in the world of politics, typically family members are supposedly "off limits" - at least until they do something or say something that is over the top.  In the line up of of would be Republican presidential candidates, Talking Points Memo looks at three who have family members who may rock the boat and cause headaches.  Here are highlights:

It is a cardinal rule of politics that families ought to be off-limits for attacks in campaigns, no matter how heated things get. But sometimes family members have a way of making trouble own their own for candidates.

When it comes to family members of presidential candidates, the 2016 election is shaping up to feature an unusually colorful cast of characters who could make plenty of trouble for their son, spouse or brother.  Here they are.

Rafael Cruz  The father-son resemblance is strong between Rafael Cruz and Rafael Jr. — better known as Ted — when it comes to being a conservative flamethrower. An evangelical pastor from Texas, the elder Cruz has logged a variety of incendiary remarks about President Barack Obama that surpass his son's rhetoric. Highlights include saying the president should go "back to Kenya," accusing him of wanting to "destroy all concept of God," describing his views as "classical Marxist philosophy" and comparing him to Fidel Castro. . . . . One of his [Ted Cruz's] chief obstacles to the nomination is his lack of support among party elites and big donors, precisely because of the rabble-rousing ways for which Rafael Sr. serves as an unhelpful reminder.

Ron Paul The former Texas congressman and father of Rand Paul had a proclivity for toying with conspiracy theories during his 35 years in office, and that tendency has kicked into high gear since his retirement in 2013. Just in 2015, his organization, the Ron Paul Institute, has suggested that the massacre of Charlie Hebdo by Islamic militants was a "false flag" and even called into question the "official story" of the 9/11 attacks.  His son, a Kentucky senator and presidential hopeful, more in tune with political reality and working to shed the outside-the-mainstream image he inherited. If his father keeps at it, that won't be an easy task.

George W. Bush  The most recent former president left office as one of the most unpopular in history, and — almost as troubling for his aspiring younger brother Jeb — was subsequently cast by the conservative base as an emblem of spendthrift Republicanism gone wrong. The Bush name is a liability with most constituencies other than evangelicals and wealthy GOP donors. Although George W. Bush has actively avoided the limelight since he left office, he recently resurfaced in the public eye to attend a fundraiser for his brother. And it's a safe bet that Democrats will seek to paint Jeb as the second coming of his brother.

The piece also makes note of the challenges Hillary Clinton may face as she tries to keep husband Bill reined in. 

What the GOP "Religious Freedon" Orgy Means to the GOP Primary

I've said much about the horrible bigotry now enacted into law in Indiana - and more such laws are pending in other states (the effort in Virginia failed in part because of a veto threat by Terry McAuliffe, but expect it to return and be a topic in campaigns this fall).  Granting special rights to Christians has become an obsession with some in the GOP - even more than pushing reverse Robin Hood policies - and may well play a significant role in the unfolding three ring circus of the GOP presidential primaries.  A piece in Salon looks at how the Christofascists demands for special rights could roil the GOP primary process.  Here are some article highlights:

The rapid realignment of public and judicial opinion over the last decade toward gay rights has embroiled the Christian right in an existential crisis. That’s the way they see it, at least, which is why they’re framing the advance of gay rights in America as an assault on “religious freedom” generally, and Christianity specifically. It’s a bogus argument – the religious freedoms of Christian conservatives are not and never have been dependent upon the denial of rights to gay people – but the cause is being championed by conservatives in state governments who have moved to pass laws protecting discrimination against gays as an expression of “religious freedom.”

One of those conservatives is Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law yesterday. The law will allow business owners who refuse to provide services to gay people to cite their religious beliefs in their own defense if they end up getting sued.. . . . this law and others like it are written very broadly and could allow for all manner of discriminatory behavior.

Paul Waldman, writing at the Washington Post, notes that the controversy over the law could very easily spill over into the 2016 Republican presidential nominating contest:

The more news this Indiana law gets, the more likely it is that it will become an issue in the presidential primaries. And it fits neatly within the key divide among Republicans: on one side you could have business groups that are nervous about negative economic impacts and strategists who don’t want the GOP to be known as the party of discrimination, while on the other side you have candidates eager for the votes of religious right primary voters.

It’s not hard to pick out the 2016 aspirants who would be most likely to support Pence on this one. Basically, if they’ve ever said anything in defense of the homophobic asshole from that stupid duck show – looking at you, Bobby Jindal – then there’s a pretty strong chance they’ll get down with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This fight also fall squarely within Rick Santorum’s and Mike Huckabee’s cultural-resentment wheelhouses.

If there’s anyone this issue is tailor-made for, though, it’s Ted Cruz. When Cruz formally announced his presidential campaign earlier this week, he explicitly stated that he hoped to ride to victory on the backs of Christian conservatives.  . . . . while Cruz doesn’t have a whole lot in the way of “experience” to boast about, he does have something to bring to the table when it comes to fighting on behalf of Christians against government “overreach.”
What will be interesting to see is if and how candidates like Jeb Bush react to the Indiana “religious freedom” controversy. Bush is a Christian and plenty conservative, but he also has an eye on appealing to primary voters outside the Christian right, and appealing to a broader American electorate that is far more supportive of gay rights. For my money, though, the man to watch will be Rand Paul.  Remember, there was a time not long ago when Rand Paul said that even though it was bad business to “exclude anyone” from your establishment, . . . He has, of course, since disavowed ever having believed anything of the sort, but who knows – maybe the Indiana “religious freedom” law and the need to win over some primary voters will rekindle some of that old-school libertarianism.

Despite the downside for those in states enacting such laws, for the Democrats on a longer term basis, these laws may do two things: (i) drive the GOP presidential primary contestants into crazy land and (ii) repulse decent people from supporting the GOP.  As I said, here in Virginia, the entire House of Delegates is up for reelection in November, and I am sure that The Family Foundation will be making support for such laws a litmus test for Republican candidates.

Seeking a GOP Vaccine for Ignorance

Columnist Kathleen Parker is once again bucking what's popular amongst the ignorance embracing base of the Republican Party as she slams those who have refused to have their children vaccinated with a resulting threat of epidemics of once eradicated diseases.   Yes, there are some liberals who have stupidly joined the anti-vaccine bandwagon, but the core group are the same crowd as the home schoolers who seek to avoid anything required by the government.  Here are highlights from her column in the Washington Post:

Flashback: Galileo is under house arrest pondering the unyielding ignorance of The Church for refusing to consider his heliocentric proposition that the Earth circled the sun.

We find this historical anecdote preposterous today, but people were persecuted for lesser heresies in Galileo’s time. Though we are now centuries removed from such dim-wittery, we find ourselves in a not-dissimilar pickle. 

After decades free of many crippling and deadly diseases thanks to the miracle of vaccines, some people are skeptical. Parents fearful of side effects, often on account of anecdotal evidence or discredited studies, are reluctant to vaccinate their children.

Some see vaccines as a conspiracy of Big Pharma. Elsewhere, especially in the South, people are simply distrustful of authority, especially government.  The latter group is familiarly known as the GOP base. They tend to be litmus-test conservatives on social issues and place Scripture above science. 

Most Americans under the age of 50, including doctors, have never seen measles. Now, after decades of being a virtually measles-free nation, we have 100 cases spread across at least 14 states and the potential for more as stubborn purists resist common sense. Science and experience overwhelmingly support vaccines, and the single study to the contrary, suggesting a connection to autism, has been thoroughly discredited.

Naturally, into this tar pit, the GOP presidential field has fallen. Or rather, been pushed. Asked about the vaccine controversy, both New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul have handed the media a fresh bone to gnaw.

While parents’ rights should always be protected in the absence of harm to their children, the public health of the nation also has to be protected. Individual rights are justifiably modified when the exercise of those rights adversely affects others. Smoking is a textbook example of this premise. 

Aspiring presidents would do well to articulate these conflicts with compassion, without condescension or pandering — while explaining why, in this case, vaccines are the right choice. For starters they might quote Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Study after study has shown that there are no negative long-term consequences. . . . And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”

GOP Base Lunacy and the Measles Vaccine Debate

More and more the base of the Republican Party displays fear of modernity and scientific truths and in the name of "parental rights" refuse to expose their children to public schools and more dangerously, modern vaccines to avoid preventable diseases.  One of the results of this backwardness is the current measles outbreak which is being fueled by those who  refuse to have their children vaccinated.  To me, it is symptomatic of the lunacy that has become synonymous with today's Republican Party.  It is also typical of far right Christians who are among the most self-centered and selfish people one will encounter despite all the claims of piety and adherence to the Gospel message.  They truly, in my view, do not give a damn about how they endanger others.  Now, would be GOP presidential candidates are being pushed to take positions as to whether the public welfare outweighs pandering to those who live in a fantasy world.  The New York Times looks at the issue.  Here are highlights:

WASHINGTON — The politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters.

As the latest measles outbreak raises alarm, and parents who have decided not to vaccinate their children face growing pressure to do so, the national debate is forcing the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential hopefuls to confront questions about whether it is in the public’s interest to allow parents to decide for themselves.

Gov. Chris Christie’s trade mission to London was suddenly overshadowed on Monday after he was quoted as saying that parents “need to have some measure of choice” about vaccinating their children against measles.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a physician, was less equivocal, telling the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday that parents should absolutely have a say in whether to vaccinate their children for measles.

The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.

It is a dance Republican candidates often do when they hedge their answers about whether evolution should be taught in schools. It is what makes the fight over global warming such a liability for their party, and what led last year to a widely criticized response to the Ebola scare.

There is evidence that vaccinations have become more of a political issue in recent years. Pew Research Center polls show that in 2009, 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, Democratic support had grown to 76 percent, but Republican support had fallen to 65 percent.

[A]sked about immunization over the weekend in an interview on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” Mr. Obama urged parents to “get your kids vaccinated.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton also weighed in with a jab at vaccine naysayers, writing Monday night on Twitter, “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork.”

The issue has more political potency among conservative voters who are highly skeptical of anything required by the government.

The vaccine question surfaced in the 2012 Republican primary when rivals of Rick Perry, then the Texas governor, pounced on him for issuing an executive order requiring sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus . . .

[T]he debate is not one-sided for Republicans. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, also a possible 2016 candidate, was asked on Sunday about vaccinations on the ABC News program “This Week,” and insisted that the science was clear and convincing. “Study after study has shown that there are no negative long-term consequences,” he said. “And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”

Asked about immunizations again later on Monday, Mr. Paul was even more insistent, saying it was a question of “freedom.” He grew irritated with a CNBC host who pressed him and snapped: “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children.”

Rand Paul's comment is very distressing. NO ONE owns children.  They have every right to be protected from the ignorance of their parents and from their parent's poisonous religious beliefs.  Yet the far right sees children as chattel property to be mistreated and abused, physically and psychologically as deranged parents see fit.  This mindset needs to be eradicated.

Is Marijauna the New Gay Marriage for the GOP?

As the Republican Party has sold its soul to please the Christofascists and their Tea Party fist cousins it has increasingly alienated younger voters, particularly on the issue of same sex marriage.  With the marriage equity battle seemingly lost (hopefully the Supreme Court will end it once and for all come June), some suggest that the issue of legalization of small amounts of recreational marijuana may be the new issue that drives younger and moderate voters from the GOP.  Even in Virginia polls suggest that a majority of voters support such a move.  A piece in Politico looks at this new hurdle for the GOP.  Here are excerpts:

Marijuana is shaping up to be the new gay marriage of GOP politics — most Republicans would rather not talk about it, except to punt to the states.

But when it comes to the 2016 presidential race, a series of legalization ballot initiatives — and a certain outspoken Kentucky senator — could make it harder for the Republican field to avoid the conversation.

When asked to articulate their positions on recreational marijuana, several potential GOP 2016 candidates have tried to strike a tricky balance: stress the downsides of pot use and the upsides of states’ rights. Some have indicated their openness to decriminalizing pot, at least in their state, but none favors outright legalization.

Marijuana may not stimulate the same kind of passion as the debate over same-sex marriage. Still, a majority of Americans support legalizing pot, and young people — who tend to turn out more for presidential elections than midterms — are especially keen on it.

The “leave it to the states” stance allows potential GOP candidates to stake out a relatively safe middle ground between an older conservative base that disapproves of marijuana use and a general-election electorate and libertarian wing that prefers legalization. The states’ rights approach also allows GOP candidates to express some openness to medical marijuana and criminal justice reform and argue against devoting costly resources for federal enforcement.

At least five states are preparing to vote on legalization of recreational marijuana in 2016 — Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada. There are efforts to put the issue on ballots in Florida, Missouri and Montana. Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska already have voted to legalize recreational marijuana, as has Washington, D.C.

President Barack Obama’s administration has basically tried to avoid what’s becoming a murky legal issue. The Justice Department announced in 2013 that it wouldn’t block recreational and medical marijuana in states that adopted legalization measures; while a federal cannabis ban remains, the administration has largely opted not to enforce it in states that have voted to legalize.

Some advocates have downplayed the parallels between same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. While recreational cannabis has found its success on the ballot, gay marriage has been decided mostly in state legislatures and courts.

Still, both movements have successfully used state-based models, increasing pressure for federal action. The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

One Republican outspoken on marijuana is Paul, who has made major overtures to young people and minorities. The Kentucky senator, a favorite in the GOP’s libertarian wing, is the highest-profile Republican to support federal decriminalization and the party’s only potential presidential candidate to do so.

“I don’t want to put our kids in prison for it,” Paul said of marijuana in December. “So if your kid was caught selling marijuana or growing enough that it’s a felony conviction, they could be in jail for an extended period of time. They also lose their ability to be employable. So I want to change all of that.”

The senator’s stance could prove a vexing problem not just for fellow Republicans but also Hillary Clinton. The likely Democratic 2016 frontrunner has been relatively quiet on the issue, asking for a “wait and see” approach to the experiments in Colorado and Washington state and offering some support for medical marijuana.

Although most Americans support marijuana legalization, just 39 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of conservatives do, according to a recent Gallup poll. Another survey shows that 16 percent of Republicans in Iowa, the first presidential nominating state, favor legalization.

The GOP’s internal struggle over the issue is playing out in Congress, where a group of Republicans — led by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky and Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland — pushed for a provision included in the December $1.01 trillion spending bill that aims to stop the marijuana legalization measure passed in Washington, D.C.